The Orthodoctor

NOT Independence Sunday

2009-07-04T12:25:00.001-04:00

Instead of composing my own piece on the problem of celebrating the 4th of July in church, I am linking to a blog written by Michael Gorman, a new professor at Duke who has written some good books, particularly his one on Paul.

Check out what he has to say here.

Prenatal Testing and Eugenics

2009-05-19T00:55:00.002-04:00

I have not posted for a while, and I'm not terribly upset about that. But I am posting a link to my final paper for my Christian ethics class. I've had a few people express interest in reading it, so for your leisure I present it to you. I wrote on prenatal testing.

Prenatal Testing as Eugenics: Diagnosing the Undesireable

Starbucks, Apple, and AIDS

2008-12-22T17:37:00.004-05:00

Okay, so I never got around to writing a post on the election, and my reasons for not voting. But I have wanted to lay out some thoughts bouncing around in my head for the past month.

At the beginning of the month Starbucks participated in the effort to aid World AIDS relief by contributing 5 cents for every specialty drink ordered. On December 1, you could get your coffee and help a great cause as well. At least, that was how it was marketed. Starbucks expanded their advertising for the promotion to facebook, which of course allowed for numerous comments on the event's “wall.” The comments were pretty evenly split between people saying, “greedy Starbucks, 5 cents is hardly anything!” and others saying, “Great! I can get Starbucks and help a good cause!”

My first reaction was to echo the thoughts of the former group, as 5 cents really isn’t much at all. Plus, the event was intended to increase the consumer presence in each national Starbucks, thus actually boosting profits for the day. In short, Starbucks was not sacrificing anything to give 5 cents to AIDS relief per drink, and probably made out better than a typical day.

But all that aside, I began to think about the premise behind Starbucks’ “participation” in AIDS relief. I was particularly struck by a comment a person made on the facebook event. This young man voiced his disdain for Starbucks coffee, but then said, “Besides, I’m already doing my part to help AIDS relief by buying the Apple RED iPod.”

...Did you catch that? “I’m doing my part by buying the Apple RED iPod.”

Jean Baudrillard wrote of what he called the “simulacra.” He utilizes this concept to analyze, in particular, the democratic United States. I would not pretend to understand all that he intimates with this term, but the basic idea is that the simulacra is the copy without an original. It is pure simulation that stands in the place of reality, but to which no reality corresponds. The simulation becomes our reality. Baudrillard suggests that the simulacra is basically how we Americans experience all life. For example, the way we experience a football game is the same way we experience the Civil War; through the television. Or the way we experience the Iraq war is through the media, which is of course a particular narration/simulation of reality that has become the reality of the war as we experience and know it. All of it is simulation. The entirety of our lives is formed by the simulation, the simulacra.

What Baudrillard also observed is the way that simulacra renders citizens immobile. It thwarts social action. It does so by absorbing our activity into the proliferation of images and simulations that shape our bodies. With this in mind, reflect again on Starbucks mode of participation in AIDS relief: buy our coffee. Even more direct, slowly read what Apple says on its site about the RED iPod. “Since its introduction, (PRODUCT) RED has delivered over $100 million to the Global Fund. And now you can make an impact by purchasing (PRODUCT) RED.”

I find this absolutely remarkable, and really quite genius. Participation in AIDS relief is tied to buying an iPod. You participate by consuming. Thus, both Apple and Starbucks have found a way to simulate participation in AIDS relief by reinforcing the shaping of our bodies in practices of consumption. Therefore, simulacra ensures that we will continue to find ourselves trapped between processes of consumption and production, buffeting the continued success of capitalism, and the commodification of the entirety of our lives. I can now be “involved” in AIDS relief without leaving my home, without going abroad, without touching people, without moving outside of habits of consumption. My involvement in AIDS relief is clicking a button on the computer to purchase the RED iPod. Remarkable.

Like I said, I find this ingenious. Our reality is the simulation of involvement, and it is tied to consumerism. American capitalism has in part contributed to the poverty of nations in which AIDS is running rampant. But now capitalism is employed as the way to end AIDS. It is self-reinforcing. And global capitalism has the incredible ability to absorb all of life into itself. This AIDS event is merely another manifestation of capitalism’s ability to enact this absorption. I do think a critique needs to be brought against all of this, in order for our bodies to be freed from being both commodified, and from commodifying. But that’s not my main purpose in writing this brief account. I find the complex connections here astounding, and I am merely giving voice to that. My social involvement in fighting AIDS is tied to purchasing an iPod…now that is amazing.

I hope to write a post soon in which I detail how voting can be/is often simulacra. In fact, voting in the democratic United States is one of the principal ways this state ensures its own survival, and the pacification of its citizens. I also would love to unfold how the office of President is a kind of simulacra, in a way that is not so for most other nation-states. But Christmas break is only so long…. :)

Forthcoming Post

2008-11-08T02:14:00.002-05:00

It's true, I've largely given up on blogging. With 70 pages of papers to write between now and the end of the semester, it's difficult to imagine that I'd find any time to post snippets here. Furthermore, I suspect my readership is quite sparse, and my failure to blog regularly has not helped this. Nonetheless, I'm not ready to shut this thing down yet. Indeed, that may come, in time. But I would like to keep this space available for those who find it difficult to keep up with what I'm thinking and writing to have a brief snapshot.

Therefore, I thought it might be prudent to let ya'll know that I will hopefully be composing a short reflection on the recent national election. As all of you know, this was one of the most vicious and divisive elections of my lifetime. I found my stomach being turned all too often. I was especially ashamed and disappointed in many of my Christian brothers and sisters. Things were said (and are still being said) from Christians of a variety of political persuasions that are absolutely unacceptable as Christian discourse. So, with all that said, I intend to focus my post on why I did not vote. I'll admit, I'm glad with the outcome and think Obama will be a fine president. But I am even more confident in my conviction and decision not to vote in this past election. Those of you who know me well know that I consider voting to be the exception, not the norm, of Christian engagement in US politics. And I was far from convinced that this was one of those exceptions. Therefore, if time permits, I hope to set forth some of the reasons why I did not vote, the preeminent one being that I was firmly convicted theologically not to do so. The rest unfold under this.

Are Women Voters Sexist?

2008-09-10T14:05:00.003-04:00

I'm interested. Ostensibly any and every critique of VP-candidate Sarah Palin is construed as sexist by the McCain campaign. This is as ridiculous as saying calling Obama "uppity" is racist (although it's always confused me as to how Obama is the elitist when McCain is the one with over 7 houses and a wife worth $100 million...). Of course this is merely a manifestation of the reality that in elections like this truth is the first casualty. Christians should be particularly careful with the words we use in this season as well as with the extent and type of our participation in these coming elections. For the moment, though, I'd like to briefly pause on this claim that the Obama campaign is sexist for criticizing Palin. Various news-outlets report that a significant number of white women voters have (for the time being at least) put their support behind McCain, because of the selection of Palin for VP. How is that not sexist? How is it that Palin may potentially poach disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters when she is Clinton's ideological opposite? I suspect McCain's campaign may be right when it says this election is "not about the issues." At the very least, McCain seems to have bought into that quite thoroughly. Obama, of course, has his own problems with this as his entire campaign has been tainted with questions of racism. Is it racist to vote for Obama because he is black?

I suspect most will not actually reduce their voting rationale to whether a candidate is a woman or is black. Nonetheless, it is curious how the platforms of these candidates for the present time seems to have receded into the background and their distinctive novelty is what powers the polls.

Sweet Stewart

2008-08-03T23:00:00.003-04:00

This is not intended as a partisan ploy on my part. Do I think McCain's recent antics/ads are ridiculous? Yes. But his running mate proves McCain does not have the monopoly on ridiculous. This presidential race has already about run its course for me...But mainly I just love Jon Stewart. :) Enjoy, and laugh a little for Pete's sake. This election season is at least good for that.

Time for Some Campaignin'

2008-07-30T17:13:00.001-04:00

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

New Biblical Controversy?

2008-07-12T14:55:00.001-04:00

What exactly is the controversy with this? The CNN headline read "New Biblical Controversy." I can't tell what is allegedly new and what is allegedly controversial...

July 6 Sermon

2008-07-07T15:27:00.003-04:00

Yesterday I preached my first sermon in a year and a half. It seemed to go relatively well, and I've received a lot of affirmative feedback. The audio and the written transcript are available on Myers Park UMC's website. You can find the audio here, and the written transcript here for now.

Quotables

2008-06-28T23:35:00.003-04:00

I'll be preaching on Matthew a week from Sunday, and in preparation I've been reading some commentaries. One of the commentaries I've been reading is Stanley Hauerwas' commentary on Matthew, which has been a treat. As expected, Hauerwas has a way of telling the story "with" Matthew (as he puts is) that brings greater clarity to what Matthew writes. Particularly poignant was a quotation from Warren Carter, in which Carter says, "[The] divine presence is manifested in Jesus (Mt. 1:23; 28:20) and in the community committed to him (18:20). The revelation of God's presence in Jesus' conception and birth (Mt. 1:18-25) brings a violent response from one of the empire's vassal kings (Mt. 2). The scene's theme and vocabulary are reminiscent both of Pharaoh's opposition to Moses' freeing God's people from slavery in Egypt and of Jesus' crucifixion by the religion and political elite...The gospel tells a story of a prophetic figure who suffers the worst that the empire can do to him, execution by crucifixion. But his resurrection and subsequent coming in power expose the limits of Roman power. The gospel constructs an alternative world. It resists imperial claims. It refuses to recognize that the world has been ordered on these lines. It offers an alternative understanding of the world and human existence centered on God manifested in Jesus. It creates an alternative community and shapes an anti-imperial praxis." (38)

And additionally, one of my favorite quotations from Yoder, and one of the most radical things I have every read: "'Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?' 'Glory' here cannot mean the ascension, which has not been recounted yet, and in fact is not clearly described in Luke's Gospel at all, although we know from Acts that Luke knew the tradition. Might it not then mean (as with the concept of 'exaltation' in John's Gospel) that the cross itself is seen as fulfilling the kingdom promise? Here at the cross is the man who loves enemies, the man whose righteousness is greater than that of the Pharisees, who being rich became poor, who gives his robe to those who took his cloak, who prays for those who despitefully use him. The cross is not a detour or a hurdle on the way to the kingdom, nor is it even the way to the kingdom; it is the kingdom come." (51)

O' what unfathomable mystery has been made manifest...

Dobson's Diatribe

2008-06-27T14:30:00.004-04:00

I know a number of people have written at length on the Dr. James Dobson and Tom Minnery broadcast discussing Barack Obama's speech in 2006 on religion and politics (see Scot McKnight's blog on Jesus Creed). But for some reason I felt it necessary to put myself through listening to the majority of the broadcast to hear what had really been said. I was, unfortunately, not that surprised that the broadcast was one of the most pejorative, divisive, and absolutely insane things I've heard in quite some time. It was an exercise in distortion and misrepresentation. Ironically, that is exactly what the two commentators accused Senator Obama of doing. Regardless of whether Christians should or should not vote for Obama, this broadcast was embarrassing.

I won't go into too many specifics, but there were a few comments that struck a chord. In an effort to accuse Obama of something he did not do, that is equate the Levitical laws with the Sermon on the Mount, Tom Minnery said, "Laws that applied to them then, the Levitical code [...] no longer apply. Many of the principles of the OT apply, but not those laws." I'll refrain from commenting on the merit of the statement (although I think it incredibly problematic to write off certain portions of Scripture), but I would like to point out his claim that the principles of the OT apply. Whenever I hear the word "principle" used in this fashion I have to wonder if Reinhold Niebuhr does not stand behind it in some way. The reason I wonder this is because other positions I've head from these two commentators seem to be consonant in many ways with Niebuhr's "Christian realism." My concern is that this hermeneutic is not only one Mr. Minnery would use on the OT, but the NT as well, such that there are "principles" in the NT that can be abstracted from the Gospel story and then approximated as best we can to make America into a Christian nation. This abstraction often ends up being somewhat arbitrary and capricious. Senator Obama called the Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." I suspect Mr. Minnery has a "principle" from the Bible that reduces this radicality.

Since I said I would only comment briefly, I will comment on one more item. As best I can tell, from reading Obama's speech, he seems to have a Rawlsian view of the role of religion in public discourse. Obama said, "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." This sounds to me like Obama has been shaped by Rawls, specifically his "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited." And I think this is embedded in political liberalism more intrinsically than other might want to concede. But to put it another way, Obama is merely giving voice to the political and philosophical commitments required for American democracy.

Now, I think Rawls is wrong, but not in the way Dobson does. Dobson said that what Obama means (he and Mr. Minnery seem to have some authoritative insight into what Obama "really means") is that unless everybody agrees we have no right to fight for what we believe...c'mon Dobson, I'm not sure even you really buy into that misinterpretation. If Dobson could mount a critique of Rawls then perhaps he would have something substantive to say, but it wouldn't look anything like what he actually did and does say. I know Dobson is attempting to be a Christian in American as best he knows how, but someone has to call him on crap like this. Perhaps if fewer churches were planning patriotic worship services for the weekend of the 4th people like Dobson could see in the witness of the church the inbreaking of God's kingdom.

Reimagining Memorial Day

2008-05-26T17:10:00.001-04:00

Memorial Day is a day that captures well the central narrative that constitutes the American identity. It is not only a day to remember those fallen in combat, but a ritual that sacralizes the American narrative and creates a people named American. In this way the day is deeply religious, and serves to both celebrate national loyalty as well as imbue the American conscience. So it is no surprise that today millions of Americans will gather on parade routes, waving flags, applauding military personnel, and wearing shades of red and blue. This ritual is a sacrificial ritual, as the death of those in battle is cast as such, in the name of freedom, patriotism, protecting one’s nation, and so on. And this is precisely why the day is problematic for Christians.

Nonetheless, many Christians will don the red, white, and blue and join their fellow Americans in telling the story of American war casualties as we have been taught to tell it. That we have been taught to tell this story this way ought to remind us that remembering and storytelling are moral activities. Alasdair MacIntyre, and Hauerwas under his influence, have been incise in pointing to the connection between narrative and identity. Our identity is constituted by the narrative(s) that inform our life. We are who we are because we have been born into traditions that make us into the people we are and are becoming. The problem, thus, with Christians telling the American story the way Memorial Day asks us to tell it, is that it is a story that should not be ours, and is a story that seeks to undermine the narrative proclamation of the fourfold witness of the Gospel.

That Christians insist on participating in national rituals like Memorial Day suggests that in the hopes of transforming America we have instead found ourselves transformed by it (Stanley Hauerwas has insightfully shown how and why this is the case particularly in his book “After Christendom?”). But I would suggest that Memorial Day also affords Christians with the opportunity to resist the American myth precisely within the practice of remembering. The practice of the Eucharist is the central ritual that forms the worship life and identity of Christians. It is in the Eucharist that we learn how to remember, and that remembering is embodied in the concrete practices of partaking of the body and blood of Christ. It is the Eucharist that reminds us that Christ is the end of sacrifice, and all alleged sacrifices must be cast in relation to his. Therefore, when Christians call the death of American soldiers sacrificial, we are using language that undermines our belief that Christ’s sacrifice is the normative sacrifice.

Of course, Christians have not bought into this idea senselessly. I suspect we really do believe that American soldiers have sacrificed themselves in order to defend our freedom, or to ensure that we are enabled to live the lives we have been taught to live. I also suspect most Christians would wholeheartedly applaud President Bush’s speech at Arlington National Cemetery, wherein he said, “I am humbled by those who have made the ultimate sacrifice that allow a free civilization to endure and flourish.” American society, founded as it was on philosophical and political liberalism, has and always will be dependent on its war-making character. A civilization like American does need people willing to make “the ultimate sacrifice” in order for it to exist. That this is so should make Christians pause before we herald the freedom such deaths allegedly ensure. After all, Christians believe that we have been made free by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, not the death of soldiers.

Bush concluded the above quotation with the following: “It only remains for us, the heirs of their legacy, to have the courage and the character to follow their lead and to preserve America as the greatest nation on Earth and the last, best hope for mankind.” Such a statement should appear odd for a Christian to utter, as there is nothing in it that is not idolatrous. It is not the role of Christians to preserve the American nation. But even more explicitly idolatrous is Bush’s claim that American is the last and best hope for mankind…what, might I ask, does that make Jesus? If Bush is a sincere Christian, which I suspect he is, then how can we interpret this statement? Has Bush so intertwined America with Jesus that to speak of one is to implicitly speak of the other? Has Bush positioned America over and above Jesus or does he really believe that the American project is indistinguishable from Jesus as the hope of mankind? By what standards is Bush able to say American is the “greatest nation on Earth,” and how then does he understand the inevitable rearranging of international power relations with the “rise” of China?

Equally disturbing is the observation that many Christians would not blink an eye at Bush’s claim. I am not confident that Christians will recognize the idolatry of such a statement as long as we continue to think that freedom of religion, in the way it currently operates, is a good thing. Freedom of religion has functioned to create a space called “private,” to be distinguished from the “public” in order that democracy can work. Many of the founding fathers assumed that in order for a peaceful society to exist religion had to be relegated as private. Considering the centuries of religious wars in Europe, this assumption was not without basis. The great irony, of course, is that while Americans no longer kill in the name of religion they are more than ready to kill in the name of the nation.

Yet Christian salvation is political, and this politic is embodied in the existence of the church. That Christ is Lord means that Caesar is not, and thus national loyalties are always kept in check by the lordship of Christ. For Christ is not Lord over some space we call “private,” but is Lord over the entire cosmos. Therefore, Christians must imagine a way to tell the story of American deaths in war in a way that does not make those deaths relative only to their lives as soldiers. It is not the case that we seek to condemn those who have died in war, or to dishonor them for their involvement in the politics of the world that are judged by the politics of Jesus. Rather, perhaps their deaths serve to remind us of our own complicity in the war-making character of this society. Perhaps their deaths can move us to repentance, and usher us to the table of the crucified one. I am not sure the best way for us as Christians to do this, but I think it can be done. After all, the conviction that we worship a crucified God requires that we be brought into a story that strikes all as foreign. And it is, for this is not a God we can know apart from this God making himself known. Nor is God’s way or ruling the world able to be surmised by political and military tacticians.

A good place to start is to refrain from the pomp of the Memorial Day parades, and perhaps instead to bow at the Eucharistic table of the Lord who refused to accept the politics of this world as his means of establishing the Kingdom of God. What if while many Americans observed silence for the death of soldiers, Christians were at the same time found in sanctuaries, observing silence before the table of the Lamb of God, who is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and who has conquered by being slain? What if we refused to accept the story of these soldiers’ deaths told by those who would seek to make both their lives and deaths meaningful in relation to their identity as soldiers?

New Blog!

2008-03-26T18:25:00.003-04:00

To my faithful (er, nonexistent?) readers,

I've finished uploading my academic papers to a new blog where they can be accessed. The site is still somewhat "in progress" and some of the papers need some additional formatting. Nonetheless, this gives you the opportunity to take a glimpse at some of the work I'm producing here at Duke. You can access the site here.

Blessings.

Quotables

2008-03-24T01:46:00.002-04:00

"The problem with the [American] flag in the chancel is not just that it is idolatry, but that it is too powerful a symbol of sacrifice and therefore it competes with the sacrifice of the altar[...]
I myself am absolutely convinced, it never occurs to me to be judgmental about people who have gone to war. I think that that is just shitty, it's just stupid. Those of us committed to Christian nonviolence are every bit as implicated in the war making character of this society. Language is all important, and you can't find much better than in the Book of Common Prayer, in which you will discover prayers that give thanks for these lives without specifically making their lives relative only to their military service. They know better, and you'll discover that they will appreciate that."

-Stanley Hauerwas, Sacrificing the Sacrifices of War

A Review of "Stony the Road We Trod"

2008-03-13T10:38:00.000-04:00

Stony the Road We Trod is a significant compendium of essays demonstrating African American biblical hermeneutics. The project seeks to offer an analysis of the way in which African Americans have interpreted and continue to interpret the biblical text. Integral to the project is the way in which the experience of blacks in America has shaped their hermeneutic. The claims made in the third chapter of the book by Weems constitute a significant conviction of the book: all biblical hermeneutics derive from the interpreter’s own experiences in such a way as to validate and reinforce those experiences. In this essay I will first describe the text’s construal of African American hermeneutics, and then conclude with a brief evaluation of the book.

As aforementioned, Weems' chapter is crucial for understanding much of what occurs in this text. It is her contention that meaning emerges between the interaction of the text and the reader. Thus, reading is very much a social convention that is predicated upon the interpretive community with which one identifies. The dominant class in society is therefore able to project its hermeneutic as the right one, often leading to legitimation of oppression and injustice. One of the pernicious subtleties of Eurocentric biblical hermeneutics is its self-understanding as normative. Such hermeneutics have failed to acknowledge their own cultural conditioning and biases. Following from these considerations Weems acknowledges that specifically African American women’s reading of Scripture have arisen out of the twofold marginalized experience of being black and a woman.

In light of the African American experience of white oppression in America, blacks initially retold and remembered the biblical stories relayed aurally by white slavemasters in relation to their self-interest as slaves. The chapter by Dr. Shannon on the “Ante-Bellum Sermon” demonstrates how in the context of slavery blacks developed a reading of Scripture that gravitated towards liberation, in particular the freeing of Israel from Egypt. A correlation was made between the ancient Israelites experience and the African American experience under slavery in order to inspire hope in the people and to subversively combat the ideological reading of the slavemasters. The resultant hermeneutic underscored God’s liberation and opposition to slavery, interpreting the conflict not between slave and slavemaster but between God and evil.

This hermeneutic establishes the tradition in which the contemporary African American interpreter stands. Black hermeneutics demands that its experiences be taken as seriously as those of the dominant Eurocentrism. Therefore scholars such as Cain Hope Felder, Charles Copher, and Randall Bailey, have gone to considerable lengths to expose the de-Africanization typical of Eurocentrism. In this text these scholars do so by demonstrating the presence of Africans in the scripture, not to posit Africans as a superior race, but in order to dismantle the allegation of African inferiority. The book also pays considerable attention to the so-called curse of Ham and the presence of Africans such as Moses’ Ethiopian wife, and Sarah’s servant Hagar. Felder considers the curse of Ham (or better of Canaan) to be a demonstration of sacralization, wherein an ideology was interposed on religious tenets in order to justify the conquest of the Canaanites. Similarly, Waters suggests that in the J and E traditions comprising the account of Hagar, Sarah, and Abraham, we may be able to identify an increasing focus on the superiority of Israel in the E tradition. In J Hagar is seen as an Egyptian servant (conidered more historically probable) whereas the E tradition calls her a slave. One of the points these interpreters seem to be disclosing is that even the biblical texts are written from specific contexts in order to validate certain experiences.

This book raises all sorts of issues concerning canon and authority that lie outside of the scope of this essay. At this point I will describe some of the interpretive benefits this text grants, as well as some points of caution. First, one of the most significant aspect of the book is its ability to unmask the cultural conditioning of Eurocentrism. To call Black Theology a contextual theology presupposes not only a particular methodology, but also a dominant theology that is not Black Theology. With this unmasking Stony the Road offers us a reading of the Old Testament that may be more congenial at times than the typical Eurocentric reading. In particular, the close attention given to themes of liberation and care for the marginalized are often marginalized themselves. Furthermore, the black experience of oppression and stripping of identity in American society allows greater solidarity with the defining moment of Israelites history: the exodus from Egypt. This is similar to Myers claim that much of Eurocentric hermeneutic locks the interpretation of the text in the past, which makes it difficult to speak to issues of racism, sexism, and classism. The reading offered in this book opens up these possibilities more readily. Finally, in explicitly portraying black hermeneutics this book demonstrates Weems claim that interpretation depends on association with an interpretive community.

One of the problems that this text raises is how Scripture is to be appropriated. By pointing out ideological problems in the biblical text, I wonder how these biblical texts come to be used. If a text is inextricably “sacralized” can it be used? Can it only be used with deliberate rejection of ideology behind the text deemed inappropriate? In addition, one wonders if Weems’ claim that what one gets out of the text is what one reads into the text leaves us with no hope. If all of our interpretations are inevitably socially conditioned how can we reasonable adjudicate variegated interpretations? This is where the book risks what Myers considers James Cone’s tendency: to set up another imperialistic methodology. I don’t think, however, that the book ultimately falls into this error. In the preface Felder is clear that one of the purposes of this book is to provide a preliminary bridge to celebrate all of our stories as the people of God. Ultimately, though, a contextual theology such as the one found in Stony the Road retains the abstractness of theology with the presupposition that theology can be transferred from context to context and then used to legitimate the experience of that context. I am inclined to wonder if the narrative of Scripture has the potential to create what Dr. Kameron Carter calls “theological culture”. I want to believe that there is a sense in which we are not doomed to merely get out of a text what we read into it. In this sense I do believe that Stony the Road is exactly what it claims to be: merely a step in the right direction. But a significant step it is.

Stony the Road: A Critique of Eurocentric Hermeneutics

2008-03-02T13:55:00.004-05:00

So, I've been absent. No justifications are necessary. I've simply been spending enormous amounts of time on assigned work. This semester I have three exegesis papers, two NT and one OT, so needless to say "free" time is the time I get to spend on my assigned reading. Yet it is all time well spent, and I'm enjoying every minute of it. However, I decided I can't keep my bloggers in waiting for too much longer, so I thought I'd post some thoughts I wrote yesterday while I was reading Stony the Road We Trod. I was reading the second chapter composed by Dr. Myers. What follows is basically my attempt to summarize his thoughts:

Myers begins his chapter with an explanation of the problem for black bible students and professors as being the pernicious subtleties of Eucrocentrism. Particularly important is Myers critique of the Eurocentric approach considering itself as normative, not acknowledging its own cultural conditioning and biases. Specifically, Myers is concerned with Eurocentric hermeneutical methodology. He discusses the various solutions that have been proposed. Perhaps most notable is James Cone’s advocacy for a contextual strategy, beginning with African American sources and historical description. On the other side, there are those that suggest a more ecumenical strategy. He recognizes the danger in Cone’s approach of setting up another imperialistic methodology, while the second strategy must avoid enslavement to Eurocentric approaches.

Very generally, if I understand Myers correctly, he critiques an approach that suggests there is one “orthodox” interpretative methodology that interprets one “final form” (cf. critique of Brevard Childs, 50-52). Typically, Eurocentric approaches have associated this one primary method with historical-criticism. Thus, another concern of Myers is the way in which Eurocentrism has locked biblical interpretation in the past (e.g. concerned with authorial intent, original meaning, etc.). As a result Scripture is stripped of its ability to speak to contemporary issues (e.g. racism, sexism, classism).

Myers proposal for how black biblical scholars might find a way out of this methodological dilemma suggests a fundamental inseparability of canon and method. He expresses concern for Child’s approach claiming that focus on the final form (i.e. the final literary form) of the canon is most often used as a means of control by Eurocentric interpreters. By declaring the final form to set the boundaries for exegesis, the propensity for oppressive methodologies is heightened because one must be determine whose final form (mine!), whose stance concerning the scripture (mine!), is normative.

In contrast, Myers finds Sanders attention to the function of the canon as more helpful for the black community. The historical-critical method focused on explaining what is going on in the text, whereas Sanders approach suggests the text explains what’s going on in the world, illuminating human life. “The books retained in the canonical tradition are those that had value for explaining the world of the present believing community.” (52)

This approach also opens up the question of how other traditions within the larger tradition have functioned as authoritative. He notes that all denominations have traditions of near canonicity that are read with authority similar to the scripture. Thus, Myers asks what traditions have acted this way for the African American community (e.g. call narrative, conversion narrative, etc.). “Traditions guard those past events which give to the community its uniqueness and they aid the community in shaping its life in accordance with those originating events.” (54)

Myers concludes by saying, “We must inquire into the history of this wider canonical perspective in our community, clearly articulating how and why it developed, how it functioned, and how the intricate dynamics and relationships between these various sources helped to give shape to each other, to our hermeneutical methodology, as well as to our self-understanding as African Americans.” (55)

Any thoughts?

Mitt Romney is right...

2007-12-10T14:25:00.000-05:00

"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution - and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America 's 'political religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States ."
-Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney on "Faith in America"

...which is why I find it incredibly difficult to imagine that a Christian can be president.

Conversing with Emergents

2007-11-30T20:22:00.000-05:00

A few weeks back I was fortunate to be able to attend a brief panel discussion on the Emergent Church. The panel consisted of a local pastor here in Durham who is relatively well known locally as being deeply embedded in the Emergent conversation. Dr. Mary McClintock-Fulkerson was his primary conversation partner, with a moderator as well. The discussion was relatively interesting and was focused on the place of creeds and doctrine in the Emergent Church.

The Emergent pastor was concerned with the way creeds and doctrines have become a litmus of Christian orthodox and wielded as a means of determining who's in and who's out. They function as a means of control, reinforcing the move of groups and nations to enclose themselves over and against other groups. His alternative was grossly ambiguous but he did seem to predicate some sense of doctrine as a unifying principle. But he was highly critical of the way doctrine and creeds have functioned.

This tendency of the Emergent Church is worrisome to me. Those in the conversation are right to critique the way in which theology and doctrine has been reduced to intellectual assent to disembodied ideas. That is, doctrine has been perceived as the litmus for Christian orthodoxy. If you believe the creeds and profess orthodox doctrine you are orthodox. The problem is that such an understanding of doctrine and theology has allowed Christians to continue to live in a modality of existence that does not depend on theology or doctrine. In other words, if orthodox doctrine is the litmus of true Christianity then Christians can live however they want, provided they adhere intellectually to the truths of the creeds.

Whether the Emergent Church recognizes this tendency in its critique is beside the point. Ultimately what they are critiquing is this very move (a theological move that has allowed Christians to order their life after the politics of the state [particularly the United States] and to raise the question of Christ and culture as if culture is monolithic and we must relate Christ to it). I wholeheartedly support this critique. Yet the corrective according to this pastor has tended to mitigate doctrine and creeds. The idea is that if adherence to doctrine and creeds has literally produced religious wars (cf. religious wars in Europe between differing Christian traditions), then reorienting our emphasis to other aspects of Christianity would be advantageous. What this reorientation looks like is nuanced but the basic principle seems to be common throughout the Emergent conversation.

The central problem with this move is that it reinforces the idea that doctrine and creeds are objects of intellectual assent only. That is, it takes this concept as a presupposition of the critique and thus the eschewing of doctrine and creeds ensues. What I want to suggest is that the Emergent Church in this particularity is merely propagating the problem it attempts to resist. Theology is hopelessly enclosed in its propensity for abuse.

What we really need is a corrective that rearticulates the function of doctrine and creeds, that is we need an account of theology that does not assume the theological tasks is one of dotting our theological "I's" and crossing our theological "T's". We need an account that more adequately expresses the function of theology.

In the question and answer period I raised this issue by utilizing an analogy between the creeds and the American pledge of allegiance. While it is highly limited and necessitates qualification, I nonetheless offer it to you. When Americans say the pledge of allegiance they are not merely affirming intellectual truths or propositions. By affirming the pledge they are committing to the lifestyle demanded by the pledge. That is, the pledge demands that its adherents live a certain kind of life. It demands a modality of existence.

Similarly, the Christians creeds demand a modality of existence. They witness to a way of life constituted and sustained by the body of Christ. Doctrine and creeds are not abstract principles of the Christian faith, but are the thinking internal to the Christian faith that not only witnesses to a modality of existence but produces that modality of existence. Theology must be performed. The theological task requires our entrance into the Christian tradition and our deep conditioning by that tradition.

But this understanding of theology is unable to function in the Emergent Church's critique. The EC has condemned theology to the locale of its distortion. We all live committed to some modality of existence, and my concern is that the EC is precariously searching for some locale or orientation. It resists finding it in theology because of theology's distortion. But what then makes demands on the way of life of the EC? If it's not theology I'm concerned it may be simply an inversion of conservative American Christianity.

I'd love to hear the thoughts of someone better acquainted with the EC. Ease my concerns.

...and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

2007-11-06T00:15:00.000-05:00

I recognize this is a lengthy piece, but at the behest of my good friend Mike Cline I will be posting some of the essays I am writing during my time at Duke. Enjoy!

(By the way, if anyone knows how to footnote in blogger I'd love to hear how it's done. I have simply placed the references in the essay at the end for lack of a better method.)

The sacraments of the Church are gifts. They are gifts of the Holy Spirit in which the presence of the Spirit dwells. The Spirit gives these gifts to the Church, and the means of being initiated into the Church to share in these gifts is affected by the Spirit in the sacrament of baptism. The language of initiation, though, says little about the nature of the community into which we become initiates. What kind of fellowship does baptism draw us into? This is the question we will seek to elucidate by drawing out the implications of baptism as our initiation and focusing on baptism as constitutive of the Church. We will proceed under the assumption that in so doing we are articulating the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Correlatively we will mention throughout what baptism implicates for Christian discipleship and formation.

Baptism is a symbol but to describe it as so is not to reduce the sacrament but instead presupposes a distinction from other types of signs. It is a sign that has the function of bringing us into the reality that it symbolizes. In other words, baptism not only symbolizes our initiation into the Church but also is the true means by which we are initiated. This initiation occurs through the Holy Spirit, who in the sacrament binds us to Christ. Being bound to Christ we are therefore bound to the perfectly obedient Son of God, who as such is the Israel of God perfectly adequated to Yahweh’s calling of Israel. This becomes the hermeneutical pivot upon which baptism as initiation must function. Our initiation into the Church in baptism is the act of the Holy Spirit binding us to the Israel of God and in so doing also binds us to Yahweh. Thus, we must conspicuously avoid any speech concerning baptism that neglects to speak about Israel.

Speaking of baptism as the act of being bound to Christ through the Spirit thus entails initiation into fellowship with others. First, we are initiated in the story and people of Israel. The story of Israel becomes our story (i.e. the Gentiles) in so far as the Jew Jesus has invited us. Furthermore, we are initiated into fellowship with all the baptized, which necessitates fellowship with all believers in Christ. The basis of this fellowship rests upon the person of Jesus Christ. This is not a fellowship that is grounded in the brother/sisterhood of all humanity but instead is mediated by Christ. We are bound to one another because the Spirit binds us to Christ. Our fellowship thereby exists in Christ and is grounded in his identity. This is the manner by which we are initiated but it only begins to reveal the nature of the community of initiates. Thus, we must also say that by being bound to the Israel of God we come to share in the election of Israel. The nature of this election overlaps with the nature of the Christian fellowship in that it is the very election that Jew and Gentile come to share.

As we utilize the language of election we are necessarily articulating an aspect of the doctrine of God. The election of Israel is revelatory of the inner life of God, and the economy of God in history is the unfolding of this revelation. God brings forth the people of Israel by the calling of Abram. This calling forth occurs through the Spirit and begets the son of God, Israel. Thus establishing a covenant, God offers Godself to this people and Israel is called to respond perfectly to God’s call. God’s covenant with this people is pure grace, and God seeks from Israel a human response adequated to the divine call. God condescends to be identified with this people and God’s presence in this people is unique in relation to his presence in all creation. He chooses to dwell in this “location”. The covenantal relationship thus is a dynamic one in which God makes Godself vulnerable by binding Godself to Israel. This is a scandalous move for God and results in the history of Israel’s vacillating disobedience and obedience.

Through their disobedience Israel is revelatory of God imperfectly. The intention behind Isreal’s election is the manifestation of God’s love to the world. Israel’s election ought to witness to the world that Israel’s God is their God too. The incarnation of Jesus is filled out as the perfect human response to God’s divine call and thus Jesus is Israel in fulfillment. He is the perfect response inasmuch as he is the Israel of God, brought forth in the presence of the Spirit. He is the culmination of Israel’s history and is the proper witness to God’s intention in election. The perfect obedience of the Son brings him inevitably to the cross, to death, to the place of humanity’s deepest estrangement from God. Karl Barth said that “in becoming man God makes Himself responsible for man who became His enemy, and that He takes upon Himself all the consequences of man’s action – his rejection and his death.” By rejecting God humanity seals itself off from God, grounding its existence in itself. This leads to the dissolution of humanity, which finds its ultimate Godforsakenness in death. This is the “consequences of man’s action” that Christ takes unto himself. Through inhabiting this Godforsakenness Christ overcomes it.

It is at this very moment of Godforsakenness that the moment of baptism occurs. In baptism we enter death with Christ, through the Spirit, who in taking upon our Godforsakenness has brought it into the life of God and freed us from our attempt to seal ourselves off from God. Entering baptism at this moment we eschew the “old man”, as Luther calls it, and we enter a new modality of existence constituted by Christ, through the Spirit. Being buried in his death, we therefore “walk in newness of life.” This becomes the normative manner in which Christian existence articulates itself; that is, “from slavery to freedom, from fear to boldness, from death to life, from darkness to light, from selfishness to generous love, in the pattern of the living Lord Jesus and as guided by the Holy Spirit.”

We can thus say that baptism not only initiates us into the fellowship of Christ, but also is constitutive of that fellowship. It establishes the character of fellowship and contains the new existence into which we are drawn. It does so because in baptism we receive, through the Spirit, Christ in his fullness. The baptismal moment is complete. In it we are forgiven, purified, and brought to new life. The baptized are drawn out of the world and into the story of Israel, which is perfectly narrated in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. As Johnson says, to grow in the Spirit means “understanding ever more deeply and enacting ever more consistently the gift that has been given us by God.” God’s gift to us is complete. Christ is given to us wholly, yet the reality of our baptism must be filled out in discipleship. This is what Johnson means when he says that growing in the Spirit is enacting the gift of baptism more consistently. The life of Christian discipleship can be seen as the reenactment of the Spirit’s work in baptism. Yet even this reenactment takes place under the auspice of the Spirit, who continually draws us into the depth of the baptismal waters. We can make this claim about the sufficiency of baptism because its validity is God’s prerogative, not ours. Thus, baptism always remains valid but one may embrace or resist its reality.

The description of baptism as constitutive of the reality into which we are drawn presses us to inquire as to how baptism is to be resisted or embraced. Resistance to baptism consists in the refusal to reject the powers of nationalism, racism, violence, sexism, and economics. To resist is to cling to a modality of existence that is passing away, a modality already under the lordship of Christ and one that is passing away in lieu of the reign of God being unleashed through the Spirit. Embracing baptism is embracing Christ through the Spirit, and therefore is openness to the social ethic that Jesus is. In order to embrace baptism one must learn repentance. Repentance is not only the confession of our sinful modality but is active rejection of that modality. In the ancient liturgies prior to baptism the catechumens would turn to the West and reject Satan and his powers. This is repentance, and the waters of baptism require it. To live into our baptism requires that our life be different.

The modalities and powers we contend must be rejected function as to utilize wisdom and power in order to position oneself over against others. In contrast God’s wisdom and power are revealed at the cross of Christ, the place of ostensible weakness and abandonment. As Charry writes, “weakness voluntarily assumed to rescue others is spiritual nobility and strength, and […] military and political power reveal spiritual weakness […] True strength and power lie hidden in an executed has-been […] The point is that there has been a great reversal of power. In God’s own time, it will conquer the world.” This wisdom and power are embraced in repentance, and lead to a communal life characterized by forgiveness. Christ, who is our salvation, constitutes the Church’s life of forgiveness. We learn to forgive by being bound to the Father, in Christ, through the Spirit. We are drawn into the life of the God of Israel who endured Israel’s imperfect response with faithfulness and forgiveness. This forgiveness has been bestowed also upon the Gentile in the baptismal waters.

Baptism not only bestows forgiveness but through the Spirit generates the practice of forgiveness. We are able to forgive others because we recognize that we are truly sinners. We stand in relationship to one another only through Christ, and our “disillusionment” due to the sin of others, as Bonhoeffer calls it, serves to remind us of this truth. Staniloae similarly makes the claim that our union with Christ, which is the foundation of our fellowship of forgiveness, “can be lived only in the Holy Spirit, and that the experience of being in the Holy Spirit is nothing other than union with Christ.” Our baptismal union with Christ is the activity of the Holy Spirit, and by being bound to him we are formed into a people that see ourselves as inferior to one another. This is not psychological self-deprecation for it is instead the deep willingness to accept our sinfulness. Our hope remains in our union affected by the Spirit and refuses to be lodged in self-justification or sufficiency. The humble one recognizes that we are invited to share in a story that is not our own, and we are formed by that story. The story is one of self-giving, the self-giving of God, and the self-giving response of Israel in return. The giving of ourselves can be described also as service. Christian fellowship is a fellowship of service to one another.

This act of self-giving is a precarious one. In giving oneself one is made vulnerable. The vulnerability of this sort in the Church is reflected in the practice of bearing each other’s burdens. Through the Spirit we have been bound to Christ and thus we are bound to one another. Sharing in one another’s burdens results from inhabiting that union. For in baptism we are bound to people who are not like us, we enter fellowship with people who do not look like us. We bear the burden of the stranger, who is no longer feared but loved. Our attention is turned to the alien, the needy, and the oppressed. Christian existence is deeply formed by this association, for when one in the body of Christ is oppressed all are oppressed. We are compelled to traverse the land of desolation, despair, and abandonment because in his perfect obedience as the Israel of God Jesus entered the depths of human isolation. Where Christ chooses to dwell so also does his Church dwell. This is the miracle and the gift of baptism.

Undoubtedly the most oft repeated phrase in this essay has been “through the Spirit.” This is not said tepidly but is the attempt to make explicit the presupposed activity of the Spirit in all we have discussed. Baptism is a miracle and a gift because the Holy Spirit makes it so. The waters are made holy and effectual because the Spirit descends upon them. Any explication of baptism is by definition an articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. We began our exploration by positing the question of the nature of the community into which baptism initiates us. Our articulation determined that baptism is the initiation into a community of fellowship that is defined by the sacrament of baptism itself. Baptism draws us out of one modality of existence and into another, a new modality contained in Christ himself. To describe baptism as a punctiliar moment would therefore be inadequate. Instead, the Christian community is formed by ever deepening its knowledge and practice of the reality of its baptism. This baptism rejects the artificial boundaries of nation-states, and crushes biological distinctions among persons. Our public language must therefore be conditioned by our baptism. What does our baptism cause us to say about illegal immigration? What does our baptism cause us to say about unmitigated violence in Iraq, Darfur, and the other places where the power of militarism ostensibly reigns? May we be ever faithful and diligent as we attempt live in the reality that in Christ we are one, and as one we are Christ.

cf. Dr. J. Kameron Carter, Lecture #17
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1954), 21.
Ibid. 36.
cf. Dr. J. Kameron Carter, Lecture #11.
cf. Dr. J. Kameron Carter, Lecture #4.
Michael Wyschogrod, “Incarnation,” Pro Ecclesia, 2 (Spring 1993): 212.
cf. Dr. J. Kameron Carter, Lecture #15.
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, "The Election of Jesus Christ" (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957), 124.
Martin Luther, The Large Catechism. trans. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 89.
John Calvin, Instructions in Faith. trans. Paul T. Fuhrmann (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1992), 67.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 278.
Letty M. Russell, Essentials of Christian Theology. ed. William C. Placher, "Why Bother with Church?" (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 252.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 278.
cf. Brian Bantum’s Lecture on Baptism.
Martin Luther, The Large Catechism. trans. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 88.
Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), 43.
cf. Brian Bantum’s Lecture on Baptism.
Ellen T. Charry, Essentials of Christian Theology. ed. William C. Placher, "How Should We Live?" (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 266-267.
Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 281.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1954), 28.
Dumitru Staniloae, Theology and the Church. trans. Robert Barringer (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), 14.
cf. Brian Bantum’s Lecture on Baptism.

Quotables

2007-10-12T02:52:00.000-04:00

"If the teachers of predestination were right when they spoke always of a duality, of election and reprobation, of predestination to salvation or perdition, to life or death, then we may say already that in the election of Jesus Christ which is the eternal will of God, God has ascribed to man the former, election, salvation and life; and to Himself He has ascribed the latter, reprobation, perdition and death [...] The risk and threat is the portion which the Son of God, i.e., God Himself, has chosen for His own."

"For if God Himself became man, this man (i.e. the lost man, traitor, enemy, adversary), what else can this mean but that He declared Himself guilty of the contradiction against Himself in which man was involved; that He submitted Himself to the law of creation by which such a contradiction could be accompanied by loss and destruction; that He made Himself the object of the wrath and judgment to which man had brought himself, that He took upon Himself the rejection which man had deserved; that He tasted Himself the damnation, death and hell which ought to have been the portion of fallen man? [...] He elected our rejection. He made it His own. He bore it and suffered it with all its most bitter consequences. For the sake of this choice and for the sake of man He hazarded Himself wholly and utterly. He elected our suffering. He elected it as His own suffering."

-Karl Barth The Election of Jesus Christ

Durham...a Place I Call Home

2007-09-04T08:20:00.000-04:00

As many of you know I have finally made it to Durham, North Carolina! My tenure at Duke Divinity School has begun and I couldn't be more pleased. The Div school is phenomenal in all the ways the word phenomenal falls short. Sitting under the pedagogy of people such as Stanley Hauerwas and Richard Hays is impressive, but the entire faculty is distinguished. All of my current professors have surpassed any expectations I have may have held entering the Div school. In short, I'm loving the academic environment here. Not to mention, of course, that the Div school knows how to have fun outside of the classroom as well. String together cookouts, dance clubs, tailgating, and Div school parties and you've got an idea of what my first week here looked like. Basically, Durham is the best place on earth. Here's a look at what my semester looks like:

Church History 13: Early and Medieval Christianity with Dr. J. Warren Smith.
I'll be reading:

Anselm of Canterbury, The Major Works.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation.
Augustine of Hippo, The Confessions.
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines.
Thomas Merton, The Wisdom of the Desert Sayings of the Desert Fathers of the Fourth Century.
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel according to John.
William Placher, A History of Christian Theology an Introduction.

Introduction to Christian Theology CT 32 with Dr. J. Kameron Carter.
I'll be reading:

Barth, Karl. Prayer.
Bonhoeffer, D. Life Together.
Calvin, John. Instruction in Faith (1537), ed. and trans. Paul T. Fuhrmann.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters.
Luther, Martin. Large Catechism, ed. and trans. Robert Fischer.
Merchant, Carolyn. Reinventing Eden: The Fate of Nature in Western Culture.
Placher, William C. (ed.) Essentials of Christian Theology.
Thurman, Howard. Jesus and the Disinherited.

Making Disciples in the Wesleyan Tradition PAR 148 with Dr. Paul W. Chilcote.
I'll be reading:

Paul Chilcote, Changed from Glory into Glory.
Paul Chilcote, The Wesleyan Tradition.
Francis MacNutt, Healing.
Sondra Matthaei, Making Disciples.
Robert Mulholland, Shaped by the Word.
Christine Pohl, Making Room.
Mark Stamm, Sacraments and Discipleship.

Introduction to Old Testament Interpretation OT11 with Dr. Stephen B. Chapman.
I'll be reading:

Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation.
Abraham J. Heschel, The Sabbath.
Mariano Magrassi, Praying the Bible.
Victor H. Matthews, A Brief History of Ancient Israel.
Richard D. Nelson, The Historical Books.
James B. Pritchard, The HaperCollins Concise Atlas of the Bible.
Gordon J. Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically.
R. Norman Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch.

Basically, I've got a lot ahead of me but it's quite exciting! I'm not sure yet what the status of this blog will be but I'm hoping to at least post relatively frequently. If you're really lucky perhaps I'll even post some of my shorter papers...oooh, fun!

Quotables

2007-08-10T22:08:00.000-04:00

"Another hallmark of Christianity is that salvation is not individualistic; it’s not something one person receives for himself or herself. Salvation is the reign of God. It is a political alternative to the way the world is constituted. That is a very important part of the story that has been lost to accounts of salvation that are centered on the individual. But without an understanding that salvation is the reign of God, the need for the Church to mediate salvation makes no sense at all."

-Stanley Hauerwas

Quotables

2007-07-04T11:11:00.000-04:00

"Parents are more than happy to raise their children to grow up to make up their own mind whether they will be Christians or not. Parents do not raise their children to think that they have an option about whether they will kill or not kill for the United States of America."
-Stanley Hauerwas, "Sacrificing the Sacrifices of War"

Discipleship as Political Responsibility

2007-06-10T22:34:00.000-04:00

John Howard Yoder’s magnificent insight in Discipleship as Political Responsibility is more than it’s compact size might imply. Although this book is merely a forerunner to Yoder’s more developed thought it is nonetheless an important contribution to understanding both Yoder and the positions he advocates. The book is split into two primary sections which were both first published as essays in 1957.

The first sections, The State in the New Testaments, seeks to discover what they New Testament says about the state, and secondarily what this means for how Christians are to interact with the state. Yoder understands the New Testament to claim that the mandate for the state is found within the mandate for the Church. God has ordained the state in order to keep relative order. God does not view the violence or selfishness of the state (or humanity) as a good thing but permits the state to use evil against itself in order to restrain itself.

The state is understood as being “pagan” or at least “non-Christian”. We must also realize that the New Testament does not speak about the state in the way that we understand the state. The primary state function in the New Testament is the sword-function. The Early Church also understood the state as belonging to the order of “principalities” and “dominions” that Christ had defeated. “The early church respected the state and made room for the state, yet they did not do so because they viewed it as a part of God’s good creation. On the contrary, they viewed it as part of the world God opposes, that is already defeated by Christ in principle, and over which the exalted Christ already rules until he has defeated his last enemy.” (20)

The Church is called to praise God; to proclaim the Gospel, live acts of love, and to witness to the virtue of Jesus Christ. The early church viewed the way of the cross not as something “tacked on” to salvation but as part of Christ’s saving work. The Church’s responsibility regarding the state is “to pray for political leaders and for peace, because God desires everyone to be saved.” (22) “The mandate of the Church, the mandate to overcome evil, is the superior mandate; the mandate of the state, that of keeping evil in check, only has meaning because the Church is accomplishing its mission.” (23) The Church clearly has a superior role and this role is seen in light of what Yoder calls the old and new aeon. The state belongs to the order of the old aeon. This order has been defeated by Christ but still exists under the lordship of Christ. The Church belongs to the new aeon, although these aeons overlap. Within this framework we can see how the task of the Church has superiority, since it belongs to the new aeon constituted by God’s redemptive purpose for humanity. The task of the state is merely temporary and has already been subjected to Christ. The existence of the Church is proof of this subjection.

This covers only a minor portion of the book, but are the implications of Yoder's articulation of the New Testament understanding of the state? What might this mean for us in our relation to the American state?

Quotables

2007-06-05T13:26:00.001-04:00

"Every time Christians make a fetish of the family you can be sure they don't believe in God anymore. Because they don't want to witness to anyone about the truth of the Gospel they just want to make sure their kids grow up thinking they don't have an alternative but to go to[...]church."
Stanley Hauerwas, Lecture on the Sermon on the Mount at Wheaton College

Yay for CBD

2007-05-26T12:36:00.000-04:00

I was skimming the Christian Book Distributors "Bestsellers" this morning and it made me want to vomit. Seriously, this is the best we have to offer? Granted, some of the books look decent and some I can attest are decent. But I'm not seeing anything that rises above mediocrity. We're wasting our time and our minds. Ugh, Christian pop-literature is ruining integritous Christianity.

What's In A Color?

2007-05-18T22:30:00.001-04:00

There was a special on 20/20 tonight regarding "taboos" in America. The first item discussed was the usage of various racial terms considered politically incorrect. Specifically the "N" word was an object of dialogue. One question posed was why the "N" word could be used by Blacks but not by Whites. According to some of the interviewees either everyone should be able to use the term or no one.

Now, I'm not particularly interested in whether the "N" word should become part of the American vernacular. Rather, my interest was piqued concerning racial tension in general. I am often dumbfounded by the latent racism which rears its rather forceful head in some of my fellow white folk. I wouldn't consider myself racist by any means. In fact one of the most exciting things about going to Duke next year is the racial diversity of the campus (something sorely missing at IWU). But, sometimes I am confronted with the ugly racism in me. It's one thing to say you're not racist. It's another thing to maintain that position when contemplating living in an apartment complex with only one or two other white residents. As with many other beliefs we hold, the extent to which we actually believe what we say we do is tested by the practical implications of those beliefs.

It can be easy at times to detect a racist. When someone responds to allegations of racism with supreme defensiveness this can be a clue to the actual beliefs of that person. What we must do when we recognize our own racist speech, feelings, or thoughts is work to correct such attitudes with solidarity with those whom we feel ill towards. It doesn't matter that you didn't personally enslave a black person; the Christ-like response is not indignation that we are associated with heinous acts but is instead association with those against whom those heinous acts were committed. This means we must recognize that attempts to disentangle ourselves from association with white slave-owners is less effective (and more racist) than attempts to create solidarity with blacks. If we are busy thinking about our black brother and sisters we will completely forget the "need" to defend ourselves.

Granted, this is not only a "white" "black" dilemma. White Americans have a sad history of racial bigotry and have inflicted acts of hate on more racial groups than Blacks alone. But the content of the 20/20 was particular to "black" and "white" tension, hence so has the content of this post. May we see in Christ's association with the dejected and humiliated of society our call to associate with those who have been so as well. May we in Christ receive sight, and in receiving sight become blind to bigotry and illumined to diversity. May our latent racism be confronted.

Quotables...

2007-04-14T22:44:00.000-04:00

“When somebody asked one of our men, Peter, if he liked to pray, he said that he did. So the person continued and asked him what he did when he prayed. He replied: ‘I listen.’ Then the person asked what God says to him. Peter, a man with Down’s Syndrome, looked up and said: ‘He just says, ‘You are my beloved son.’”

-Jean Vanier, From Brokenness to Community

My COS Presentation

2007-04-14T01:55:00.000-04:00

This is a link to a presentation I gave during Celebration of Scholarship. My paper was focused on the doctrine of grace in Origen's writings. The presentation is less than twenty minutes long but rather interesting.

I'm still working on uploading the file in a better format; (if anyone knows how to upload a podcast to blogger let me know!) as for now you can only open this file in iTunes. I hope to have an improved format soon.

The Doctrine of Grace in the Church Father Origen

The Task of the Theologian

2007-04-11T20:17:00.000-04:00

I’m an arrogant jerk. If you really press me, I think you’ll find this is true. Granted, I may act and speak generously, but ultimately I know that I am right on pretty much every opinion I hold. After all, aren’t we all?

This post may appear rather enigmatic to those familiar with my choice of topics. But I feel compelled to elucidate a nagging reality. I have the disease of the theologian. Perhaps I should provide some qualifications before I begin: I in no way mean to devalue the importance of theological education. Anyone who knows me even in a “surface-level” manner knows I would never advocate such a thing. I believe theological education is necessary and demanded of us as the Church. I believe as Christians we must speak about God, and since we speak about God our speech ought to be carefully considered. I believe a solid theological foundation can be the balm for much of what ails the American Church. I am a student of theology because I believe it is one of the highest callings one could commit their life to pursuing.

With that being said, I nonetheless recognize a growing disease within me. Let me explain. It seems that students of theological education go through a common journey. As one is introduced to the depth of theological study a dark cynicism begins to grow. This cynicism develops partly out of anger at never being exposed to good theology before (note to pastors and teachers). But once this anger subsides it is easy to develop cynicism based upon a feeling of superiority. Now that we have this knowledge (which we ought to have had all along), we are morally superior to those who lack it. Not only that, but clearly our opinion ought to be the normative one in cases of theological sparring since we possess an understanding our “opponent” does not. This intellectual hubris is subversive and we often fail to realize its penetrating influence. Being theologically educated does not mean one no longer needs to listen critically to the thoughts of the less informed. Did not God bring to shame the pride of the learned? Theological education is a glorious thing when it compels us to love God and our neighbor more completely, but if our theology is used to truncate the personhood of our neighbor then we have committed a grave crime to both our neighbor and theology itself.

Christians often speak of a bifurcation between “head” and “heart”. If such a distinct bifurcation exists, I do not believe either component can be elevated above the other. The Christian life is most balanced when the head and heart work cooperatively. It is when one gets ahead of the other that problems ensue if the other lags behind for a considerable period of time. It is quite possible to consider passion and charisma as the ultimate marks of a “good Christian.” But passion and charisma can lead one into easy disaster if passion is not tempered with a solid theological foundation.

Yet for students of theology this is rarely the pitfall with which we flirt. For us, it is much easier to hide behind our books while our hearts become calcified. In striving to know evermore about God, we fail to actually know God. There is a world of difference, but again the two must be in constant contact with one another. A simple personal analogy demonstrates my point: as you grow in friendship with another you gain information about that person, but you also gain a personal understanding of who that person is. If all you have is information about another but no personal interaction with that other, no real relationship exists. You can know a person’s height, weight, desires, dreams, etc. but unless you actually interact personally you never truly know the person. Conversely, if you interact with that person you will desire to know more about that person. You want to know why he/she acts the way he/she does and what it is that makes he/she tick. No real relationship can exist if you are not constantly learning more about them.

The two components must be held in tension with one another. There is no being more compelling and fascinating to discover than the Almighty God. Thus, the discipline of theology is by nature a compelling discipline. It pulls you in and the deeper you go the more you want to know and the more you realize you don’t know. Theological study should be a humbling and exciting enterprise. Karl Barth said, “The theologian who has no joy in his work is not a theologian at all. Sulky faces, morose thoughts and boring ways of speaking are intolerable in this science.” (Church Dogmatics II/1, p. 656)

With all that being said, I believe the solution to the disease of the theologian can be found within theology itself. As Barth indicates theology is not done properly if it is not done joyfully, and it cannot be done joyfully unless one knows personally the subject of his/her study. In other words, the disease of the theologian is not so much a theological disease; rather it is an ailment spawned from a perversion of the theological task; a perversion so subversive it often appears we are honoring the task. My prayer is that we budding theologians would recognize when we have abandoned the beauty of our task, and that the Spirit of God would chide us back into the true and humble path of the theologian.

Praise be to God who can do more than we could ever imagine.

Lenten Treat

2007-03-22T09:48:00.000-04:00

Although I'm not blogging, I do occassionally peruse blogs of note. Kevin Wright has written a beautiful piece appropriate for this Lenten season and I thought I would direct you to it for enrichment as we near the end of Lent and as we anticipate Holy Week.

Check it out: Judas: A Pondering

Bon Voyage!

2007-02-28T00:38:00.000-05:00

My dear readers,

I will be taking a short-term haitus from blogging. First, I will be in Israel from March 1 to March 17. Please pray for safety but most importantly for God to impact me and the others deeply. Also, I am logging off of blogger for Lent. Thus, I will not post until post-Easter and will only catch up on reading some blogs on Sunday. I'm sure you all will miss my sporadic posting, but as for now I must bid you adieu.

Christ's blessings be upon you!

Weeding through the Roots

2007-02-11T14:16:00.000-05:00

Recently a push has been made in Christian circles to rediscover the Jewish roots of Christianity. In large part I find this movement helpful and at times spectacularly profound. When I came into college as a freshman I was enthralled with the movement and was dissapointed that there were no courses available to feed my appetite. There were certain times in some classes when we would touch upon issues related to the Jewish roots movement, but by in large it seemed as if we paid little attention to what I thought was so crucial. However, during my theological development at IWU I have come to realize one of the reasons, perhaps, that this movement seems to have only minimal attention given to it: the Jewish roots movement is incredibly limited.

One of the most obvious limitations arises when one begins to do even a cursory study in the historical context of the New Testament texts. Scholars almost unanimously agree that it is difficult to bifurcate the Jewish context and the Hellenistic context. By the first century the Hebrews had been so Hellenized that there was no distinct Hebraic culture versus Hellenic culture. Thus, attempts to better understand Jesus through means of the uniqueness of Jewish culture are open to erroneous conclusions that have failed to take into consideration the Hellenistic influences on the Jewish culture of Jesus.

Secondly, by being consumed with the "Jewish context" one may myopically dismiss Christian history and subsequent theological development. The interpretation of Jesus stops with this Jewish culture. This may manifest itself in a number of ways. I've frequently heard the argument from Jewish roots movement folk that communion should only be celebrated once a year, as the "Christian Passover." What Jesus does at the Last Supper, primarily, is give new meaning to this sacred meal. Thus, we ought to celebrate within the context of this new narrative, but nonetheless the meal should retain its very Jewish flavor.

I find it ironic that the Jewish roots folk ascertain this conclusion based upon their idea of the Jewish context. It is the early Church theologians who insisted on a very different interpretation based upon their familiarity with the Jewish culture and Old Testament texts on the Passover. The Early Fathers understood the Passover meal as key to understanding John's portrayal of Jesus as the Passover Lamb. If we insist upon the Last Supper as being a mere infusion of new meaning into the Passover, we are able to interpret the Last Supper distinct and separate from Calvary. What the Early Fathers recognized was that if Jesus truly is the perfect Passover Lamb then the cross and the meal in the upper room cannot be separated. The sacrifice and the meal are intricately connected. The Passover is incomplete without both.

This was also one of the reaons for a very literal understanding of John 6. When Jesus said we had to "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood", he meant it. But the Fathers connected this interpretation with the Passover requirements. In the Passover meal it was not enough to sacrifice the lamb. The Mosaic requirements clearly require the eating of the lamb as well. Hence, if Christ truly is the Passover Lamb then he must have meant what he said.

As far as we can tell, the practice of partaking of the Eucharist in Christian worship begins mere years after the death and resurrection of Christ. If we interpret the Eucharist through Christian history there is no room for partaking sparingly of Holy Communion or relegating it to once a year. The Jewish context simply does not provide us with all the answers we need when articulating the Eucharist.

Finally, perhaps one of the greatest dangers of taking the Jewish roots movement too far is that by obsessing with the Jewish context of Jesus, we miss his radical departure, at times, from that context. Jesus was not just a Jew in Jewish surroundings; he was a Jew declaring a very different idea of what it meant to be truly Jewish. David Bivin, for example, in his book Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus draws the conclusion that Christ could not have been a pacifist because the idea of pacifism was foreign to his Jewish contemporaries (especially the prophets). I agree that the idea was largely foreign within the Jewish context but that's what makes it so radical and purely Christological! What should keep us from saying that the deity of Christ must therefore be false since it finds no contemporary proponents in Jewish culture?

Examples aside, I believe there is a significant place for the Jewish roots movement. But we must be careful to have it dominate our interpretation of the biblical texts, especially in light of the declarations of Church history and ecumenical councils. May we be truly Christ-ian while recognize the cultural influences upon the Christ we worship as God.

Quote of the Day

2007-01-27T17:06:00.000-05:00

"The next thing is to look at ourselves, and polish our theological self to beauty like a statue."

-Gregory of Nazianzus
The First Theological Oration

Update

2007-01-17T01:01:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the lack of posting. Time has been scarce with a busy holiday and a whirlwind beginning of a new semester. Nonetheless, for anyone interested I thought I'd give a brief update on what my semester looks like:

Classes

Wesleyan Church History and Discipline: This class is turning out to be a good one. It's a 7:50 so it's good that my professor is fairly charismatic. So far we've read a number of Wesley's sermons and we've got some decent texts for the rest of the semester as well.

Christology: I have high hopes for this class. It's a theology course so of course I'm already pumped. We also get to spend a considerable amount of time in primary sources, reading the patristics firsthand. This is one of those rare undergraduate classes where this is available, thus, it causes me to salivate.

Pastoral Care and Counseling: Wow! I am finding I really enjoy this class! I was somewhat skeptical about the course, and not too excited that it is a three hour night class, but I have really enjoyed my time spent in the classroom so far. It should prove very useful as a primer for Christian counseling.

Grace in the Early Church: Basically, this is a class designed to mine research through undergrad students. Two of my professors are currently engaged in a research project concering the historical and theological development of charis and have formed a class to supplement their research. This is a goodie, and one of my favs even though it's only a one credit hour class.

Honors Thesis Paper: It's finally time for me to actually finish up research for my paper and write it. My honors thesis paper will be due at the end of the semester and I'm hoping it turns out really well. I have a lot left to do, so it will be grueling.

Barth Reading Group: I will be part of a Karl Barth reading group beginning relatively soon. We'll be reading sections of the Dogmatics and it should be great discussion. We've got some great thinkers in the group.

Graduate School

It's official; for those of you who don't yet know I've been accepted to Duke Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary. These are the only two schools I've applied to and Duke has also offered me a Divinity Fellowship (full tuition and a great summer field ed placement). I haven't made a final decision but Duke has certainly made me feel as if they really want me to be a part of their program. So far, I want to be as well.

So this is what my semester looks like! I'll try to post regularly, giving my usual theological meandering. Don't be surprised to see a number of posts focused on Yoderish ideology; I spent a lot of time reading Yoder over break and I'm finding it difficult to sustain arguments contrary to his. It has been good fun and I'll attempt to share some of that with you soon. As for now, Pax Christi!

For What the Law was Powerless to Do

2006-12-08T11:40:00.000-05:00

This past Monday on campus we had a well attended public debate between two students on campus. The debate centered on the role of Christians in American politics. One student asserted that we ought to promote Christian values through government, while the other student argued we should not. As I sat listening to the debate the thought suddenly popped into my head, “what the law was powerless to do.”

Those of you who are Christians are probably quite familiar with this verse. It is found in Romans 8:3 and in full says, “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:3,4)

This passage comes on the heels of Paul’s discussion in chapter 7 about the experience of a Jew under the Law. Romans 7:15-25 is often misused to assume that what Paul describes here is what he expects of Christian experience after conversion. I call this a misuse of the passage because the larger context makes clear that Paul believes Christians are set free from the sinful nature and are no longer slaves to sin. So in order for 15-25 to be an expression of Paul’s current experience would make Paul sharply contradictory with himself. Paul here undertakes the persona of a Jew under the Law using a rhetorical device in which out of context it appears as if Paul is speaking about himself.

The point I’d like to draw out is that Paul affirms that the Law is unable to free his fellow Jews from their slavery to sin. In fact, Paul says that in a sense the Law produced more iniquity. But, “thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord,”(Rom. 7:25) since “through Jesus Christ the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom. 8:2) It is the Spirit of life who sets us free. The Law does not have the capability to do so. This is one of Paul’s prominent points in this passage.

Interestingly, many Christians fully affirm Paul’s statements in these passages but pragmatically they don’t believe them. Some Christians have still decided that the way to change the world is by use of law. We have transported the first century debates into our culture and decided that through American government and law we will advance the Christian cause. So, many evangelicals vehemently fight for legislation that appears to reflect Christian values. We attempt to put “Christian” political leaders into office with the hope that they will fight for us and America can become a Christian nation. In all these efforts such evangelicals are unfortunately promoting the idea that people and society can and will be changed by use of law.

It baffles me why any Christian would not immediately see Paul’s admonitions relevant to these Christians’ current political agenda. Do we really think American law is more powerful than the Jewish law? If the Jewish law was “powerless” how can we think American law will be more potent? The fruit of these attempts has shown that our culture is not being changed by these efforts but is becoming more resentful towards Christianity. It is of no surprise that when Christians attempt to use contra-Gospel means to advance the Gospel the results are disastrous.

I believe Paul’s words ought to a great warning and we ought truly to affirm the powerlessness of law to enact the salvific change necessary in our culture. “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man.” Thanks be to God.

IWU and ROTC - Compatible?

2006-10-25T17:56:00.000-04:00

This is a letter I'm submitting to my campus newspaper. It may have to be trimmed but any feedback would be welcomed.

A rather dramatic shift took place on campus this semester that many students never even felt. It was the initiation of the ROTC “Roaring Lambs” chapter on Indiana Wesleyan’s campus. This shift went unnoticed by many because we never questioned its ethical implications. The willingness of IWU to implement an ROTC program manifests the disconnect between Christian faith (theology) and Christian living (ethics) that has been established on campus. With the recent visitation of a Blackhawk Helicopter, which many students received jubilantly, this disconnect was further aggravated.

Within Christianity the spectrum of perspectives on war ranges from Just War theorists to Christological pacifists. Neither of these are extremist views but constitute a framework in which to discuss war. The presence of ROTC on campus ought to be difficult to justify from a Just War paradigm. The essence of Just War theory is reluctance towards military action, although when certain criteria are met war can be “justified.” Yet military action is never promoted in Just War thinking. It is instead considered a necessary evil to employ when all other avenues have been exhausted and all the established criteria are met. In this sense, Just War theorists support the military minimally and, again, reluctantly. The ROTC is by no means a reluctant acceptance of the military. Quite the contrary, it promotes military action. Considering the newly instituted Bush-doctrine of pre-emptive war, the military can hardly be said to function solely in self-defense. In this ethical paradigm the presence of ROTC is unjustifiable.

Yet even further, as Christians our ethics ought to be derivative of our theology. Our ethics are distinct from secular ethics because ours are informed by our theological convictions, primarily our Christology (understanding of the person of Christ). If we ought to imitate Christ, in what sense can we ever justify the use of violence? The primary arguments against non-violence tend to be based in what is considered the irrationality of pacifism. But Christological pacifism is not grounded in whether it “works” (as is liberal pacifism), but in the person of Christ. The bottom line is we are non-violent because Christ was. To predicate Christ as violent becomes incredibly difficult in face of the Sermon on the Mount. For what else can “turn the other cheek” mean but that we do not return violence for violence? Can we take Jesus seriously here? Why is it that Christ does not militaristically oppose Rome but instead submits to her? Why in the vast majority of the places in the New Testament where we are told to imitate Christ it is in his suffering and his submission? How can we reconcile “love your neighbor” with the slaughter of our neighbor, regardless of circumstance? It is the arguments against Christological pacifism that have pushed me closer to it. There is no justification for using the tools of the devil to accomplish Christian means. Cleary, in this paradigm the presence of the ROTC is in every way contrary to Christian ethics.

Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum, Christian ethics do not allow for a unilateral support of military action. We are called to imitate Christ, and the ROTC is simply inconsistent with that imitation.

When Schism is Unjust

2006-09-28T23:18:00.000-04:00

Schism has been considered perhaps the second most griveous sin in the history of the Church, second only to heresy. No other mortal sin is as dangerous as these two. Yet as it pertains to schism the Protestant Reformation has instigated a variety of opinions and evaluations of what it truly means to be schismatic.

Schism, broadly defined, is breaking away from the Church. The ominousness of such an act is that one who is involved in schism is broken off from the vine; they are not connected to the nourishment of the vine. The Church is God's primary means of grace to the world, and she conceives, births, and nourishes Christians. There can be no "power of the keys" outside of the Church, for Christ entrusted the keys to Peter and the apostles, and the power is retained within the Church. In short, one who commits schism finds oneself in a very deleterious position.

The Church, being the body of Christ, becomes in a sense the very person of Christ. The Church truly is the visible presence of Christ on this earth. There can be no division within Christ, therefore to leave the Church is to leave Christ. However, one must wonder if there are any justifiable reasons for schism. Are there extreme cases or circumstances in which schism may be necessary?

The only potential justification for schism is heresy. Specifically I am thinking here of the Protestant Reformation. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church at the time was teaching some things which cannot be considered Christian. This Protestant split could be justified by one saying that due to the heresy promulgated by the Catholic Church, schism was necessary. However, even in this case an argument could be made that due to the heresy, at this time the Catholic Church could not have been considered the Church in all its fullness. In this sense, the Reformation would not as much be a schism as a return to orthodoxy.

Regardless of how one chooses to view the above, most would agree that at least to some extent the Protestant split can be justified (although this could move into area in which we have to discuss whether even this schism can be justified due to the split from the Church as institution; we won't address that at the moment). While we may be able to justify the Protestant schism, I am left to wonder if there are any true grounds upon which we can justify any subsequent schism. Protestantism is defined by its innate affinity with division. The thousands of denominations present in our world represent the slippery slope that was opened when the Reformers put forth their critiques. While ameliorations have been made to some divisions, and some denominations have even merged, there still remains the autonomous rights for Protestants to divide if need be.

BUT....if it's true that the only justifiable grounds for schism are heresy (in which case one is not truly dividing the Church but realigning her), then can any Protestant divide following the initial split be justified? I'm not convinced any can. If this is the case then it puts Protestants in a very precarious position. Has Protestantism, to an extent, put itself in danger of being outside of the fullness of the Church? Are there parallels between Protestantism and the Novatian schism?

This is a very troubling thought and the ramifications are worthy of consideration. I am not implying that any Protestant denomination which finds its origins after the initial reformative split is not part of the Church, or that the grace of God is not flowing there. But I am somewhat concerned about the unjustifiable nature of Protestant schism. Have we, to an extent, forced God's hand to work in unordinary ways?

I don't know. What do you think?

The Academy as Service

2006-09-25T16:06:00.000-04:00

This weekend I went to a fantastic conference funded by the Lilly Foundation. Although I was somewhat apprehensive initially about attending, I could not have been more pleased. The conference, largely, served to provide the attendees with information about graduate school. Although seminary is not completely concordant with process undertaken for typical graduate studies, the conference nonetheless was incredibly informational and beneficial.

One of the central topics of the conferences was vocation and calling: both what they mean and how we ought to pursue them. Dr. Patrick Byrne (of Boston College), in agreement with the theologian Bernard Lonergan, asserted that our first vocation is that of being human. Our "vocations" (father, husband, doctor, plumber, etc.) are subsets and participate in the fulfillment of our primary vocation to be human.

Dr. Byrne suggested three criteria that ought to be evaluated in discerning vocation:

1) Joy: what brings me joy (not necessarily what makes me happy, but what elicits true joy)?
2) Talent: what am I gifted and talented doing?
3) Service: does this serve the needs of others? Is this a service to humankind?

Perhaps the most difficult criteria to evaluate is the third; does what I'm gifted at and what I love truly serve others? In what ways does it do so? Dr. Byrne said this was the most difficult aspect for him to discern in his own life experience. As we dialogued together I began to realize how significant this specific aspect of his presentation was to my own life and that of the students present at the conference. Considering the conference was concerned with Christian higher education, the question Dr. Byrne posed was in what way academics are a service to others.

As we deliberated we saw the necessity for distinguishing between the various needs humans have. One of the graduate students, who attends Northwestern University, insightfully commented that we tend to elevate the basic human needs as the sole human needs. Food, shelter, clothing, etc. are undeniably basic human needs that must be met. When we ask whether something serves humanity, typically we are thinking along these lines. Yet, as this graduate student pointed out, the needs of humanity are multi-faceted and much more broad than just basic needs. While poverty is by all means a monumental human dilemma, bad philosophy can be incredibly destructive as well. Similarly, bad theology can wreak havoc upon one's relationship with God and others. Political perversity breeds consequences throughout an entire polity. The academy recognizes the multiplicity of human needs and exists to fulfill those needs through the efforts of its scholarship and research.

I would not be so naive as to declare that those in the academy always operate under this construct. But I believe it is an important qualification for those of us who sense academics to be our vocational fit. I grow weary of the still prevalent notion among many evangelicals that intellectualism is neither profitable nor necessary. "How can you consign yourself to the ivory tower when people are dying on the streets?" Or so the argument often will go. But this operates under the assumption that the only needs that ought to be addressed are the ones most readily apparent. Certainly we should be concerned with those needs; we must be. It is a part of Christian charity that all of us are called to serve the basic needs of such people. But it is not everyone's vocation to serve such needs. Some vocationally find their talent and joy best manifested in such a role; others do not.

Similarly some may say that to confine oneself to academics is to become too specialized. Yet, truthfully, all service is narrow and only relevant to a particular group. Knee replacements are a valuable service, but only to those who actually need them. Cancer treatment is necessary, but only for those who suffer from such a disease. In similar fashion, academics are necessary, but may only be relevant to a particular need of a particular people. That doesn't make them any less valuable, simply they are part of the solution to the vast fabric of human need. The destruction of people intellectually can at times be more pandemic than their physical destruction (ex. heresy can steal the Gospel of its power to heal the sin sick soul, potentially leaving a person with eternal damnation). At times we too quickly look to the immediate needs present in our world without realizing the long-range debilitation accompanied by some intellectual errors.

So before you condemn those who seek to serve the needs of the world by purusing knowledge and scholarly endeavors simply because they "aren't in the trenches," recognize those in such positions truly are in the trenches; they simply are serving in a different capacity. The academy is not a place removed from the very real needs of this world; rather, it is a place of service, whether that service is properly acknowledged or not.

Scarcity of Posts

2006-09-08T09:32:00.000-04:00

I apologize for my large delay in posting. Currently I am disconnected from the internet as I await the installation of my connection in my new house. Jen and I are again in Marion and we have begun another academic year. I hope to engage in the theological dialogue on this blog once again soon. Thanks.

-Ben Robinson

Why I hate Evangelism

2006-08-08T15:59:00.000-04:00

It's true; I have had an animosity towards the way evangelism is conducted and explained in many evangelical churches. This animosity has pushed me at times to shy away from engaging in evangelistic efforts. Only recently have I realized my primary problem with common evangelistic methodology: it is so deeply rooted in an exclusively forensic understanding of atonement and salvation.

I grow weary of those who declare peremptorily to others that they ought to accept Christ to gain their ticket to heaven. Accept Christ and avoid hell. We are told that the purpose of this life is to prepare for the next and therefore we ought to be myopically focused upon eternity. Any mention of salvation as a process or way is done so in a cursory manner with quick qualifications that the primary aspect of salvation is that we are forgiven of the many sins we commit daily.

What is ironic to me is that those who so emphasize our need for pardon due to our great depravity so often ignore the necessity for the healing of such depravity. I recall doing "Door to Door" ministries early in my undergraduate education. The main focus was whether these people we met had a relationship with Christ or not. If they did we moved on. If they didn't we stayed and tried to explain why they needed to be forgiven. I cannot recall a single discussion about how God desires to empower us for holy living. How God not only declares us righteous but makes us righteous. How responding to God's pardoning presence opens us up to further empowering presence of grace to move us further on this way of salvation towards likeness with God.

Perhaps this is why we have devalued integritous theology. Perhaps this is why we have superciliously ignored orthodox sacramentalism. Who needs the Eucharist as a means of grace when the most important aspect of the Christian life is our initial justification? Who needs the nourishment of the empowering presence of the Spirit when sanctification is a tag-on to justification?

By no means do I intend to make mordant claims against the necessity for pardon in our lives. We need Christ to exculpate us; but salvation cannot be so narrowly defined as pardon from sins. If we are to truly evangelize it must be done with germane attention paid to the transformative element of salvation. Salvation is being healed of our distored nature. Salvation is being brought into the very life of God by the divine energies. The Greek theologians call this theosis. Salvation is therapeutic and we must understand the forensic language within the context of the larger therapeutic dimensions of salvation.

To be fair, I love evangelism. The Church is called to evangelize and to bring people into the Kingdom of God. What I disdain is the common distored manner in which we evangelize. Perhaps the most important questions is not, "Are you saved." Rather, perhaps the most important question is not a question at all but the reality of the people of God being sanctified and made holy. Sure it's tougher to measure; but at least it's more biblically faithful.

Church and Politics?

2006-08-01T10:46:00.000-04:00

You've probably seen this in the news but I thought I'd post a link to the article here. The reality that this has made national news shows this is a significant issue that too many of us would like to run away from or mitigate. The current and future leaders in the Church will be forced to deal with this head on. Check it out.

Here's a video.

Eastern Christian Soteriological Distinctive

2006-07-18T11:32:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately we in the West have at times viewed salvation only in forensic or legal terms. We summarize the significance of the cross by saying that Christ died to forgive us of our sins and that by his death we are declared righteous. Our emphasis has been that Christ relieves us of our guilt and that he calls us righteous even though we are sinful and unclean. The problem with only speaking of the cross in this way is that we miss an integral and necessary component to salvation; that of healing. This is what I mean when I mentioned at the beginning the primary aspects of salvation being pardon and power. Yes, by Christ’s death we are pardoned and forgiven of our sins. But we are also freed from the power of death and sin. And we are not only declared righteous, but we are made righteous. This transformation that the Holy Spirit enacts in our lives by the work of Christ is not something that necessarily happens instantaneously; in fact, most of the time it does not. We are gradually being restored and brought to perfection by the continuing work of the Spirit in our lives and our continual response to that grace.

Eastern Christianity has much better captures this aspect of salvation. The Eastern Church Fathers taught that even if there had been no fall, the Son still would have had to take on human nature. Let me say that again: the Eastern Fathers taught that even if there had been no fall, the Son still would have to take on human nature. Let me explain. The Eastern Church has understood that when God created humanity, he did not created humanity in the ultimate state that we ought to be. We were created corruptible. We could fall and did. So even initial created humanity was not perfected. In order for humanity to become like God, which is one of the central aspects of salvation that we are to be made holy and changed unto the very likeness and image of God, God would have to become like us. Even without the fall the incarnation would still have to occur because we could not participate in the divine nature unless God participated in human nature. In other words, we could not be made like God unless God was made like us. The Eastern Church has considered one of the most serious consequences of the fall to be mortality. When Adam and Even sinned, death entered the world. So, because the fall introduced death into the world, Christ now had to die in order to fully participate in what it means to be human.

For this reason the Eastern Church has understood the therapeutic aspect of salvation much better than we in the West typically have. They understand that salvation is about setting us free from the bondage of death and is about healing our corrupted moral nature. It is not just about being forgiven, it is about being made into persons who so reflect the character of God that our future need of forgiveness is minimal. As the Church Father Athanasius said, “God became like man, so that we could become like God.”

Perhaps there would be no more fitting way to close than by quoting John Wesley himself, who understood the necessity of integrating both the pardoning aspect of salvation as well as the transformative aspect.

“By salvation I mean, not barely merely deliverance from hell, or going to heaven, but a present deliverance from sin, a restoration of the soul to its primitive health, its original purity; a recovery of the divine nature; the renewal of our souls after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness, in justice, mercy, and truth. This implies all holy and heavenly tempers, and by consequence all holiness of conduct.”

Nukes In North Korea

2006-07-06T10:52:00.000-04:00

Last night I watched a special on "Nightline" regarding North Korean sentiment towards the United States and the North Korean nuclear programs. As I turned the TV off my mind was swirling and all I could think was, "what a sad world in which we live." Typically I desire to abstain from politically loaded discussions. For one, I only have remedial knowledge of politics. Secondly, more often it is necessary to emphasize the distinction between Church politics and American politics and therefore rarely do I compose pieces surrounding the U.S. political arena. But last night I was prompted to reflect upon this great country in which I live and the decisions we have made in recent years.

It seems to me that going to Iraq was wrongheaded from the get-go. Certainly the war can not be justified from a "just war" perspective and those of us who are more inclined toward the pacifistic end are even more skeptical of our invasion there. My concern, though, is not so much with whether we should have gone but rather with what our going has produced. The aftermath is what we will have to deal with for generations. After watching the program last night the inescapable conclusion is that much of the world hates America; and our going to war in Iraq has only further infuriated them. North Korean propaganda teaches that the U.S. were the initiating invaders in the Korean war and that North Korea stepped in to defend the Koreans. The Iraq war is simply another example of the United State's war-mongering (in their mind).

Of course, we haven't done much to detract from this perception. Bush's labeling of North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil" was idiotic. This phrase is of course resonant of the Axis powers of World War II and who would not be enraged for being associated with those countries? So much for diplomacy. As childish as it sounds, the North Koreans were incredibly hurt by that labeling and it is not rolling off their backs. Bush's charge against them repeatedly surfaced in the interviews with North Koreans. They're deeply insulted; can we really be surprised?

Now I would never want to place the mantle of fault on Bush. In all honesty I do think he is generally a "good" guy. I do think he's been a part of some terrible decisions. Much of the Middle East hates us, and Iraq has not helped. We've given the terrorists further motivation for seeking to hurt us. We've ticked off countries who had no association with Iraq except that they despise the fact we invaded. Our arrogance will be our downfall; and North Korea has active short-range nuclear weapons on their launch pads. It takes most empires hundreds and hundreds of years to increase in arrogance to the point that they think themselves invincible. Let's be honest, we're already there after 230 years. We think we're the greatest while much of the world hates us.

As an American citizen this disturbs me. Yet I am thankful that my primary identity is not that of an American, but that of a Christian. As I have reflected upon our precarious political position with the rest of the world, my theological bearings have swung me around to reflect once again upon the American Church's alignment with America. This fourth of July also was a representation to me of the underlying problems that we create when we fail to distinguish between the Church and the United States.

I always have to be careful when I tread upon this slippery surface. I love the fact that I'm an American. I love that I live in a country where I have freedoms inaccessible to much of the world. I love that I can worship God without fear of persecution. But while I love the opportunities and freedoms awarded by this country I would be forsaking my true identity if I allowed myself to be so defined by this country. I think many of us Christians have forgotten this. We truly are American Christians rather than Christians who find their place of residence in America. The distinction is significant. American Christians are defined by the adjective American. Their identity as Christians is defined by their identity as Americans. Christians who live in America are ones who realize that their identity is defined by the Church and is expressed in the geographic area known as the United States. We blur this distinction when we allow so much of America into our churches, especially on days such as the 4th of July.

Some say that this is not that big of a deal. It's really a non-issue. Do we really do any harm by saying the pledge of allegiance in church? Do we really do any harm by inisting on having the American flag so central in our sanctuaries? I wonder if those questions would be answered differently by a German who still had the memories of the Nazi swastikas plastered in German churches. Perhaps they understand better the very real and significant dangers of so closely associating the Church with any political unit. Now I'm not suggesting that America is in anyway similar to the Nazi regime. However, what truly lies behind this issue is that of ecclesiology. What is the nature, identity, and mission of the Church? One of the reasons many American Christians fail to even question the aforementioned items in churches is because our ecclesiologies are greatly diluted or completely absent.

The Church is itself a polity. How can we stand inside a local church and proclaim allegiance to another polity that really is only related to the Church in the sense that the Church is located within its borders? Does anyone else see this as a conflict of interests? I feel the blood rush through me as I think of pledging allegiance to the American flag, in a church, while knowing that the political mess that America has made worldwide in recent years is nothing I want to condone or affirm. It is not our duty as Christians to place a blanket of confirmation on all that our nation does and stands for. It is our duty to visibly distinguish ourselves from our nation when our nation acts in ways that oppose the politics of the Church. Even when we attempt to qualify by saying that we truly are allied to the Church first, and the U.S. second we still have the tendency to not truly understand that. Making such a statement before pledging allegiance to the flag seems perhaps even humorous. The very presence of such an act is already evidence that we refuse to view the Church as autonomous from the nation in which we preside.

Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that we place such a great value upon celebrating our nation's "birthday" in our churches while we ignored the date marked by the Church as its own "birthday." We have truly lost our perspective.

The Principle of Integration

2006-06-22T15:29:00.000-04:00

John Wesley was a fascinating man. The more I read about him and by him the more I come to appreciate his theological methodology and particularities. Wesley shares my great love for the church fathers, particularly the Greek fathers. Their influence on Wesley is often quite apparent. Wesley's affinity for the Eastern fathers contributed to his task of integration. Wesley was one of the few theologians who have seen the need to integrate Western and Eastern Christian distinctives and do so in a way that compliments those distinctives.

Certainly even a theological novice could ascertain that there are significant differences and orienting concerns that accompany Western and Eastern theology. At times these difference have come into vicious conflict with one another. Yet Wesley was one who saw value in both traditions and, to an extent, melded the gold from each. One of the primary reasons that Wesley had this flexibility is because he did not so much endeavor to take up the task of theology systematically, his theology flowing from an idea or system. Rather, Wesley primarily was formed by what Maddox calls his orienting concerns. This subtle shift allowed for Wesley to pay greater attention to integration.

I have found that churches and individuals often err in extremes. For example, I am one who decries the theological bankruptcy of many contemporary worship songs. However, I am not opposed to the contemporary worship style. Quite to the contrary I enjoy it. Beyond this I have found that it is not always necessary that a worship song be filled with theological content. A well rounded service can contain songs that simply bring congregants into the intimate presence of God without deep theology. What becomes a problem is when extremes are adopted as norms. It seems we are often better at over-correcting than balance and integration. No, I don't want to sing a ton of songs that make Jesus sound like my "boyfriend," but I also see the value in some songs that are less than theologically integritous.

In essence, the principle I desire to see highlighted more often is that of integration. But, interestingly while this principle is often one which people respect and discuss it is rarely practiced. Western Christians continue to highlight only the pardoning aspect of salvation while Eastern Christians may highlight only the power of transformation and fail to speak of pardon. Evangelicals bemoan liturgy as rote and meaningless, while liturgical folk see evangelical worship as shallow and meaningless. Of course these are gross generalizations, still the spirit of integration is often espoused but not practiced.

What is it that makes integration so difficult to actualize?
Do you have any ideas how we could begin to make changes in our local churches?

Neglecting Pentecost

2006-06-12T17:34:00.000-04:00

While I did not intend to compose another piece similar to the former, I have been compelled by a renewed interest in the importance of the Church calendar. One Sunday ago from this past Sunday was an incredibly important day for the Church. In fact, what the day commemorates is what some have considered to be the “birthday” of the Church. Yet for many of us in the evangelical tradition not only was this day hardly celebrated, but in some of our churches in may not have even been mentioned.

The day I speak of is the day of Pentecost. Pentecost Sunday came and went unbeknownst to many in our churches. We can debate the importance of some of the Church holidays or some of the days which the Church has conspicuously marked as having importance. Yet I am compelled to ask, of all the days to minimize or exclude what reason can we give to justify neglecting Pentecost? Pentecost, for those of you who unfortunately have never been exposed to it, celebrates the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the apostles in the book of Acts. Some consider this the visible beginning of the Christian Church. Regardless, it is an incredible significant day to celebrate as Christians because the Christian conception of God is by necessity Trinitarian. Not only is this distinctly Christian, but the necessity of the Holy Spirit in the life, existence, and sustenance of the Church and individual Christians is paramount. Pentecost is the seminal day for Christians to celebrate the Holy Spirit, and many of us missed it.

Why, of all the Church days to refrain from celebrating, do we neglect Pentecost? Perhaps the mitigation of the Holy Spirit in Western theology contributes to this, or perhaps the implicit anti-Catholic bias has once again reared its ugly and ignorant head. Whatever the case we ought to feel ashamed. We celebrate Christmas, we celebrate Easter, and although we don’t really celebrate many more Church days how dare we miss Pentecost. Yes, Christianity is Christo-centric and the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ ought to be commemorated and celebrated. But Christianity is also staunchly Trinitarian and without the concept of the Trinity Christianity is incomplete at best and horridly heretical at worst.

As Christians we rely on the Holy Spirit daily. The ancient fathers associated the communication of grace primarily with the work of the Spirit. Perhaps we forget the necessity of grace to both will and perform the good and to aid us in our daily efforts because we so easily forget the Holy Spirit. This ought to change, and perhaps it can begin with simply recognizing the incredible profundity of Pentecost.

What do you think?

Did your church celebrate or mention Pentecost?

How crucial is the recognition of the Holy Spirit to the existence and mission of the Church?

A Reflection on Mother's Day

2006-05-19T15:05:00.000-04:00

It was not too long ago when virtually every American celebrated Mother's day. We all went out to store the night before or the day of and bought our moms something special (usually potted flowers, hanging flowers, or some other assortment of flowers). We bought cards and wrote sappy, but sincere, messages about how much our moms mean to us and how they have influenced our lives. For many Americans, there was another way to commemorate Mom: a Mother's Day service at church.

Mother's Day services are expected. The worship leader will typically mention something in his chatter or prayer about moms. Someone will usually pray and mention all the mothers, and the service culminates in a sermon that revolves mainly around the topic of mothers. Most of you reading this have gone to such a service and probably went to one just a matter of days ago. Let me be clear: I am not attempting to malign such services, discredit them, or discuss whether we ought to even have them at all. The question of whether Mother's Day services are appropriate will have to wait for another day. In this post I am raising the question: why do we (evangelicals) follow the secular or civil calendar staunchly, but fail to follow the Church calendar?

Granted, we celebrate Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and perhaps we'll throw in a few other "Church" days. Yet predominantly we ignore the larger calendar that the Church has historically followed. This post is not an attempt to convince us, either, that we ought to be following the Church calendar. Rather, I wonder what it is that has pervaded our churches to the point where we value the civil religion of this country over the traditions and ceremonies of the Church?

I think perhaps the question may be answered by many evangelicals affinity to associate themselves first as Americans, and subsequently as Christians. Oh, don't get me wrong. We say that we are Christians first, but our praxy often proves otherwise. So we become overly politicized and hold up a particular political party as being the "Christian party." For many evangelicals, this is manifested in their utter devotion to the Republican party. For others, it shows through in their insistence on having the American flag on the church platform alongside the Christian flag. Ultimately, we American Christians have to ask ourselves who is our true ally: the Church or the American nation? I am not saying that we have to divorce ourselves from our American identity. But we do need to reevaluate where we have placed our priorities.

Can we faithful be members of two antithetic polities? Can we be faithful Americans and faithful Christians? Perhaps we are members of the Church who happen to live in a certain locality and in a sense, subversively influence it. Not by scare tactics or political platforms; but by love. Perhaps we remember that we are the manifestation of Christ's presence and love. Perhaps we do castrate our American identity for a while, only in order to recognize that we are loyal to a much greater polity: the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

What do you think?

Congrats to Matt!

2006-05-07T16:51:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to my brother, Matt, who has just graduated from Michigan State University! We love you and are proud of you Matt!

Friendships of Convenience

2006-05-06T21:35:00.000-04:00

I lived off campus for the first time this past school year. It was an interesting phenomenon. I learned very quickly that in the IWU community, if you are not a part of the immediate (on campus) portion you are quickly forgotten. This is not the fault of any individuals in particular nor am I saying this to elicit pity. It is the reality of the beast. When things happen at IWU, they happen on campus. If you're not on campus, you miss things. People don't see you everyday and in some ways they forget you're still around. Yet I have had some fantastic interactions/conversations with some of my friends and have grown in friendships despite my social-disability due to off-campusness. Interestingly, this year has also allowed me to reflect upon the relationships that are formed at this university, and to an extent, how relationships are formed in general.

I have expressed my ostensibly cynical attitude to some about the basic life pattern that many of us find ourselves upon. We spend our early life growing up and being educated with people who become close friends. Yet when high school graduation arrives, people go their seperate ways and most of the friendships formed there will be radically altered in some way. Some students enter university life, where they spend another four years being educated, forming bonds with others, and then leaving to pursue jobs or graduate school. Many lose touch with their college friends and only a few close contacts remain regular. For those of us who opt for graduate school, we settle down in another educational atmosphere and begin the process anew of creating meaningful relationships. As the cycle becomes incredibly repetitious, we graduate and lose contact with many of the people we became quite close to.

Granted, that is a vast generlization of the pattern which ensues in many of our lives. But it is a pattern that perhaps ought to be considered seriously. The question which has arisen for me is what type of relationships are we forming? Has the sporadic course of our early lives truncated our ability to form relationships which last beyond our circumstances? In other words, are we merely founding friendships of convenience? I have noticed at the WU (and I'm sure other collegiates could give similar experiences) that the web of friendships shifts somewhat dramatically from year to year. Certainly people retain the most significant of these friendships and those friends grow gradually closer as the four years of university life progress. But as housing arrangments change, so do friendships. The people you live with become your closest friends. This is perfectly understandable and natural. Those who I lived with last year and those on the RA staff quickly became my steadfast and loyal friends. As corny as it sounds, we laughed together, we studied together, we held each other accountable, we stayed up late talking about girls, or most often, problems with girls. We even (literally) cried together. My friends and I were truly a band of brothers, brought together in a bond that is closer than some siblings.

I cherish those people to this very day, and those experiences. The normative shifts, though, have occured and people go their seperate ways. Some connections are still strong. Other are waning.

Life, it seems, is consumed by relationships. It is relationships that hold cultures and societies together. It is the relationship God has initiated with his Church that promises hope for this world. Even the Triune God by nature is relational. What it seems to me is that relationships are a large component of what it means to be a human; created in God's image. Then why do so many of the relationships we form become obsolete? Why does this cycle of life changes draw us apart? As we become busy with the next aspect of our life we tend to forget how we even arrived there in the first place. As aforementioned, there are many exceptions to this. Many friendships will indeed last a lifetime, and continue into eternity. But why do so many relationships errode and dissipate? Do we truly rely upon convenience as the basis for our relationships? If so, I'm surprised we keep any deep relationships; and I am as guilty as anyone.

I want my life to impact others. I want the relationships I form to be ones which are continuously efficacious even amidst seperation. I want relationships to last longer than my housing vicinity.

Perhaps this post seems odd. It does not follow the typical subject matter or writing style that accompanies me. These are my random thoughts and do with them what you will.

Really? Theology is Irrelevant?

2006-05-01T17:57:00.000-04:00

I'm a student of theology. My entire undergraduate education is focused in the area of theology and biblical studies. I live and breathe theology. The primary subject of the books I read is in some way related to theology. I love theology and no subject is of greater interest to me both in literature and in conversation (whether casual or particular). Yet sometimes I am presented with the question, "Why theology?" Does theology really matter?

I have had a number of persons tell me they don't believe theology is all that important. "Christians don't need to be acquainted with the theological minds of the Church Fathers. Christians don't need to read Oden's Sytematic Theology. The writings of Wesley are largely inconsequential. When it comes down to it, all we need to know is the basics." Or so the argument goes. Evidently, theology is for the academics and has relevance for the ivory tower but not for the local church. So what are we budding theologians to do? Are we a dying breed? Is our art insignificant?

This issue has truly been one that I have spent countless hours ruminating upon. If the average Christian doesn't care about theology, what am I doing? Why am I spending hours upon hours of my life studying and researching this subject? A rather radical insight came upon me as I read the Credo of Thomas Oden's first volume of Systematic Theology. In it he states: "Christians have a right and a responsibility to know the meaning of their baptism. This is the purpose of Christian theology and of this study: to clarify the ancient ecumenical faith into which Christians of all times and places are baptized. It is expected of all who are baptized that they will understand what it means to believe in God the Father Almighty, in God the Son, and in God the Spirit (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catech., prologue, NPNF 2 VII, p. 474; Luther, Sermons on the Catech., ML, p. 208)."

Why do we study theology? It is the right and the responsibility of all Christians to understand the faith they adhere to. Understood this way, the teaching of Christian theology is not an option, it is necessary to the very definition of what it means to be a Christian. To be a Christian requires one to seek greater understanding about the entirety of their faith. It is not just a responsibility, but it should be celebrated as a beautiful right that we are able to even speak of these things concerning the Almighty God. We have been given a great gift in this right yet unfortunately many American Christians have forsaken this opportunity. Instead, they have chosen the route of "all I need to know is the basics." Here ought to be the shocker for the average American Christian: You don't know the basics. The basics are what is contained in a series such as Thomas Oden's "Systematic Theology." At least, that is what the basics has been for the majority of Church history. Catechumens were delivered fascinating lectures that followed the pattern of the Creed throughout the Lenten period leading up to Easter. Cyril's Catechetical Lectures are a fabulous expression of the depth and sincerety with which the Early Church undertook the task of theology. Augustine's lectures "On Faith and the Creed" are beyond the capacity of most laypersons.

What has created this vast chasm between the theological integrity of the Early Church and our current theologically bankrupt churches? Clearly there are great differences in the cultural influences. Modern society does seem, in a sense, "dumb downed" by the prevalence of television and video games (not that either are bad things but merely they have occupied our minds and intellectual stimulation has been pushed to the background). But it seems to me this regression has been occuring for much longer than simply the technological revolution. At some point, the Church forgot one of its primary responsibilities: to teach and preach theology in the context of the Church.

Perhaps you remain unconvinced. "So what. Just because the Early Church considered theology important doesn't mean we ought to." Considering the often myopic tendency of some evangelicals to completely reject any source of authority but the Bible, let me point you to a biblical example of this.

In the letter to the Hebrews, in chapter five the author begins one of his central arguments: Jesus is a priest of the order of Melchizedek. While he desires to discourse upon what this means and the ramifications for his audience, he first says the following. "We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." (Hebrews 5:11-14)

The author wishes to teach the audience things they ought to be able to apprehend by this point in their Christian maturity. However, they have failed to mature and require the "elementary truths" again. He then continues with the following. "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And God permitting, we will do so." (Hebrews 6:1-3)

May I be so rash as to propose the following: The majority of American Christians do not have a solid understanding of what the author of Hebrews considers to be "elementary truths." If this was something worthy of chastisement in the first century, it is even more worthy in our current age. We have literally had centuries upon centuries to mature in our theological understanding. Not only have many failed to do so, but many fail to care that we ought to be maturing!

This has put the developing Christian leaders in a precarious position. We see the need and the value of theological integrity but we are concerned that our congregations will refuse to press forward. It has also greatly weaked the impact of Christianity in America. I will boldly proclaim that the claims of hypocrisy leveled against the American Church, the lack of "authentic" Christians, and the negation of Christianity's efficacy are rooted in the devaluing of theology. We are not changed by what we proclaim because we don't truly apprehend what we proclaim. We preach false gospels of wealth, prosperity, and material blessings because we do not grasp the Kingdom ethics. We do not understand the depth of salvation because we are content with believing that all that happens when a person converts is that they are forgiven of their sins.

I used to think that what has consumed my life for the past three years may be irrelevant. I don't believe that anymore.

So what do you think?
Do you value theology?
Does your church value theology?

Let's hear what you have to say.

(Take a look at this newly posted related blog by Kevin Wright.)

That Time of Year Folks

2006-04-21T13:44:00.000-04:00

Dearly beloved readers. It is once again finals time for me at the ol' WU. I am immersed in my work and blogging has been relegated to after finals. But don't worry. I will return soon and I have some most engaging blogs coming. For the time being, may the grace of Christ be with you.

Pax Christi,

Your blogging buddy Ben

Good Friday

2006-04-14T15:35:00.000-04:00

Mark 15

Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, reached a decision. They bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate. "Are you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate. "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. The chief priests accused him of many things. So again Pilate asked him, "Aren't you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of." But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.

Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. "What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them. "Crucify him!" they shouted. "Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get. It was the third hour when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!" In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him. At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of those standing near heard this, they said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah." One man ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down," he said. With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!" Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

Maundy Thursday

2006-04-13T15:29:00.000-04:00

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."
Matthew 26:26-29

As the sacrament series finishes, what better day to reflect upon this passage.

It Has Run Its Course

2006-04-09T23:36:00.000-04:00

I am encouraging discussion to proliferate on the previous post but am noting that the last post will be the final post in the series regarding sacraments. Please return to them to continue the discussion but also look forward to a shift in gears as I will once again take a look at different topics.

4: A Continuation...

2006-04-08T23:46:00.000-04:00

Joshwall made some extremely pertinent comments on the last post. I thought it would be easier to post a new blog to address some of the issues rather than address them in the limited comment space.

Joshwall,

Thanks for the comment! Your post strikes upon a number of issues which I think we would all consider quite important.

1. How do we know what is correct theology pertaining to the sacraments?

2. Who has the authority to dictate what is orthodoxy in this regard? (Does having an orthodox interpretation of the sacraments even matter?)

3. And (although implicitly) what is the Church?

I certainly cannot attempt to comprehensively address all those questions, but let me begin by addressing some of the specifics in your post.

My question is who has decided over the years that sacramentality was part of the church, or what constitute sacraments, or the nature and role of sacraments?

The Church has decided, based upon the trajectory set by Scripture. While certainly the most advantageous and rich place for us to go would be the writings of the Church Fathers, we would do well to understand that the development of doctrine and Christian orthodoxy was never done outside of the context of the Church. These decisions were not made by the Bishops and then imposed upon the laity but the laity had an integral part in the acceptance and proliferation of these universal decrees.

I think its a great way to understand the transmission of grace but I think we run into issues when we make hard and fast rules on sacraments, does a full immersion need to be done or just dropping water enough for it to constitute a sacrament, with both being held in a traditional high view?

I'm not as concerned about the "hard and fast" rules you describe here as much as I am with the theology of the sacraments. Can baptism be considered sacramental whether its praxy is by means of full immersion or sprinkling? Yes.

Furthermore, while we have the example for the sacraments laid out in the Bible, their fully formed theological conceptions don't happen till later. Its only later on in the church, after several hundred years of ecclesial existence do we start to gather enough of a consensus to agree on sacraments.

You're exactly right. The fully formed sacramental theology is by all means a development within the Early Church. Yet I must contest the notion that these were developments which occurred "several hundreds years" later. The earliest literature we have available to us from the Fathers of the Church develop this sacramental theology. The understanding of the communication of grace through the sacraments is something that occurs very early in ecclesial history, not a rather late development.

But let's suppose it was a late development. Although inaccurate, let's say sacramental theology did not come to full development until the 5th century. If this had been the case the grounds for dismissing sacramentalism would still not be firm. After all, this century holds the great Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) in which the official statements regarding the hypostatic union are made.

You mention that after Augustine this higher view of the sacraments “takes off.” This is not true. An incredibly high view of the sacraments is held by Fathers before the time of Augustine. Cyril of Jerusalem posits a view which is quite similar to that of transubstantiation. Much before Cyril the Eucharist was seen as a central and necessary component of the worship of the Early Church. It was the means by which God communicated grace but also the way in which the Church expressed thanksgiving and gratitude to God.

But again, let’s suppose that it is not until Augustine’s era that the sacraments take a prominent role in the Church. We must also then realize that it is not until the council of Constantinople in 381 that the Holy Spirit is officially declared to be God. It must be clearly understood that decrees of the Ecumenical Councils were never decisions that had arisen in a vacuum or suddenly appeared. The decisions of the Councils were the result of years and years of debate and discussion about the doctrines which are absolutely essential to the nature of Christianity. In the same way, the beliefs concerning the sacraments did not suddenly emerge but are the result of development that begins extremely early in the history of the Church.

If so wouldn't we have seen Jesus talk about them more?

There is much that I wish Jesus would have discussed in greater detail. But the reality is Jesus also left us with some ambiguity regarding the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Church, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and even his own ontology. But that is one of the reasons that he promised to send the Spirit, who would guide the Church in all truth. Some of the vital aspects of the Christian faith simply are not fully addressed in Scripture. The discussion begins but does not always end with Scripture.

On final thought, you also ask if "does a church which does not practice the sacraments run the risk of eventually moving towards what can be inexpressibly called outside of the Church?"

Yes, I think it does. But to follow up (and come full circle), your questions is (near as I can tell) asking if by ceasing practicing sacraments there is a risk that churches may function outside of the broader ecclesial domain... and think that's a possible outcome and I don't know if that's a bad thing.

I think it might be helpful to have you clarify what you believe the Church to be. What I am asking is does a church (local body) which refuses to practice the sacraments run the risk of no longer being a part of the Church (holy, catholic, apostolic)? To be outside of the broader ecclesial domain is to no longer be Christian. One cannot exist as a Christian while being divorced from the Church. Perhaps you will have to define what you mean by “broader ecclesial domain.” Because historically the sacraments have been considered a part of the ontology of the Church (that is the sacraments constitute a component of the very nature of the Church), a local church which does not practice them runs the risk of ceasing to be in the Church. This is to cut that local body off from the primary means of God’s grace. That is why I am so concerned with orthodox teaching of the sacraments.

3: Sacraments as They Pertain to the Ontology of the Church

2006-03-31T01:36:00.000-05:00

The significance of the sacraments pertaining to the ontology of the Church is what I would like to most fervently address. This aspect of sacramentalism has been placed upon dusty bookshelves by some evangelical theologians but many are re-thinking the role of sacraments in the identity of the Church.

"So what really do you mean Ben?" For those of you who are not familiar with the theological/philosophical verbosity of that previous paragraph let me bring forth clarity as I expound upon this. In order for one to understand the significance of the sacraments we must first begin with ecclesiology (the study of the Church). Most pertinent to this discussion are what are called the "Protestant Marks of the Church." These marks are 1) the preaching of the Pure Word of God; 2) the community rightly ordered; 3) the due administration of the sacraments.

The question of the place of the sacraments is intimately tied to the question of what is the Church. I am working from the assumption of the historical position of the Church that the sacraments are a component of the very identity (ontology) of the Church. Augustine and other Church Fathers were very clear that if in a local church body the sacraments were not properly administered then that "church" was not operating from the identify of the Church. It lacked a necessary component of what it means to be the Church.

It was understood from the apostolic age and throughout the Patristic period that the Church is the primary agent of God's grace to the world. The danger, therefore, of not being immersed in a local church body is paramount because by being disconnected one has cut him/herself off from the primary means of God's grace (this is one of the great dangers of the ideology of Barna's Revolution). But what happens when a person is connected with a local church body but that body does not regularly partake of the sacraments nor hold them in high esteem?

This is where we get to the crux of the question: does a church which does not practice the sacraments run the risk of eventually moving towards what can be inexpressibly called outside of the Church? I believe so. If the sacraments are essential to the ontological essence of the Church then to ignore them would be to truncate the grace dispersed by the participation in them. To voluntarily choose to not partake of the sacraments it to voluntarily choose to deny oneself of the means of grace. It should be noted that I am not saying that the sacraments are the only means of grace. In order to avoid distracting tangents I should also note that when I say the Church is God's primary means of grace to the world I mean exactly that. The Church is the primary means of grace, but not the sole means.

But back on track. Here comes the pertinent question for many evangelicals and especially for me and my Wesleyan sisters and brothers. While we partake of the sacraments, do we run the risk of gradually moving away from the "center" of the Church by the low view held in our praxy and the rarity of the participation in the sacraments? I believe so. If the Augustinian distinctive mentioned in the previous post is correct (which I perhaps should not even label as the "Augustinian" distinctive considering it appears other Fathers may hold to it as well; i.e. Cyril of Jerusalem), then it is not enough for a pastor to believe in the efficacy of the sacraments and hold a high view on his/her own. The faith of the community must also be present in order to co-operate with the grace offered in the sacraments.

How many evangelicals do you know that hold a high view of the sacraments? How many sermons have you heard on the sole purpose of communion being that of remembrance? How many messages have been related to you on the importance of "believer's baptism (which I mention only because such sermons are usually accompanied by a low view of baptism)?" Are we at risk of losing some of the essence of what it means to be the Church? I think we might be.

But what about you? What do you think?
Are the sacraments a central and necessary component of the Church's ontology? Why/why not?
If the faith of the community must be present, how can we go about changing the low view of the sacraments predominantly held by lay-people?

I would also love to hear the thoughts of those of you who may not be studying theology/Church history/biblical literature and gain your perspective.

2: In What Manner is Grace Communicated?

2006-03-16T19:41:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the lengthy delay of this second post. Even with Spring Break, these past few weeks have been incredibly hectic for me.

In the last post I laid out four basic views of both Baptism and the Eucharist. Emphasis was put on the mysterious reality that grace is in some way communicated through these sacraments. Inevitably the questions arises, "In what manner is this grace communicated?" There are three views I would like to put forth for discussion. I acknowledge the fact that there are other understandings and certain nuances present with each view but for the sake of brevity I have decided to post merely three.

1. Ex opere operato

This view essentially asserts that grace is guaranteed to be communicated through the sacraments. The flow of this grace is not contingent necessarily upon the faith of the individual participating in the specific sacrament but is assumed by the very nature of the sacraments. The sacraments in a sense become channels of constant flow; one must enter into this channel in order to participate in the grace thereby dispersed.

Perhaps the most prominent proponent of this view would be the modern day Roman Catholic Church. However, it can be argued that certain aspects of the praxy of evangelicals carries connotations of this view while redefining the locus of this guaranteed grace. For some evangelicals, if an individual comes to the altar and recites the "sinner's prayer" there is the assumption of the assured communication of grace. The semi-pelagian idea that one can choose to accept Christ at any moment they so delight actually bears striking resemblance to the Catholic understanding of the communication of grace through the sacraments.

2. Ex opere operantis

The basic difference in this view is that the communication of grace through the sacraments is dependent upon the faith of the individual receiving the sacraments. While St. Cyril of Jerusalem may not categorically fall here, he gives stern admonitions to those who would enter the waters of baptism with malignant motives. If one persists in these motives the regenerative effects of baptism do not accompany the person. The motives and faith of the person are paramount. It is Luther who adopts this view and emphasizes the individual aspect of participation in the sacraments. It is the faith of the individual that the efficacy of the sacrament relies in part upon.

While it will have to wait for another discussion, it should be noted that theologians such as Wesley did not believe that grace was guaranteed to be distributed by means of partaking of the sacraments. The same measure of grace is not always given to each person whom receives the Eucharist in the same service. But this digression will have to wait for another post, another day.

3. Ex opere operantis

Do not worry, I realize this is identical with the aforementioned view. However, I have seperated this perspective from the former because of an Augustinian distinction. Augustine held to this specific understanding while placing the emphasis of belief on the community rather than the individual. In other words, while faith had to be present it did not by necessity have to be the faith of the specific individual. The congregation could believe on behalf of the individual partaking of the sacrament. Not that the faith of the individual was not important to Augustine, but equally important was the faith of the accompanying gathering of believers. Faith must be present, but its locus need not solely be that of the individual.

So what do you think?
What additions would you make to these three views?
Is there any particular view not mentioned that you find insightful or important to bring to the discussion?
What might be the varying consequences of each of these views?

1: What Does it Mean to be a Sacrament?

2006-02-25T16:53:00.000-05:00

I think it would be appropriate to discuss the sacraments by first defining what they are. Various Christian groups interpret the sacraments differently thereby opening the door for much confusion if we were not to make clear definitions beforehand. Theopedia defines a sacrament as "a rite or ceremony instituted by Jesus, and observed by the church as a means of or visible sign of grace." The reader should understand that what I consider to be important about this definition is that a sacrament by definition communicates grace (I vehemently oppose the idea that the sacraments are merely ordinances). While the finer points of this definition can be debated and discussed, essentially this series will be operating from the theological conviction that a sacrament communicates grace. This is the orthodox position of the Church and to reduce the sacraments to ordinances is not something I'm willing to entertain.

Protestants accept two sacraments while the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church hold to seven. For the purpose of this series, the focus will be upon the two sacraments which almost all of Christians accept: baptism and the eucharist (debate over whether Protestants should accept more than the traditional two will have to wait for another day).

As it pertains to baptism and the eucharist, there are four views which predominate (thanks to Dr. Chris Bounds for the work which follows is his categorization).

Baptism

Roman Catholic: "By either awakening or strengthening of faith, baptism effects regeneration." This occurs with the workings of the sacrament itself. Faith does not have to be present. The work is solely God's work in the person. Infants and adults are baptized.

Lutheran: In order for baptism to be effectual, saving faith must be exercised by the one baptized. Salvation is imparted potentially to infants, actually in adults. This position differs from the Catholic view only with respect to faith. Infants and adults are baptized.

Reformed: Baptism is an act of faith by which we are brought into the covenant and hence experiences its benefits. Grace is imparted, but the type of grace is a mystery. Infants and adults are baptized.

Memorial: It is simply a testimony - a profession of faith that a believer makes. The rites shows the community that the individual is now identified with Christ. There is no objective effect upon the person. Only believing adults and/or children are baptized.

The Eucharist

Roman Catholic: Through consecration of the bread and the wine, the bread changes into Christ's body and the wine changes into Christ's blood. Christ is truly and substantially present in the elements themselves. This is called transubstantiation. Communion is spiritual food for the soul and strengthens the participant.

Lutheran: The elements do not change into the presence of Christ, but he is actually present in, with, and under the elements. This is called consubstantiation. The recepient has the forgiveness of sins and the confirmation of his faith. Participation must include faith or the sacrament conveys no benefit.

Reformed: Christ is not literally present in the elements. He is spiritually present in the partaking of the elements. This is a commemoration of Christ's death that bestows grace to seal partakers in the love of Christ. The meal gives spiritual nourishment and brings a person closer to the presence of Christ.

Memorial: Christ is not present in the elements either literally or spiritually. It is a commemoration of Christ's death that reminds the partaker of the benefits of redemption and salvation brought about in Christ's death.

There certainly are various views which fall amongst these but this gives a good range for us to begin to articulate these concepts. I find it important to note that the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed view of each of these sacraments falls within orthodoxy. The memorial view does not. Considering the prevalence of the memorial view in the praxy of many evangelical churches, I find this an important point to accentuate.

Do you agree that a sacrament communicates grace? Why or why not?
Where do you fall in the spectrums delineated above?
Why is your sacramental understanding even important?

The Real First Series Ever

2006-02-21T15:59:00.000-05:00

I can honestly say that I am actually beginning the real first ever series on The Orthodoctor. The series will pursue the question of the sacraments. What is a sacrament? Why are they important? Is grace really communicated through them? Sacramental theology is by no means something to be put aside as irrelevant. The ontology of the Church is partly defined by its practice and use of the sacraments. Therefore, to dimiss them as unimportant is to reduce one's ecclesiology to less than orthodox. I am interested to see the variety of opinions that will be expressed and the reasons supporting them. Sacraments, here we come.

Feeling Inspired?

2006-02-10T01:13:00.000-05:00

I had a wonderful conversation tonight with a peer of mine who has an incredibly bright mind. The struggle which he expressed to me is quite similar to my own struggle as I attempt to craft my theology.

Essentially, the crux of our discussion was the meaning of inspiration as it pertains to the Bible. The subject is certainly one of great significance and also one which brings forth strong reaction from those accustomed to being told that any discrepancy within the biblical text is merely alleged. To suggest otherwise would certainly make one out of sync with the typical evangelical layman's theology. My friend believes that, especially since the time of Luther, the Bible has been elevated to this place where it has assumed authority based upon the claim that it is inerrant. What is interesting to me is the manner in which my friend is wrestling with this whole issue.

There are those who would declare that what it means for the Bible to be inspired is that God dictated the text word for word to the biblical authors. Thus, any apparent discontinuity within the text is cause for alarm. I cannot imagine any reputable scholar making this claim, but this is where things begin to get hazy. The Church has, at times, used the Christological analogy when speaking of the dynamic inspiration of Scripture: just as Christ is both fully human and fully divine, so is the Bible both fully human and fully divine. How, though, is this inspiration different from the inspiration given to a pastor preaching a sermon on a given Sunday?

Here's the basic argument from my friend. We say that God inspired Scripture but we also say that God inspires preachers to preach Scripture. After preaching a sermon, a congregant can come to the pastor and say, "You were really inspired today. What you said about the hypostatic union was right on. But, what you said here was incorrect." The pastor could listen to this comment and upon studying his alleged error find that he truly is incorrect. How is it that a person can be inspired to deliver a message, and while the core of the message is good, still error therein? Why is this not also the case with the inspiration of Scripture? If Scripture is fully human as well as divine, can it not err? And do we not then run the possibility of constructing our theology upon the errors rather than the truths?

Upon investigating the clear development within both the Old and the New Testament my friend has also been left to say that much of what is recorded in the Old Testament is man's inability to correctly understand the workings of God. Does the Old Testament give us a completely distorted view of God because of the conceptual categories which the ancients were drawing from? James Dunn argues that it is quite likely that Paul potentially had semi-Arian views pertaining to Christ. Is it okay for Paul's Christology to be incomplete, and if so, is it not possible that much of what he says is in fact incomplete?

The result for my friend is placing his trust in a theological dialectic: what the Church has said throughout the ages is most trustworthy. There is certainly a true tension which exists here, one which I'm not entirely sure what to do with. I do find that the best appropriation of Scripture is seen through the eyes of Church Tradition. But important to this discussion is the value the Bible loses when large portions of the text can be seen as irrelevant and the result of man's incapacities.

So what do you think? How are we to understand the inspiration of Scripture?

A Call to Reform?

2006-02-02T21:40:00.000-05:00

This is a "Focus Paper" for Church History II. It's another one of those assignments where you have to "fall off the log" and make statements that you may not fully agree with. Nonetheless, there is a lot in here that I like.

It is undoubtedly true that the Protestant principle which Paul Tillich speaks of is indeed a pervasive reality. Since the time of the Reformation Protestants have appealed to both Scripture and conscience almost exclusively in determining what is to constitute the Christian faith. The result is thousands of fractured, autonomous sects declaring themselves to teach the truth based solely upon Scripture and individual convictions. The damage accrued is not irreparable but requires a renewed adherence to the historical Christian narrative in order to rediscover the truths that lay at the center of Christian orthodoxy. As unfriendly as it sounds to the often myopic Protestant ear, a system of councils is preferable to the inherent dangers of the Protestant principle.

One of the central problems facing Protestant biblical interpretation is that of the locus of authority. Protestants have rejected the type of ecclesiastical authority represented by Roman Catholicism. This has resulted in a vacuum where periodically an individual will arise and determine his/her interpretation to encapsulate real Christian truth. Dissensions carry weight when there is no authority to appeal to beyond personal interpretations of the Bible. While certain levels of ecclesiastical authority remain (i.e. denominational boards) there is no central and unifying authority for Protestant Christians. This poses a problem without precedence considering historically the Church has appealed to its leaders to identify orthodoxy.

While the possibility of complete ecumenical unity is perhaps infeasible, if the Protestant Church desires to eradicate schism it may need to consider an ecclesiastical reform which would bring Protestantism into greater continuity with the Church structure of Roman Catholicism. Many of the doctrines central to the Christian faith were debated and agreed upon by Church councils in the Patristic period. The bishopry was best suited to handle matters of theology and was balanced by the number of bishops who contributed to debate. Theologians from the West and the East conjoined to participate in the development of the most monumental decisions in Christian history. In many ways we owe the orthodox interpretation of Scripture to the ecclesiastical structure of early Christianity.

The ecclesiology of the Patristic period is not immune from corruption. The gradual development of papal authority, while by no means inherently evil, leaves itself open to the abuse of power. When final authority is predominantly placed in leaders, a hierarchy forms in which the followers become victim to intentional deception. However, such structure is by no means a guarantee for eventual corruption and such an argument is not terrible effective. If Church authority remains in the univocal consensus of hundreds of Church leaders the danger of exploitation becomes significantly minimized. More concerns arise when final authority is placed in a single man. Most Protestants would use this concern as a critique of the Roman papacy without realizing that inherent within the Protestant principle is the placement of authority within individual men.

The ecclesiology that best preserves the integrity of the Christian community is one which finds consistency with the Patristic period. If the Protestant Church endeavors to eliminate useless schism and endless debate it would do well to seek to reform its own ecclesiastical structure. In reality, that which began as a call to reform has become a mandate for division.

Revision: Introduction to First Series Ever

2006-01-30T20:05:00.000-05:00

It's a monumental moment for the history of The Orthodoctor. I am beginning, for the first time, a three part series entitled, "Why Mainstream Evangelicalism has the Power and the Potential to Become One of the Most Dangerous Heretical Sects in Christian History." It's a long title, but one with a punch. Essentially, I am going to briefly evaluate mainstream evangelicalism based upon the Protestant marks of the Church; 1) the preaching of the pure Word of God, 2) due administration of the sacraments, 3) the community rightly ordered. The three posts will be divided into these three categories. So, put on your theology caps and let's get underway as your input will be greatly appreciated.

After careful consideration I have decided to forego this series for the moment. I have decided that my initial intent was designed in such a way as to invite vast and varied misinterpretations and therefore unintended negative repercussions. Perhaps I will make some changes and return; probably not. Instead, I have some other ideas floating in my head. Bear with me, as I hope to articulate them soon.

Amazing Grace

2006-01-22T16:13:00.000-05:00

Last week I read a book entitled "Honor, Patronage, Kingship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture," by David A. deSilva. He discusses at length the social-context of the word grace as well as the importance of honor, kinship, and purity in the first century culture. The book is incredibly accessible and readable yet is powerfully academic and provides much needed insight into the usage of grace in the New Testament.

We tend to think of the word grace as being a uniquely religious word. When we speak of grace it virtually always has overt religious overtones. But in the first century, and for the writers of the New Testament, grace was not primarily a religious word. In fact, grace was a word that was used in everyday life and one which found its most important significance for us in the system of patronage and reciprocity. A patron was a person who provided gifts to a client. Usually, but not always, a client was a person who did not have access to the means which the patron did. At times the client would seek a patron for help financially, other times a client would seek a patron in order to communicate with an even greater patron. The patron in between would act as a mediator between his client and the greater patron.

There were certain societal rules that dictated how the patron-client relationship operated. While there weren’t any legal ramifications for breaking these rules, there certainly were social consequences. Many ancient philosophers discussed in length how such a relationship was to be conducted. It is within this relationship that we find the usage of the word grace. A patron was to give a gift without expecting anything in return. The gift was to be given solely for the benefit of the client. If the patron gave with ulterior motives he gave dishonorable. Showing such generosity meant the patron was showing grace. He gave grace to a client. The client was expected to receive the gift, or grace, and respond in gratitude. This gratitude was called grace. The patron gave grace and the client who received this grace was expected to return grace to the patron. Of course, the return of grace would be different than the gift from the patron himself. The client was expected to spread the name and honor of the patron and also seek to repay the patron in whatever manner possible. An honorable patron would “forget” that he had given a gift and the client was to never forget, always knowing that he would never be able to repay the gift of grace from the patron.

If the client did not show gratitude he was deemed an ingrate and this was something to be greatly avoided in that culture which operated by means of honor and shame. It also meant that the client may have difficulty developing a relationship with a future patron. Patrons were advised by the philosophers to avoid entering a relationship with a client who had a history of ingratitude. The philosopher Seneca wrote, “Ingratitude is something to be avoided in itself because there is nothing that so effectually disrupts and destroys the harmony of the human race as this vice. For how else do we live in security if it is not that we help each other by an exchange of good offices? It is only through the interchange of benefits that life becomes in some measure equipped and fortified against sudden disasters. Take us singly, and what are we? The prey of all creatures.”

The New Testament authors use grace in such a way as to view God as our patron, and we as his clients. Grace, for the New Testament authors, does not operate differently than in the patron-client relationship, but rather it differs in degree and quality. God’s grace is wholly grander than any earthly patron could ever give. As clients, we are expected to return grace for grace.

Layman, pastor, professor, or student, all should read this book. Seriously, go buy it right now.

So what do you think? How does the social-context of grace illuminate the manner in which the New Testament authors used and understood the concept?
Is there any connection in our current doctrines of grace that resemble this context?
In what ways has the development of the doctrine of grace been beneficial or perhaps erroneous?

The Semester Ahead

2006-01-20T18:52:00.000-05:00

The new semester has begun and my schedule has quickly been filled with reading, writing, and research. Fortunately, some of my classes are arranged in such a manner as to allow me to spend a great deal of time reading primary source texts. Here's what's on my plate this coming semester.

Getting better acquainted with Augustine

I am currently taking a class entitled "The Life and Legacy of Augustine of Hippo." The class is taught by the academically austere Dr. Chris Bounds and has already allowed me to get to know Augustine's theological mind as it pertains to both Confessions and his Treatise on Faith and the Creed. I am especially excited about the research I will be doing as it pertains to Augustine's doctrine of grace. The work of Augustine is so foundational for the Western Church and his insight in this specific area will greatly aid the larger research project that I am undertaking.

Beginning research for my Honors College thesis

I met with Dr. Bounds today to begin create a plan for how I will be conducting my research for my thesis. Essentially, the thesis will seek to develop an articulated doctrine of grace. I will be investigating the doctrine of grace in the Ante-Nicene Fathers as well as John Wesley. My research will be compared and contrasted with the Wesleyan Church's current doctrine of grace in order to illuminate a more theologically correct doctrine not only for the Wesleyan Church, but hopefully ecumenically as well. This is no small task and there is very little secondary source material on the subject.

Learning to be a better student of the Bible

I have taken many classes designed to improve my knowledge of interpreting the biblical text, yet I have found that I often sacrifice reading the text itself for a milieu of other books which occupy the shelves of my library. While I am anxious to crack open some books I received for Christmas (namely books by Richard Hays, John Milbank, and Reinhold Niebuhr), I have realized the deep need to be more immersed in the pages of the Bible. I can know the tools of interpretation but if I am not familiar with that which I am interpreting I will most assuredly be a horrible exegete.

Grow a sweet beard

I am currently in the process of beginning to grow a beard. It is coming along nicely and should provide some extra insulation should the snow ever return. Nonetheless, I figure if I hope to be a serious theologian I had better be sportin' the beard. Well, at least as long as my wife lets me.

So please stop by frequently as I hope to continue my theological journey with your most cherished input.

Happy New Years!

2006-01-01T19:22:00.000-05:00

Some pics from New Years eve. Yes, that's right, we spooned.

Merry Christmas

2005-12-25T17:52:00.000-05:00

To What Shall We Appeal?

2005-12-16T14:57:00.000-05:00

Protestantism has a problem with schism. The denominational fractures that dominate American Protestantism stem in large part from a critical issue: who has authority.

Ever since Martin Luther coined the phrase sola scriptura Protestants have jubilantly touted this ideology as if they truly espouse it. One wonders, if all Protestants base their beliefs on the Bible alone, why there is so many differing viewpoints and opinions on matters of theology and biblical interpretation? The reality is that no one truly uses the principle of sola scriptura. Why? In large part it represents an impossibility. Every person who attempts to interpret Scripture does so through a preconceived interpretive lens. Our cultural categories inevitably find their way into our theology (as evidenced with Hodge's insistence on penal substitutionary atonement as well as Anselm's satisfaction model), as well as various other paradigms from which we interpret Scripture. Never is one able to approach the Bible without additional frameworks influencing the manner in which one interprets the Bible.

The question becomes who or what speaks authoritatively on biblical interpretation? Is it the scholar? Your local pastor? Is it James Dobson and his politically polarized contemporaries? Who determines whether five-point Calvinism or Arminianism is correct? Are they mutually exclusive?

Inquiries such as this become even more daunting when one begins to interpret the trajectory of doctrinal development. Why do we trust the doctrine of the Trinity when it is extremely undeveloped in the biblical witnesses? Can we rely upon the creed of Nicea as true Christian orthodoxy? How can we validate the orthodox statements of Chalcedon when such statements find no exposition in the biblical text? What do we do with doctrines crucial to the Christian faith but are unclear in Scripture?

I have my own suggestions, but what do you think? Where does authority rest for you? Please do not flippantly say, "Well the Bible is my authority." That is to side-step the question. Perhaps the question should be phrased: on what authority do you determine what is an accurate interpretation of Scripture? For many Protestants they have become their own little Popes (although the Roman Catholic Pope is often a much better exegete), declaring their personal interpretation to be authoritative and anything that questions their myopic view is infringing upon their equally valid understanding. But is it equally valid? So, again I ask, who or what determines correct biblical interpretation? The way you answer this question defines what you believe and how you communicate the Gospel narrative. Do not treat it lightly.

The Man's Name is "Intelligence"

2005-12-14T12:39:00.000-05:00

One of my professors somehow finds the time to blog regularly. He daily produces publishable articles yet he is able to complete various other tasks. The man has enough brain power to cover five people. Anyway, considering finals are over and I am being lazy right now, I decided to post a link to his latest blog. I was reading it yesterday and it's really quite good. Check it out.

Indeed, Romans 9-11 are far more about Israel and the Gentiles than about individuals. More than anything else, the question Paul is asking is why the vast majority of Israel has not accepted Christ as the Messiah. His discussion is not an abstract philosophical discourse on the fate of individuals in the sovereign will of God. The question is why the overwhelming majority of Jews in the world have not accepted the good news.

A Jewel from First Semester

2005-12-13T19:57:00.000-05:00

Finals are over! Here is my final exegesis paper that I handed in yesterday. I'm not nearly as pleased with this as the last, but do read and leave some comments.

John 18:4-9

The Christmas "War"

2005-12-09T11:15:00.000-05:00

While I am heartily encouraging the ongoing discussion of my previous post, I would like to direct your attention to a very relevant blog composed by Nathan Hart. Feel free to leave comments here as I would be interested in hearing what conversation this blog may generate.

And my original thoughts will return soon but considering that finals are almost here I am finding it easier to direct your curiosity to some great thinkers.

Oh, I also am putting a link to a Jon Stewart commentary on this whole issue. It's on Nate's site but in case you missed it check it out.
(Click on "Secular Central")

Very Good Review of "Revolution"

2005-12-07T01:24:00.000-05:00

I know this is long, but it's worth it. This was put together by some of my professors.

December 5, 2005

Students and friends,

Often in our classrooms we recommend book-lists which will enable you to grow on your own, apart from us as professors. This time we would like to take a moment and recommend a “NOT-list.” The first book we will bring to you is the newly released, Revolution, by the skilled-pollster (and amateur theologian) George Barna. Overall, this book is a critique (make that a full-body slam) of the church’s inability to impact the American culture in a positive (i.e., redemptive) manner. Thus, in this book he notes that due to the church’s lack of being an impact player, God must be calling His people outside of the church to utilize their gifts and serve the Lord. Barna now calls these Christians who no longer center their lives around Church “Revolutionaries” and believes they (his count of 20 million of them and growing) are the real future of the manifested body of Christ on earth. Barna also joyously admits that he is now one of them as well.

First, from a biblical standpoint, this text would fail any and all of our exegesis classes. He claims to have studied the scriptures on the subject but there is a glaring lack of any serious reference to what the biblical pattern for the church really involves. It is a wholly invalid process to critique what the church is NOT until he establishes a biblical baseline for what the church IS! This effort, to be of value, must begin with a clear and precise ecclesiology; stating what the Church is, not what Mr. Barna wants it to accomplish.

His practice is to silence the opinions of others with out-of-context proof-texts. Barna (mis)uses God’s Words to Peter, “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.” This reference specifically calls Peter to welcome Gentiles into the Church. In no way does it justify one to jettison the church in a wholesale manner or even to re-invent “Church” according to a new paradigm. Moreover, Barna simplifies (trivializes?) the church to be a series of quotes from the Book of Acts. Interestingly, Barna describes his understanding of the church from passages in Acts 2, 4, and 5. But it is worth noting that at that point the Gospel has not even been proclaimed to the Samaritans, God-fearers, or the gentiles. The true nature of servant-hood, forgiveness, and grace has yet to be encountered. Finally, loosely based upon these scriptures, Barna describes the attributes he finds in the early church (what he calls “seven core passions”, pp. 22-25). These are so resoundingly modern in their orientation that they would be unrecognizable to the apostles. Further, Barna writes, “This mission demands single-minded commitment and a disregard for the criticisms of those who lack the same dedication to the cause of Christ. [Can you hear the spiritual arrogance?] You answer to only one Commander-in-Chief, and only you will give an explanation for your choices.” (p. 27). Friends, there is no place in scripture which permits a Christian to function as a lone-ranger apart from the Body. We are called into fellowship not out of it. As I see it, Revolution is essentially autobiographical, not biblical. Barna’s approach is purely phenomenological; the fact that something is happening becomes its own validation. My suggestion to Mr. Barna; this book should have been co-written with a team of scholars who would join together with to utilize Barna’s sociological strength of reporting trends of culture and opinions of society; not interpreting scriptures and evaluating the church’s ability to meet his self-selected criterion for success. But that is the nature of what Barna is calling the future church to look like, not a unified Body but individuals working disconnected from one another and from the “head.”

Second, from a theological perspective, the ecclesiology espoused by Barna is plagued with problems. While Barna declares himself a “revolutionary,” espousing an innovative way of discipleship beyond the local church, he deludes himself. His ecclesiology, with a myopic preoccupation upon individual discipleship and a personal relationship with Christ, simply follows to its logical conclusion a shallow Americanized model of the Church, dominant in contemporary evangelicalism. Ironically, Barna’s stated doctrine of the Church is a product of the evangelical churches he critiques, both of which misunderstand the fundamental nature of the Church, distort the doctrine of grace and the means of grace, and ultimately succumb to Pelegian pragmaticism. As such, his book not only exposes his own inadequate ecclesiology, but highlights the deficiencies of many contemporary evangelical models of the Church.

Fundamentally, Barna sees the Church, the Body of Christ, exclusively as a mystical, spiritual community of “revolutionaries” without any direct relationship to the local church. The Church is a community that Christians spiritually join when they decide to follow Jesus, rather than one into which they are incorporated concretely through baptism and local church discipline. However, membership in the Church, the Body of Christ, is problematic without relationship to the local church. Why? Because as the Reformed, Lutheran, and Wesleyan forms of Protestantism have consistently recognized, along with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, the Church is the primary means of God’s saving grace and the Church is expressed concretely in local churches. Local churches are the means by which God’s saving grace in Christ Jesus given to the Church is made available to humanity. Through the preaching of the Word, the due administration of the sacraments, and the community rightly ordered (the marks of the Church), saving, confirming and sanctifying grace is communicated to people. For people to isolate themselves from hearing the scriptures read and the Word of God proclaimed in community, from participation in the sacraments of the Church, and from submitting themselves to the discipline, order and life of the local church is to cut themselves off from the primary means of God’s grace. As such, while a generation of “revolutionaries” may be able to sustain themselves for a period of time, grace capable of sustaining and nourishing Barna’s “revolutionaries” for the long haul, much less succeeding generations, will prove difficult, if not impossible.

In the end, Barna surrenders the biblically and theologically prudent understanding of the Church for an expedient model that ultimately cannot birth, nourish and sustain believers. Dangerously, Barna’s ecclesiology has more in common with the Donatist movement in the third century and Pelegianism in the fifth century than it does in orthodox Christian theology. While these movements flourished in the moment, having great spiritual zeal and fervor, they could not be sustained, and their followers in subsequent generations were left without access to the means of God’s saving and sustaining grace found in the Church.

Finally, from a practical effect (especially among younger people) is to encourage them to drop out of church attendance and practice a do-it-yourself religion. Among ministerial students it encourages them to seek other more exciting venues for their ministry instead of the old fashioned local church. To the laity it legitimizes dropping out of church and going golfing—just so long as they go on a mission’s trip with a Para church organization occasionally and have a neighbor Bible study with a few friends on Tuesday evenings so they can skip church and go golfing on Sunday mornings. The practical effect of the book is to elevate lone ranger religion to which the local church (and obviously districts and denominations) are totally irrelevant.
In pondering this book, it seems to only have come from the pen (laptop?) of a frustrated “boomer.” Moreover, his focus is so modern, western, and individualistic in orientation that it has lost all connections with the biblical times or text. Moreover, it s not global in focus, making it an American Christianity issue, not Kingdom. This is a call to selfish, self-centered Christians who want what they want, want it now, and are not willing to submit to one another. It’s a call to men (predominantly, Eldredge “Wild at Heart” types) who need adventure and an instant-spiritual-gratification spirituality. Faith, forgiveness, perseverance, and body-submission are no where to be seen. Life is measured by pure performance rather than biblical faithfulness.

This is a dangerous book scripturally, theologically and practically—which is why it may be a popular book. Encouraging our people to buy it would be like promoting a book that celebrated pre-marital sex and extra-marital affairs as the wave of the future. People do not need encouragement toward such behaviors. What this book promotes if far more serious than pre-marital or extra-marital sex: it is a dangerous book.

Jointly composed and sincerely Church-men,
Chris Bounds
Keith Drury
David Smith

What do you think?

2005-12-06T00:22:00.000-05:00

Anyone interested in discussing this recent post with those of the thinkchristian.com community may do so here. Thanks to Nate Hart for fostering further discussion.

Pastors are People Too

2005-12-03T14:26:00.000-05:00

Kevin Wright posted a provocative article on his blog. It discusses the issue of Wesleyan pastors who find no help from the larger Wesleyan polity in the matter of health insurance. This is a serious issue and I would encourage you to lend support and ideas as to how it may be resolved. As it pertains to my prior post, Kevin is the type of theologian who seeks a greater depth of understanding and he uses it in practical ways like this.

Communication is Key

2005-12-03T13:33:00.000-05:00

Despite the fact that this is the most hectic time of the semester, I have been doing a lot of thinking and reading that does not necessarily pertain to my classwork. As a result, I have come to the conclusion that American Christianity is largely ineffective due to its inability to communicate the biblical narrative. The reason that we find ourselves unable to communicate the message is because we really don't understand it.

There are many in our local churches who have a vast array of knowledge of biblical topics and biblical passages that "address" certain situations or theological matters. However, even among those who have "good bible knowledge" there is clear sense that they do not understand what it is they know. Any basic Christian can state, "We are saved by faith, through the grace of God, by the work of Jesus Christ." Yet very few (including the clergy) would be able to explain what is meant by this theologically loaded statement.

How many could explain the vast scope of salvation and all that redemption entails? How many could explain what is meant by "faith" and what exactly this "faith" is? How do ascertain "faith" and how does "faith" operate? How many could explain what grace is, and how it is communicated? How many could explain how the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus accomplishes the act of redemption and how we are to understand the atonement?

My fear is that not many, whether it be laity or clergy, would be able to explain these vastly important realities. I am not supposing that we require an absolute understanding of all that the Christian narrative purports, but if we do not possess a greater understanding of the meaning behind the truths we proclaim we will continue to be unintelligible to the persons around us.

Salvation has become to us, "Convert the hordes and get as many into heaven as possible!" Many have become disillusioned and confused because after they have been "saved" the reality that they do not understand what they believe becomes a tiresome burden. I have found that our misunderstanding has conceived in us an understanding of the biblical text that is at many times nothing less than a grand distortion. Academics twist my paradigms because the American church has not offered much beyond, "Jesus loves you. Get saved!" We are a community of confusion, confessing the right things but having virtually no understanding of what we actually mean.

The solution is that we respond to the demand of Jesus found often in John's Gospel. In John's Gospel (see previous post) we find Jesus repeatedly calling his people to a deeper understanding about both his identity and his mission. Faith built upon an erroneous foundation is presented as unacceptable in John's Gospel. For us, perhaps it means that we put aside Max Lucado for a volume of systematic theology by Thomas Oden. Or perhaps we need to close the pages of an Erwin McManus book and read the Apologies of Justin Martyr. Perhaps we should lay down Joel Osteen and John Elderidge and pick up the rich writings of Athanasius. For if we do not seek to understand what we believe those who are not part of the Christian community will never seek to become part.

My memo to my readers

2005-11-29T13:46:00.000-05:00

This is my official notice that my blogs may be few and far between in the next couple of weeks. There is a mere two weeks remaining in the semester and therefore I have a horrific plethora of tasks to complete. They will be enjoyable but unbelievably time-consuming. Therefore, mainly I will post some of the projects I am working on. Stop in periodically to see if anything catches your fancy. Christmas is in sight!

Books, Books, Books

2005-11-17T12:32:00.000-05:00

Okay, I know this is not an academically loaded post, but I thought with my birthday coming up (Nov. 25), and Christmas will no doubt be here soon, that I might post a link to a registry I have created at Christianbook.com. That's right, I have a registry for books. Anyone who wants to increase my library can do so at my registry. I welcome any suggestions for additional books that I should place on my registry. And have I told you lately how much I love you? That's right I do.

(By the way, does anyone know if it's illegal to put that banner on my blog? If it is, please say so.)

It's that time of the year...

2005-11-16T20:13:00.000-05:00

It's that time of the year where your brain is a pile of mush and cramming anymore information into it is a virtual impossibility. Therefore, I am wasting my time on things like the following. Nonetheless, blogs that actually matter will return soon...I promise.

Numenorean

To which race of Middle Earth do you belong?
brought to you by Quizilla

Graceful? Dignified? Tragic? Sure, I can see that.

Not as cool as I thought it'd be

2005-11-15T21:24:00.000-05:00

I originally saw this on Sniper's blog. I thought it was cool until I got the very same answer as he did...now I'm skeptical. Did they make me waste my time?

The Movie Of Your Life Is A Cult Classic

Quirky, offbeat, and even a little campy - your life appeals to a select few.
But if someone's obsessed with you, look out! Your fans are downright freaky.

Your best movie matches: Office Space, Showgirls, The Big Lebowski

If Your Life Was a Movie, What Genre Would It Be?

I needed this

2005-11-15T11:41:00.000-05:00

This is humorous link that I discovered on a friend's blog. It was a nice comedic relief from my current world. Enjoy.

What a great kid.

After I posted the above link I found another gem from another blog. This one is great. I love the look on the guy's face.

Pitch his tents.

Yes, I'm human too

2005-11-13T03:27:00.000-05:00

It's saturday night, and I just got back home from spending some time with the fellas. So of course, I have decided to blog.

I don't usually like posting about my "feelings" or emotional type stuff, but I am going to break normalcy and be perfectly honest: I am an emotional mess.

Tonight I watched Fight Club. If you've never seen the movie you won't understand, but I feel as if I need hours upon which to contemplate. If you have seen the movie you probably 1) thought it was terribly "un-Christian"; 2) wanted to fight people; or 3) actually realized the depth and meaning of the film. I would be in category three, although I'm still trying to sort out what the entire film entails. Mix this deeply philosophical film with my current emotions and you have me being in an unbelievably indescribable state of mind.

So what am I feeling? Confused. Life is unusual, as if we go through it wanting, believing, having more, but still we are restless. What does writing this really even mean to me? Or to you? Why do you read this, why do I write it?

It's amazing how I can be so apathetic yet feel so much. I know the two are mutually exclusive. I don't care, it's what describes me best.

Most people don't know I'm going through many personal struggles right now. I have been intentional about not proclaiming this fact but now that I have put it out where all the public can see I've decided to leave it at that and not describe the struggles. Nonetheless, life is...difficult?...I don't think that's really the best word to describe it. Life is...life is like Fight Club. I am Tyler Durden. In many ways that I don't even understand. And I'm not him in many ways. But tonight, Tyler Durden and I share at least unfulfillment. It's true. I am unfulfilled. And I don't mean situationally unfulfilled. I don't mean a sense of "roller-coaster" unfulfillment. I mean...I feel unfulfilled...yet I feel fulfilled. Which is why I don't trust my feelings right now; they make no sense.

I am Tyler Durden. Tonight. Tomorrow, maybe I'll be someone else. Or maybe I'll just want to be.

Communion: Sacrament or Ordinance?

2005-11-11T13:15:00.000-05:00

Here is another delicious product of academia. This is a paper I wrote for my Church Rituals class on the sacramental nature of the eucharist. Essentially the paper illustrates the reasons why I believe in the traditional view of the eucharist which holds it as a high sacrament. Again, post any comments, questions, or thoughts you have regarding the paper. And I guarantee you that "personal opinions" will not sway me from 2000 years of orthodox teaching. If you want me to confess the eucharist as an ordinance you'll have to do better than that. :)

Communion: Sacrament or Ordinance?

Exegesis of John 6:67-71

2005-11-11T13:11:00.000-05:00

I am posting an exegesis paper that I recently completed. It was a long and arduous process but I am moderately pleased with the final result. Let's hear your thoughts; at what points do you agree or disagree with my conclusions? How does this passage fit into the larger context of John? How does this affect our Johannine theology? Leave comments questions, answers, whatever you feel appropriate.

Exegesis of John 6:67-71

Brief Chat on Atonement

2005-11-11T02:22:00.000-05:00

I'm currently reading a book entitled "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross," by Joel Green and Mark Baker. A central thesis of the book is examining the commonly held view of atonement in modern western Christianity; that is of substitutionary nature. In what manner can we speak of the cross in substitutionary terms and has our culture and legal structure influenced our atonement theology burying a more accurate view of the atonement?

The authors argue that in Pauline thought the salvific event is presented largely in terms of reconciliation. This reconciliation, which is brought about by the death and resurrection of Christ, extends not just to reconciling humanity to God but also humanity to one another and the kosmos to God as well. While Paul presents his arguments in various metaphors depending largely upon the audience to which he writes, this emphasis on reconciliation carries with it a clear theme: humanity needs to be reconciled to God but God need not be reconciled to humanity. It is not that God is estranged from humanity but rather we are estranged from God. The death and resurrection thereby bring about this reconciliation.

In Galatians Paul's atonement theology is more focused on the inclusion of all peoples considering the death of Christ. Restoration of relationship to God is not due to biological descendance but rather is achieved by Jesus' death. In this way Paul attacks the idea that the Gentile converts need to conform to the regulations of the Judaizers.

The authors see in Paul a focus on the restoration of relationships. In Israel's Scriptures a formidable medium for restoration was sacrifice. In other words, there is not a sense of the need for the appeasement of God. God is not estranged from us therefore he need not be appeased. This is distinctly foreign from our common elaboration of atonement as Jesus dying to appease the wrath of God.

I have a fair amount of reading left to do in the book but thus far the book has been helpful in articulating just what I believe theologically concerning the atonement. So what do you think? Do you agree with the author's understanding? What questions do you have? How does this affect your atonement paradigm? Why is this important (or why not)?

Eschatology Awry

2005-10-15T16:43:00.000-05:00

Bono said in a recent interview that the way to dismantle an atomic bomb is with love. Upon hearing this comment my mind did a marathon through various topics until it landed upon the issue of eschatology.

If I understand the New Testament correctly, love seems to be the overarching principle. Love is the fulfillment of the law and the two greatest commandments are to "love the Lord your God...and to love your neighbor as your self." The first century messianic expectation of many of the Jews was that the messiah would be militaristic and would overthrow the rule of Rome, reestablishing Israel as the ruling kingdom. Amidst this setting Jesus arrives and creates a new paradigm for understanding the messianic mission. It is with Jesus that the principle of love is categorically viewed as the highest ethic. Love encompasses Jesus' mission.

The Jews expected militaristic conquest; Jesus did not provide that. What seems ironic to me is the popular eschatological view of Tim LaHaye which is characterized by militaristic action. Am I the only one who sees this as anti-thetical to the ethics of Jesus? I am not pressuming that Jesus was a die-hard pacifist (that would serve for an entirely different study in itself), rather I wonder if a LaHaye eschatology is shaped more by secular influences than biblical ones. It is no mystery that I view this type of eschatology with some contempt (although more on the grounds of faulty biblical interpretation). But the question still remains; upon what basis do we derive our eschatological views?

While there is no firm Tradition from whence to defend a certain view of the eschaton, there certainly are better interpretations based in the principles of biblical exegesis. I tend to see the Church as having a more central role in history. The Church is not merely a safehouse for those who will be "raptured" before the tribulation, rather the Church is infused with the mission of simultaneously spreading the Gospel and building disciples (I am one who does not even believe in the rapture of the Church based upon the biblical evidence). Perhaps Christ will not return until the Church has completed her mission. If that is the case we may want to spend less time preparing for the "rapture" and more time actively participating in the mission of the Church.

Jesus did not conquer the way we think of conquest. And if the book of Revelation is already primarily fulfilled maybe we should eliminate this obsession with the misleading eschatology of the Left Behind authors. The Church does not need any more Montanus', Joachim d' Fiore's, or Hal Lindsey's.

Friday cometh...

2005-09-30T19:52:00.000-05:00

It is Friday and I need it. I was up at six this morning to get ready for the President's Prayer breakfast. It was early, but man did I look good in my suit and tie. Sometimes you just have to praise God for even things as simple as Friday. Praise Him.

Hated or Loved by the State?

2005-09-25T21:33:00.000-05:00

This is a brief paper I wrote for my Church History I class. The assignment was to evaluate whether it would be better for Christianity to be persecuted by the state and opposed by prevailing culture OR to be accepted by the prevailing culture and given special priveleges by the government. We were forced to "fall off the log" and take a position, so I took one which I thought the majority of my class would disagree with. I don't truly know my concrete position on this issue but enjoyed the rhetoric I employed nonetheless. Enjoy.

Tertullian is quoted as saying that, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Tertullian is no doubt correct, for the persecution that the Early Church endured allowed it to flourish at an alarming pace. Yet Tertullian is also correct when he states that this type of persecution is the "seed of the church." What is brought forth from persecution is an environment which is less physically hostile to Christianity and even has the ability to aid the Christian effort. If the Church continued to endure a state of persecution it would remain merely a seed and never reach the full glory which God has destined for His people. The Church cannot exist in a perpetual state of persecution and therefore the Church is more effectual when the prevailing culture accepts it.

Clearly a persecuted Church has its advantages. The reality is that intense persecution often develops deeply entrenched faith. There is no room for indecision when one is faced with either denying his Lord or being torn apart by wild animals. The lines become clearly drawn: either you are on the side of light or the side of darkness. Due to the faithfulness of thousands of Christians facing death throughout the centuries many have beheld the power of God and been converted by such testimony. Where the Church is persecuted, it also flourishes.
Yet certainly a Church which is consistently persecuted runs the risk of extinction. Perhaps the reason this has never been a threat is because as the Church increases under persecution it eventually becomes quantitatively powerful. Cultural tolerance therefore appears to be the inevitable outcome following intense persecution. Eventually the Church becomes just too numerous to be violently opposed!

If cultural acceptance is the natural outflow of persecution then this result must have its benefits. The people no longer have to fear physical threats. A Church accepted can use its influence to transform a secular culture. Yet unfortunately there is a greater possibility for corruption and abuse. A person not faced with the pressure of denying Christ or accepting death is able to be less concerned about ethical matters and faithfulness because there is no immediate risk of martyrdom.

Ultimately, persecution is only able to remain temporary and therefore we must look to an accepted Church as the preferable option of the two. While the venality of the Church is therefore magnified this is by no means a sovereign decree that corruption will eventually seep into the Church. God has chosen to use the Church as His primary method for both the proclamation of the Gospel and the maturation of believers. Is it not reasonable to conclude that God is not going to allow His Church to be extinguished? If the Church falls to the deception of power God will remedy the situation. The Reformation is a clear historical event which points us to this reality. While the finer points of the Reformation are debatable, it is evident that God used Martin Luther to begin a cleansing of corruption from the Lord’s Bride.

Rather than focusing on the plausibility of extortion becoming a reality within the Church, it would do well to note that when the Church is related to the governing powers it has the ability to spread its influence through a wider variety of mediums. The Church Father Cyril used his position to politik in favor of orthodox theology and influenced the christological direction that the Church underwent. Persecution aids in weeding out the lukewarm but ultimately gives way to an ecclesiological formation that is accepted by the prevailing culture. The goal should not be to bring persecution in order to inspire devotion but rather to properly use the authority and relations which the Church maintains in a culture which is, at the very least, tolerating.

So sorry!

2005-09-07T00:18:00.000-05:00

For all of you who faithfully read my blog (yes, all...three, four?) I will not be posting until September the 15th. Currently Jen and I are in the process of moving into our apartment and our internet service will not be activated until the 15th. But don't worry, I will return soon! I miss blogging already...

Christianeze

2005-08-31T13:17:00.000-05:00

I don't think I want to mimic the way many pastors speak. This past Sunday as I sat in the service I began to think about the language which pastors are expected to use. "God is working in this church." "This series is going to be life-transforming (whatever that means)." "I believe God is going to transform our society."

I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with this type of language (although perhaps there are some theological misgivings). Most of it is probably true. But as I have been exposed to different parts of ministry I am beginning to realize that I do not want to speak like the typical pastor. It is as if there is a certain role which the pastor must fit in most churches. There is a theological role, a terminology role, an appearance role. Again, it is not that the demands on these roles are necessarily awry, but sometimes I feel as if pastors know what it is people want them to be and they become it.

To be quite honest as I listened to the introductory comments by the pastor this past Sunday and I began to think about these things I could not determine exactly what it was that I disliked. I also found no substitute terminology. I suppose one thing I realized is that I could have put this pastor in a number of churches across the nation and heard the very same sort of statements. Is that good or bad? Universality is a good thing but would it be more appropriate to label this sort of thing uniformity? Conformity?

Many pastors I have met speak differently when they are in front of a congregation than when they are speaking one-on-one with a person. Obviously there is a differentiation that will occur between an individual and a body of believers but sometimes pastoral communication via Sunday morning services seems so generic.

I do not intend this to be a broad generalization of all pastors. In fact, there are probably more who do not fit this description. Pastors have a difficult calling, no doubt, as I have experienced and will continue to experience. It will take more analyzation to determine what exactly it is that spurned these cognitive wheels regarding pastoral language. As for now, I want to be a pastor who speaks strangely. And by strangely I do mean something different than what I just described. And by something different than what I just described I mean...

Quote of the day

2005-08-30T18:41:00.000-05:00

"as far as john wesley goes, i have no need to read the works of a man that is
theologically lacking. i would much rather read guys like john owen, johnathan
edwards, and thomas a' kempis"

I thought my Wesleyan friends would find this, at the very least, quite insulting. It comes from a person on a message board. Irritating? Yes.

What say ye?

2005-08-26T17:02:00.000-05:00

It is simply one of those days. You know the type I mean. Thoughts are swirling in your head, emotions you didn't know you have dancing through you and intersecting in a massize eight lane highway pile up. One of those days where you read John Wesley and wonder, "It sounds nice. I just don't see it ever happening in me." One of those days where you have three different options to choose and indecision becomes the deciding factor (that and the lack of a reliable vehicle). One of those days where you wish you could be more than one person yet you are unable to even understand one of you much less multiple. One of those days where confusion reigns supreme.

You ever have a day like this? I finished reading Blue Like Jazz yesterday and wanted to weep. I wanted to weep because I don't weep when I read the Gospels. I wanted to weep because I don't weep when someone asks me about Jesus. I'm not saying I want to be an overly emotional spring that bubbles with tears at the mention of teddy bears, but there are certainly times when I wonder why my heart seems so cold. Why is it I yearn for knowledge, I yearn for understanding, and yet I neglect to question the emotional apathy that resides within all too often?

I suppose I will be brutally honest. I feel as if I am impersonal with my personal God. I had a turtle once. I loved that turtle. I talked to her and took her on walks down the block. I remember that turtle, but I haven't seen her for a number of years now. Sometimes I feel that way about Jesus. I remember meeting Him. I remember the euphoria, sort of. I know a lot about Him, but it's been a while since He and I had a good one-on-one.

I've struggled with this sort of thing. I feel an unsolvable paradox within the Christian life. I feel that unless I put effort into my relationship with God it will dissolve. While I think this is somewhat accurate I also acknowledge that there is much in my relationship with God that is out of my control. When does God take over? When you sit still and yearn to hear from God and don't, when will you begin to hear? Is it my divine deafness that keeps me from hearing, or is it lack of speech on the part of the Creator? Is it both?

"I'm struggling with God." I've said this often. I've been told often, "You just need to spend more time with Him. You need to spend more time doing devotions. You need to spend more time in prayer." I'm not denying this type-cast answer. But if my life is to be vibrant and filled with the Holy Spirit I wonder if I am really capable of doing the filling? I believe that there is more to life than my current situation. I can feel that there is more. Help me, Lord, with my unbelief.

Shifting Paradigms

2005-08-18T19:26:00.000-05:00

It seems lately that my life consists of many interposed paradigm shifts. Throughout this past school year I found myself often immersed within scholarly literature and saw my perspective on biblical interpretation and criticism greatly altered. I have enjoyed the throes of academia and will often say, "one's view of God determines, in part, their relationship with Him." I am beginning to wonder if I have used intellectualism to shield myself against some of the more tangible parts of ministry.

First, let me be clear. I do not see a grand disconnect between intellectualism and practicality. After all, in order for something to be truly intellectually beneficial must it not also be practical? Therefore the cognitive processes seem to be interdependent upon practicality. However, ministry is much more than simply a philosophical belief system being mechanically lived. Ministry, at times, moves outside of our tidy expectations and forces us to again redefine our paradigm for ministry.

This summer has moved me to higher thinking while simultaneously moving me to a deeper level of connection with others. That deeper connection has become emotionally concrete for me with the happenings of last week.

Last week was the last week of the Blacktop Rec. program. It was, therefore, also the last week of ACCESS. The ACCESS group that volunteered for last week was comprised of about 18-20 people. To be completely honest I have never contemplated youth ministry as a pastoral vocation that I would be interested in. God has gifted me in the areas of preaching and teaching and also have given me an astute mind to deal with the more difficult theological issues. I have a passion for moving people deeper in their knowledge of who God is in order to better their relationship with Him. Yet this last week I made an incredible connection with some fantastic youth. I spent about 18 hours a day with these youth and on the last day I spent about 29 straight hours with them. In short, Christ blessed me with the ability to share His love with this group. Christ set in my heart a love for this group and all of us were greatly impacted by the week.

Suddenly I am undergoing another paradigm shift. I gave my entire energy to this group for a week. I prayed with them, taught them, mentored them, sang with them, discipled them, goofed around with them, etc. I exhaustively invested myself into this group. Nonetheless, at the end of the week they returned home to Iowa. I felt as if this group, MY group, had been ruthlessly torn from my life. For a week I held them in my hand and as swiftly as they had arrived they were taken from me. The emotion which resides within me is indescribable. I miss them.

I believe I am at a teachable point in my young life. For years now I have been making plans. Plans to graduate and go to an intellectually respected seminary. Plans to receive my Masters of Divinity and to head into a pastoral role. Now I feel lost, confused, disappointed and yet overjoyed that God has placed His hand into my plans and twisted it.

Dear Lord, what do you really want me to do with my life? Perhaps a comprehensive life-plan is not only unnecessary but also deleterious to myself. For now, I will thank God for the love He has given me for this group from Lone Tree and pray that He shows me how He wants me to remain in their lives. Perhaps having a correlation between my paradigms and plate tectonics is not such a bad thing.

Mmm, marriage

2005-07-09T01:59:00.000-05:00

I'm married!!!

The Ambiguity of Homosexual Marriage

2005-06-27T16:36:00.000-05:00

Sexual immorality - the epitome of disgusting sin, at least for too many in the Church. What is it about sexual sin that launches it to a hamartiological tower incapable of receiving compassion or forgiveness from God's own, the Church? Of particular political debate has been the polarized issue of legalizing homosexual marriage. What are the ramifications, who will be affected, why should homosexuals be allowed/disallowed to marry? For whatever reason, the flippant Christian response quite simply irritates me.

"Homosexuality is a sin, therefore, homosexuals should not marry."

1) The Bible is clear that homosexuality is sinful. You have to either remove portions of Scripture or do some grand twisting in order to assert the Bible says otherwise. Those who do so often have a predetermined commitment to a position which considers homosexuality natural.

2) Can we truly argue that just because homosexuality is sinful, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

The thing which irritates me about the common conservative Christian response is that it is extremely under-thought. If we are to disallow homosexuals from marrying because they are willfully sinning, where do we stop? Why is it that conservative Christians are not out rallying against the adulterer who wishes to marry, or the promiscuous, or the thief, or the habitual liar, or etc.....? Does it not seem a bit selective to only demand that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry when others who are willfully committing different sexual sins are free to do so? Where have we discovered this grand differentiation between sexual sins? While I am not one to assert an egalitarian theology regarding sin, I do find the chasm which separates homosexual sin from other sexual sin befuddling.

Those who assert homosexuals should not marry because it is sinful are, in a sense, allocating marriage only for the Church. In other words, unless you have repented of your sins and have confessed that Jesus is Lord it should be illegal for you to marry. I think the American Church needs to be a bit more honest with herself. In an ideal world marriage would be seen as the sacred bond which it is. But this is not an ideal world. Many marry without even the mention of sanctity which this act carries. There are, to an extent, to institutions which sanction marriage: the Church, and the state. Many omit the Church, but none are allowed to omit the state. Can we enact a law which prevents atheists from marrying? No, nor should we. Marriage improves a society, whether done with the acknowledgement of its transcendent nature or not. Why then do we feel we must enact a law which prevents homosexuals from marrying, some of whom are not even atheists? Which is worse, to reject God or to be a homosexual?

Let me be clear: I do not believe the Church should oversee homosexual marriages, nor do I believe the Church should ordain practicing homosexuals. There must be a distinction made between the Church and the secular in this issue. But I am not convinced that homosexuals should be prevented from marriage according to the tenets of the state. For the Church to ordain a person who is openly practicing something which the Bible clearly considers sinful would be antithetical to the mission of the Church. Why? Because a direct component of the Gospel message is freedom. It infuriates me when members of the Church attempt to use rhetoric which implies homosexuality is a part of God's diverse creation. When this is done the Church robs homosexuals freedom from sin. If Jesus can provide freedom for those struggling with other sexual sins He most certainly can provide it for homosexuals as well. Not that this always happens, and for some it is more of a battle than for others.

But let me be as blunt as I can regarding this issue. Sin becomes habitual. Sin becomes a prison. Sin becomes a small cell in which a person often becomes blind to their own bonds. I completely believe a homosexual when they tell me they do not feel "imprisoned". I have no doubt that my atheist friends actually do feel "free". But I also know from experience that one of most terrifying realities of sin is that it is a prison which often feels like a tropical paradise. And once the imprisonment is realized it can be extremely difficult for the bonds to drop. It is a fundamental duty of the Church to proclaim freedom, not to endorse slavery to sin. Whatever sin it may be, the Church must profess freedom.

The Church also must not ordain person's who are unwilling to repent of their sin. Again, a practicing homosexual should not be ordained and one who is risks clouding that freedom which Christ provides.

But I am quite unconvinced that simply because homosexuality is sinful homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. In a nation such as this, the state can endorse things which the Church simply does not. That's what makes this nation so great and so repugnant all at the same time.

Summer Employment

2005-05-31T23:26:00.000-05:00

So I got a call today from Calvary Church. They offered me a position as their Blacktop Recreation Director. What a blessing. Basically I'll be organizing a program which is intended for at-risk kids in the community. Holland Heights has become the "rough" part of town and is home to drug trafficking, stabbings, shootings, and other tragic happenings. I am excited but am well aware that this will be quite the challenge. These kids apparently have no respect for authority and will push me to the limits. But what better place to be doing the work of God than with children whose lives will perhaps be transformed for life by a single summer? Pastor Blaine told me that often the surrounding community is difficult to reach, but when you beginning to touch the lives of their children they become much more open to the Church's influence. The affluence which the majority of the American Church lives with can cause a certain inability to see the reality of the ripe field which our workers are dispersed within. I expect God to stretch me, to strengthen me, to open my selective perspective, but most importantly to change the lives of people. After all, is that not one of the central messages of the Gospel? Hallelujah.

The Paradox of Following Christ

2005-05-13T01:19:00.000-05:00

I had a short discussion with Jen on the way home about our future and the inevitability of future congregants being upset with my preaching and teaching at points. Why? Quite simply I probably would be considered "liberal" by many American evangelicals. Certainly the ultra-conservative Reformed Holland community would find me "liberal", perhaps even radical regarding some issues. Who will I anger? Who will I upset? These questions, and many more, are unanswerable and unneccesary. The congregants who will gossip about the preacher who is a human being, and (amazingly) makes human mistakes, are those that I am least worried about. People will always talk about other people. Stories will be told and perhaps devastating ones may be circulated. But what are we "liberal" theologians to do? Shall we simply suppress our views, which may happen to be more Orthodox, to appease the masses? Or do we proclaim Truth despite the racuous outcry? The answer seems obvious; the proclamation of Truth seems to supersede the reality of its lack of welcome. Yet what truths do we proclaim? Are there some truths which, while no less true, may be deleterious to the faith of a congregant? Can we in good conscience proclaim those truths?

The more I learn, the more I desire to know. That is the virus of intellectualism. Once you begin to know more, more must follow. And for many, me at least, the more I know the more I must abandon previous paradigms and methodologies. I also find it difficult to be patient with those whom are unable to see what I consider to be quite clear and obvious realities. Perhaps if there were so obvious I would not have to go to such great lengths to explain them. But the question again arises, as a spiritual leader, a pastor, what truths do you proclaim and what truths are better to be left inconspicuous? The dangers of knowledge mishandled.

Who am I to be given such knowledge, and such authority? The reality is that many Protestants give the same, or even more, spiritual authority to their pastor than many Catholics do the Pope. As a Protestant pastor this of course has vastly important consequences. A flock of God's people will be entrusted to me. What I say and do will have a profound impact on the spiritual life of others. What a blessing, yet what a fragile blessing.

Then, of course, there is my own spiritual life to consider. Does my relationship with God come before sheperding my flock? Can I properly guide a congregation without myself being in a right relationship with God? And what defines a right relationship with God? Discipline? Emotion? Knowledge? Wisdom? What about my family? Can I truly lead God's people without prioritizing my family as first? Family, in my mind, must come before the church at times.

So where do all these questions spring forth? Ironically, from a phone call earlier tonight informing me that I am not needed as a youth pastor for a church where I had gone for an interview. I had not gotten a strong sense from God either way on the matter but was feeling privy to accepting an offer, if one was given. But one was not. The realization that ministry is much more God directed than me directed hit me like a theological hammer. "Where do you want me to minister next year Lord?" But of course the questions being to arise, "why was I not offered a position?" Hence, my questions tonight. None of them probably even crossed the mind of the board of elders, but they have crossed mine.

Life should not be monotonous. Life should be enjoyed. Life should not be seen as a means to an end. Life should be seen as an opportunity to share the light and life of Christ with others. People are important. Money really is not. Love should be sought. Political correctness is not always correct. It is when God's people love that the world is revolutionized. Lord God Almighty, make me a man of love, a man of obedience, a man willing to bow at Your feet every moment of every day and profess that You are Lord. To the Glory of God the Father. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

The Plight of Sola Scriptura

2005-05-07T03:09:00.000-05:00

This is a reply I made to a comment from a person on the Third Day message board. It's somewhat interesting. There are some typos that I don't feel like editing right now because my movie still awaits.

Quote:
thats fine. if closed minded means embracing sola scriptura, then i'll
be closed minded and rightly so

I will embrace sola scriptura only to the extent that Scripture contains all of the essential beliefs for salvation (although one may argue if one feels that Trinitarian belief is essential to salvation). I may also consider embracing sola scriptura to the extent implicit in your statements if you actually embrace it yourself. Which leaves me in the clear because you can never actually embrace it to the extent which you seem to desire.

A common objection is the simple fact that sola scriptura is never purported by the Holy Scriptures themselves (a bit ironic; if we define our beliefs using the principle of sola scriptura then the belief in sola scriptura itself is inevitably self-contradicting).

Equally important is the reality that the Early Church never proclaimed such a thing. In fact, it would have been ridiculous for them to do so considering there was no established New Testament Canon until A.D. 397 at the Council of Carthage. Certainly the Canon with which we possess was circulating and already being held (fairly early) as Scriptural authority, but the Early Church never would have been as pompous to declare that the only means by which doctrine could be understood was through the means of Scripture alone.

But can I truly say that this reality is equally important as the first?

Let me be extremely clear. Scripture is primary and is the final authority on all matters. If we do not hold Scripture up to be the primary source by which we ascertain doctrine and dogma we quickly find ourselves in a heretical situation. Yet until you pick up Scripture and begin to read it (or hear it proclaimed) it really does not do much for you. Once you begin to either read or listen to the Word you begin to interpret what you hear. This is inescapable. We all interpret Scripture when we read it. As Vincent of Lerins said, "for as many interpreters of Scripture there are interpretations."

So what did the Church use to determine what is correct doctrine from its inception? The Church has alwasy understood heresy to be one of the most gravest sins because, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer states, heresy has the potential to steal the Gospel message of its sin cleansing nature. When orthodoxy is distorted the Gospel message is skewed.

So again, what has the Church always used to determine what is correct doctrine? As unfriendly as it sounds to the often myopic Protestant ear, the Church has used Tradition to determine what is orthodoxy (cue the Bibles being thrown my way and shouts of "No! Sola Scriptura!").

Let me be clear. There is a difference between Tradition and traditions. The big "T" Tradition is the tool by which the Church has determined correct Christian teaching. Tradition is determined by three things: 1) antiquity (what has been believed from the very beginning); 2) universality (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere); 3) consensus (what has been agreed to be orthodoxy, especially by the Church Councils and great Church Doctors). The big "T" Tradition is quite different from tradition. Small "t" traditions are what we all have grown up in. These include the Baptist tradition, the Presbyterian tradition, the Roman Catholic tradition, the Lutheran tradition, the Wesleyan tradition, the Methodist tradition, the Quaker tradition, the Eastern Orthodox tradition, etc. Most of these small "t" traditions find themselves comfortable within the big "T" Tradition (often there may be a certain range in which a belief may be considered orthodox). When a person approaches the biblical text they do so with a certain interprative paradigm. Lutherans approach with a Lutheran paradigm. Eastern Orthodox approach with an Eastern Orthodox paradigm. Reformed approach with a Reformed paradigm. Our paradigm determines our interpretation. We always bring some sort of means of interpretation to the text, we never truly use Scripture alone. The question is not who's system of doctrine is more biblical but rather who's doctrinal system is the orthodox interpretation of Scripture.

Unfortunately, the myopic view of Scripture that many Protestants retain, disallows them from testing their interpretation of certain passages against what has been considered (since the inception of the Church) to be the authoritative interpretation of Scripture: big "T" Tradition. Arius made a completely biblical argument as he argued that Jesus was a created being. His argument was not flawed due to lack of Scripture but rather due to an erroneous interpretation of Scripture.

How can Scripture mean something that it never meant? How can we claim that Scripture means something which the apostles and early Church never proclaimed? One of my major qualms with Calvinism is not that it is unbiblical. It is completely biblical! Yet it is based on an interpretation of Scripture which is simply not found as orthodox in Church history. The apostles and the Early Church never interpreted Scripture this way.

Martin Luther himself could not bring himself to embrace sola scriptura. When Luther translated his first Bible into German, he was afraid of putting it into the hands of the uneducated populus. Therefore he created a safety net, a hedge for orthodoxy. Luther included his commentaries in the margins, creating the first ever study Bible. The King James Bible, printed in 1611, was the first afterwards that did not contain marginal notes. It was when the Puritans took hold of the King James (which lacked any sort of damage control) that they began to dabble in heresy.

You can choose to embrace sola scriptura to the extent which you seem to desire to, but if you do, I suggest you abandon your belief in the Trinity (that is assuming you share the belief professed in the early Christian Creeds). While the Trinity is implicit in Scripture, Trinitarian doctrine in Scripture is by no means developed to the point which we now possess it. If you want to debate this point please refrain for now. I suggest reading Christology in the Making by James Dunn.

It should not surprise us that doctrine as we hold it today may be underdeveloped in Scripture. It is clear that there is development of understanding throughout the Scriptures. This is certainly clear in the Old Testament, where God is refining His people and their beliefs. This continues in the New Testament. While the christology in the early New Testament writings is certainly not developed to the extent with which we affirm, there is development even within the New Testament to where by the time we reach the latest Gospel (John), christology has developed and become much more poignant and powerful for the strict monotheism of the Jews. This need not scare us if we believe that God continues to develop His people even after the inspiration of the New Testament Canon. The developments which occured were a result of the leading of the Holy Spirit. If it were not true, they would not exist today.

I fully affirm the Christian Creeds, as do all Christian churches. Yet none of us could affirm them were it not for the development that occured within the first few centuries of Christianity. Sola scriptura sounds nice, but it is both self-contradicting and a denial of the reality that we all bring interprative paradigms to the text. Scripture contains the essentials by which we are saved (yet there are still disagreement on what these essentials are due to differing interpretations). There really are not any questions we ask today that have not already been asked. I suggest perhaps looking into the Patristics and seeing how much they have to offer us. Scripture must be interpreted and the Church, under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, has always used Tradition to do so.

In Christ,
~Ben

Unshaven with pale skin and dark rings under my eyes, I emerge from the chrysalis of academia as a beautiful butterfly...well at least I emerge

2005-05-07T02:43:00.000-05:00

This post really is nothing terribly significant. I apologize that I have not posted in what appears to be eons. Ahh, I have missed it. I do intend to articulate some of my more meaningful thoughts and give them to the public soon, but as for now I am somewhat occupied with the beginning of summer and all that entails (finding a job, stuffing advertising envelopes for the studios, planning my wedding). Another school year has been completed and it was quite successful. I poured a great deal of energy into the end of the year and it certainly paid off. Praise God for the strength that He gives! I am looking forward to a wonderful summer. As for now, this butterfly is going to rest his mind by watching a movie...mmm, movie.

Sabbatical

2005-04-09T02:11:00.000-05:00

I thought I would make a quick post so that anyone wondering about the scarcity of posts may be informed. Currently I am on a self-proclaimed sabbatical; I have an exegesis paper due Tuesday, the 12th and therefore my time is consumed with research, writing, research, writing, research, and then some more writing. The satisfaction of completing a literary piece (and completing it well) will be a sufficient reward for my time. May this work serve to increase my knowledge of the Lord Almighty and in turn allow me to become a more effective minister for His Kingdom.

The Death of Pope John Paul II

2005-04-03T02:24:00.000-05:00

My father called from the car today to let us know that Pope John Paul II had passed away. This news touched my heart in an unexpected way. I found myself suddenly all the more aware of the great heritage which I have been priveleged to be a part of. Christians around the world mourn the loss of such a holy man. He was exceptionally close to the Lord Jesus and his place will not be easily filled.

Did the death of the Pope touch you? Did the passing of a man incredibly close to God cause a tear to be drawn from your eye? I pray that it did. Whether you are Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, the death of John Paul II should touch us all. I realized today how much I respect the Catholic Church. Perhaps it is something to do with that rich heritage, the legacy of the Catholic Church. I do not really know. All I know is that I was touched today. I will miss Pope John Paul II. The world has lost a great man, yet heaven has received one.
In Christ,
~Ben Robinson

To think...and to relate

2005-03-31T05:16:00.000-05:00

There is a twofold problem that the Christian in a postmodern society finds himself/herself in. Christians do not think and when they do very rarely does it matter.

It is often difficult for a lay Christian to be presented with the idea that Scripture may not be inerrant in a fundamentalist sense (this statement would be more accurate for previous generations as it appears that the emergent Church is more open to various views of inerrancy). The Bible for many Protestants has become the fourth member of the Trinity...err...Quadrinity. Elevated to a status in which one wonders if there is a rogue church somewhere speaking of Scripture as homoousios with the Father, Son, and Spirit. It would appear that many would say that to challenge the beliefs or tenets upon which Christianity stands is negatively received. While this is often true, and to an extent understandable, I think the more common context in which Christianity finds tension is within the challenges made against beliefs or ideologies which are thought to be essentials of the Christian faith. The fundamentalist view of inspiration is an example of this. To hold a fundamentalist view is much more difficult than submitting to the reality that Scripture does not often fit into our man-made categories.

Ultimately what I am saying is this: too many Christians are willing to commit intellectual suicide if it relieves them of the responsibility to think. However, there are of course anomalies to this generalization and these people are typically referred to as scholars. Christian scholars make it their life to think. I respect the work of these people and have found my own beliefs and paradigms challenged by higher thinking. Here is my qualm with the scholar; so what? As I have read through various scholarly journals the question that perpetually bombards my mind is "so what"? What does this mean to the Christian Church?

We had a religion colloquium today in which the subject of debate was apologetics. The thrust of the debate was "what place does apologetics have in Christian belief"? Without going into detail about the colloquium itself I will make a few observations: 1) A central question which needed to be addressed, namely whether we should even be using rational arguments to defend the Christian faith, was not even proposed until two and a half hours into the event. 2) Some students asked well thought-out questions, others just asked questions. 3) Why is this even important?

I left the colloquium with this last question burning in my mind. The debate obviously holds importance to Christendom yet there was very little attempt to portray this in the presentations. There certainly were comments made in regards to how our view of apologetics effects the way we witness and evangelize, yet these comments were anything but conclusive. The problem which scholarship finds itself is how to make its studies relevant. What difference does it make to argue for a certain side of the pistis christou formulation in Pauline literature if there is no connection to how we should believe and live our lives? Could this debate have relevance? Certainly! But that is the chasm which scholarly journals often fail to bridge; the connection between intellectualism and practicality.

My plea to the scholar is this: make it useful, edify the Church, create scholarship for the people not just for colleagues. I believe that God gave us a mind to think, yet I also believe that God desires for those cognitive processes to produce information that is beneficial for both the edification of His Church and the spread of the Gospel. If scholarship fails to leave the intellectual battleground it becomes merely interesting and ultimately useless.