On the one hand, the answer to this question is a no-brainer--of course they are. They're in the Christian Bible, so they're Christian.
But then again, Christians generally read the Bible through filtered glasses. The filters include things like: 1. the things Christians believe in general, which has been influenced heavily by 2000 years of church history, 2. the specific Christian traditions a person comes from (e.g., Baptist, Wesleyan), and 3. contemporary American culture and the many ways it influences us. I don't have a problem with this in general--it seems to be part of how God makes the meaning of the Bible transcend particular times and places.
But I'd like to take a minute to talk about what the 10 commandments really meant--the ancient Israelite meaning, not the pop meaning you might hear on Christian radio or the "figurehead" role it's playing in the news today.
First of all, who is the "you" of "You will have no other gods before me"? Both Exodus and Deuteronomy are very clear--it refers to ancient Israel. "Hear, O Israel" (Deut. 5:1). "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt..." (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6). So why do we think this is about us? Well, it is about us now in some way because these words have become Scripture, and they're in our Bible. But it didn't originally address me. I'm a Gentile by birth, and these commandments specifically addressed ancient Israel.
Different traditions number the "10 words" (Decalog) differently. For Jews, the "I am the LORD your God" is the first "word." For Christians, the first one at least includes "you shall have no other gods before me" (Exod. 20:3; Deut. 5:7). Here we remember that the ancient Israelites were henotheists more than monotheists. They believed in the existence of other gods, but they weren't allowed to worship them. There were plenty of gods on the market--Ba'al, Dagan, Marduk...--but they were to put none of them before Yahweh.
Israel's God was Yahweh (translated as LORD in all caps in most translations), while the other nations paired up with other gods on the list. Deuteronomy 32:8 expresses it well:
"When the Most High [El Elyon] apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the numbers of the gods; the LORD's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share" (NRSV).
El Elyon was the king of the Canaanite pantheon, like Zeus in the Greek system. In this passage El Elyon, also here called Yahweh, allots the other gods to the other nations and then takes Israel for himself. We can take this statement somewhat poetically. But needless to say, it makes me a little uncomfortable to hear Moses expressing the "god situation" in terms that fit so easily into Canaanite religious categories. The picture here is not unlike if some Greek were to say that Zeus gave Troy to Poseidon, Delphi to Apollo, and then took some city for himself. Compare Psalm 82, which uncomfortably uses similar imagery
It's not really until the middle chapters of Isaiah that we begin to see the "absolute monotheism" that we all think of as monotheism. Of course we would have no problem believing that there was an evil being behind Ba'al, but we would call it a demon (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20). Our categories are clearly not the same as Moses'.
For Lutherans and Catholics, the first commandment continues into what other Protestants call the second commandment: don't make idols of living things and don't worship them. This is not a commandment that any of us are in danger of violating literally, which is of course how it was originally meant.
I'll follow the standard Protestant numbering for a while. The third is "Do not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." This was about swearing by Yahweh. Jephthah gets the award for "most stupid oath" in the Old Testament. He swears by Yahweh that he will sacrifice the first living thing that comes out of his house if Yahweh gives him the victory. It turns out to be his daughter.
But Jephthah does not violate the commandment. He does not invoke God's name in vain. He gives his daughter two months to mourn dying a virgin, then he sacrifices her.
Jesus has undercut the need for this commandment--it need never apply again. Jesus says that you won't ever need to swear by Yahweh if you are a person of your word. "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all" (Matt. 5:34).
Is the third commandment Christian? Jesus implies that a Christian should never need use it.
The fourth commandment is not Christian if we read it literally. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Originally, this commandment was 1. about Saturday and 2. about not working. I have no problem with thinking of Sunday as a day of rest or with the way Christians today "translate" this commandment. But that isn't what it meant, and Christians are not obligated to keep this commandment according to the New Testament.
First of all, only Seventh Day Adventists worship on Saturday. The Jewish Sabbath was a Saturday not a Sunday. No New Testament passage equates Sunday with the Jewish Sabbath. Christians in practice simply do not keep the Sabbath of the 10 commandments.
The only New Testament passages that mention the Sabbath in the literal sense refer to the Jewish Sabbath on Saturday. The ones most important to us are in Paul's writings and unanimously prohibit Sabbath enforcement among non-Jews.
Colossians 2:16: "Do not let anyone condemn you [Colossian Gentiles] in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."
Romans 14:5: "Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord..."
There is simply no biblical basis for considering the fourth commandment in its literal meaning as binding on a Christian today.
Well I've gone on quite a bit. My purpose is to expose how much "culture" is involved in the current Christian politics with regard to the Ten Commandments. I have no problem with them in a courthouse, and I have no problem with the way Christians today are applying them.
What really bugs me is that the conservative political machine is shooting us in the foot with its machinations. I think we could have the 10 commandments in our courthouses if these people weren't making such a direct connection between them and the Christian religion. And of course it bugs me that some of these people think they speak for God when they don't have a clue what the Bible really meant. Some of them wouldn't recognize Jesus or Moses if they were standing right in front of them. Now that I think of it; they'd probably crucify him because he was too "liberal."
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Death Penalty and Justice
Today the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for underage youths (younger than 18) is unconstitutional in the sense that it is cruel and unusual punishment. I thought I would develop some thoughts on justice I've been pondering.
First justice is blind. It is neither loving nor unloving; it just is. The best standard of justice I can think of is the lex talonis: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The idea is that justice in its blindness exacts one eye for an eye taken. Less than an eye taken is mercy; more than one eye is vengence. But blind justice with her scales exacts the exact equivalent of the crime.
Of course in practice it will often be impossible to determine what the equivalent penalty is. Then there is the matter of intent. Here I note that the Old Testament considers it just for a person to take the life of someone who has accidentally caused the death of another. The cities of refuge were established as locations of mercy for those who killed accidentally. They did not protect those who murdered intentionally.
The OT also has all kinds of penalties even if your animals do damage to someone else's property. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Intention comes into play in the dispensation of mercy, but is irrelevant for justice.
Jesus indicates that we are to live individually as instruments of mercy. In other words, justice is not the concern of the individual Christian. Mercy is.
On the other hand, Paul indicates that authorities are servants of God to execute wrath on wrongdoers (Rom. 13:5). I would argue that there is therefore nothing intrinsically unchristian about the death penalty as a punishment for those who have intentionally murdered others. Further, the Bible does not treat human life as if it has absolute value. On the contrary, physical life is a rather low value in comparison to eternal concerns.
Interestingly, I would further argue that the idea of prison as a place of reformation is not a clear secular idea, except insofar as it benefits society as a whole (the utilitarian argument). Society does not "owe" a criminal the opportunity to reform. That is, the reformation of criminals is not motivated by justice.
But how are we to view these things as Christians in a country where it is possible for us to affect the system in Christian ways that go beyond justice?
I think as Christians we care about the criminal in ways secular philosophy has no reason to. We want criminals to be redeemed if at all possible. As Christians, therefore, I think we will discourage the use of the death penalty so that criminals are given as long as possible to come to Christ. We will push for prisons as places of reformation because God loves the whole world.
These are some quick thoughts, largely undeveloped. I think I observe all kinds of cultural factors at work in this debate, and they interestingly seem to be affecting both Christians and pagans. I do not object to the current trajectory. I just find it fascinating that the world seems to be arguing for positions that seem more specifically Christian.
But I think other systems are not intrinsically less Christian, such as the old French sense that a life must be taken for a life. I think of Les Miserables or The Three Musketeers, where the death penalty is dispensed without prejudice or vengeance--only as justice.
First justice is blind. It is neither loving nor unloving; it just is. The best standard of justice I can think of is the lex talonis: "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." The idea is that justice in its blindness exacts one eye for an eye taken. Less than an eye taken is mercy; more than one eye is vengence. But blind justice with her scales exacts the exact equivalent of the crime.
Of course in practice it will often be impossible to determine what the equivalent penalty is. Then there is the matter of intent. Here I note that the Old Testament considers it just for a person to take the life of someone who has accidentally caused the death of another. The cities of refuge were established as locations of mercy for those who killed accidentally. They did not protect those who murdered intentionally.
The OT also has all kinds of penalties even if your animals do damage to someone else's property. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Intention comes into play in the dispensation of mercy, but is irrelevant for justice.
Jesus indicates that we are to live individually as instruments of mercy. In other words, justice is not the concern of the individual Christian. Mercy is.
On the other hand, Paul indicates that authorities are servants of God to execute wrath on wrongdoers (Rom. 13:5). I would argue that there is therefore nothing intrinsically unchristian about the death penalty as a punishment for those who have intentionally murdered others. Further, the Bible does not treat human life as if it has absolute value. On the contrary, physical life is a rather low value in comparison to eternal concerns.
Interestingly, I would further argue that the idea of prison as a place of reformation is not a clear secular idea, except insofar as it benefits society as a whole (the utilitarian argument). Society does not "owe" a criminal the opportunity to reform. That is, the reformation of criminals is not motivated by justice.
But how are we to view these things as Christians in a country where it is possible for us to affect the system in Christian ways that go beyond justice?
I think as Christians we care about the criminal in ways secular philosophy has no reason to. We want criminals to be redeemed if at all possible. As Christians, therefore, I think we will discourage the use of the death penalty so that criminals are given as long as possible to come to Christ. We will push for prisons as places of reformation because God loves the whole world.
These are some quick thoughts, largely undeveloped. I think I observe all kinds of cultural factors at work in this debate, and they interestingly seem to be affecting both Christians and pagans. I do not object to the current trajectory. I just find it fascinating that the world seems to be arguing for positions that seem more specifically Christian.
But I think other systems are not intrinsically less Christian, such as the old French sense that a life must be taken for a life. I think of Les Miserables or The Three Musketeers, where the death penalty is dispensed without prejudice or vengeance--only as justice.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Biblical Interpretive Paradigms: Part 4
Well I'm tired of this thread so I'll get it over with.
The final component I wish to discuss on this topic is the belief that speaking in tongues is not just a gift of the Spirit that some Christians have, not even the view of some that speaking in tongues is a gift all Christians could have, but evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence in your life to where if you have never spoken in tongues, you are not a Christian.
It is easy enough to see where the group gets this idea. It's a simple line of thought:
1. A person is not a Christian if s/he has not received the Holy Spirit.
2. A person who receives the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues.
3. Therefore, a person who has never spoken in tongues has not received the Holy Spirit and is not a Christian.
I agree with the first premise. However, I disagree with the second. Accordingly, I disagree with the conclusion.
I've argued before that the "dictionary" you bring to a word determines the meaning you see in it. That is true in this case. A person from this group brings a "definition" of the Spirit that entails speaking in tongues. Therefore a person is not a Christian if they have not spoken in tongues.
Where does this "definition" come from? I would say two places. First, it comes from the experience of the founders of this group. It's easy to say that all Christians will speak in tongues when you come to Christ if you spoke in tongues when you came to Christ. The problem is of course for the rest of us who believe we experienced conversion and yet did not speak in tongues.
If the founders of this group spoke in tongues when they had their conversion experiences, it is easy enough to interpret the fillings with the Spirit accordingly. After all, on three occasions in Acts groups who receive the Holy Spirit speak in tongues (Pentecost, Gentiles, followers of John the Baptist).
Here we encounter an important dynamic of biblical interpretation. The book of Acts has a "gap" with regard to the relationship between receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The text of Acts does not say that those who receive the Holy Spirit always speak in tongues. The reader must then infer whether 1) we are meant to assume speaking in tongues every time someone receives the Spirit in Acts, even though Acts does not say so or 2) there were only certain key occasions when speaking in tongues occurred.
We might note that Philo the Jew mentions a tradition that a fire issued from Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Law and that this fire could be heard in articulate speech. The Jews of this period associated the Feast of Pentecost with the giving of the Law, so Luke and/or God was giving more than just some sign of conversion in the speaking of tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Perhaps this is an indication that God was inaugurating the new covenant in which He wrote His laws on our hearts instead of on tablets of stone (cf. Jer. 31; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). Some would say this symbolizes the reversal of the confusion at the Tower of Babel.
In any case, speaking in tongues has a strong symbolic significance here, a significance that our dictionary doesn't come equipped with because we are not ancient Jews. The tongues that took place in Acts 10 make it clear that the Gentile experience of the Spirit was in no way inferior to the inaugurative experience of the Jews at Pentecost. The purpose of narrating speaking in tongues at Ephesus to the followers of John the Baptist is less clear and, in my opinion, provides the strongest argument for the group we are discussing.
Nevertheless, their position is largely an argument from silence. Tongues does not play a major role in the New Testament. It appears almost exclusively in these three Acts passages and in 1 Corinthians. Of course there are significant differences even between 1 Corinthians and Acts on this score. The tongues of Acts seem to be human languages that help unbelievers come to Christ. The tongues of 1 Corinthians push unbelievers away and seem to be something like the tongues of angels (13:1).
In 1 Corinthians Paul addresses a problem in Corinthian worship relating to the use of tongues, and the overall tendency of 1 Corinthians 14 is to promote the use of prophecy over tongues in worship. Paul allows the use of interpreted tongues only and then only two or three in a service.
He says not to forbid tongues, which is clear enough about the direction of the conversation: he is not promoting, he is not prohibiting. I do not say this to demean the use of tongues--I don't actually have a problem with Pentecostal groups that might have uninterpreted tongues throughout the whole worship service. Paul was writing to the Corinthian church within the parameters of their context. I suspect that many Pentecostal churches actually are edified by uninterpreted tongues in their worship! (and by the way, I use this same line of argument to justify the Wesleyan Church's prohibition of tongues in public worship--it would not edify in our churches but create immense conflict).
My point is that I have good reason to think that an approach that considers speaking in tongues so essential to Christianity is out of focus. As Paul says, "All don't speak in tongues, do they?" (1 Cor. 12). In Greek this is a question expecting a negative answer. No, all don't speak in tongues. Paul makes no distinctiong between the gift of tongues and tongues as an evidence of the Holy Spirit. This is splicing done from the outside of the text looking in. Paul's primary point indeed seems to be to tell a Corinthian group that thinks its hot stuff that its not as hot as it thinks.
Well, my blather goes on too long. A final word about the comment in the latter part of Mark 16 in later manuscripts predicting that Christians will speak in tongues. Some groups in Kentucky take the comment "they will pick up snakes" as a command and so pick up poisonous snakes in their worship. But this comment is an indicative, a description. It is not an imperative or command. It says what will happen, not what must happen.
And of course in the end these verses were not in the original of Mark. Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century mentions that the ending was absent from almost all the Greek manuscripts he has seen of Mark. The earliest manuscripts of Mark do not have it. There is a shorter ending in some manuscripts that reflect texts of Mark floating around that supplemented the text with something else. All in all, these verses start the chapter all over as if 16:1-8 didn't even exist. It is largely a summary of various post-resurrection statements in the other gospels.
Well that's it for this one... Blessings on all and hopefully no offense taken for my opinions...
The final component I wish to discuss on this topic is the belief that speaking in tongues is not just a gift of the Spirit that some Christians have, not even the view of some that speaking in tongues is a gift all Christians could have, but evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence in your life to where if you have never spoken in tongues, you are not a Christian.
It is easy enough to see where the group gets this idea. It's a simple line of thought:
1. A person is not a Christian if s/he has not received the Holy Spirit.
2. A person who receives the Holy Spirit will speak in tongues.
3. Therefore, a person who has never spoken in tongues has not received the Holy Spirit and is not a Christian.
I agree with the first premise. However, I disagree with the second. Accordingly, I disagree with the conclusion.
I've argued before that the "dictionary" you bring to a word determines the meaning you see in it. That is true in this case. A person from this group brings a "definition" of the Spirit that entails speaking in tongues. Therefore a person is not a Christian if they have not spoken in tongues.
Where does this "definition" come from? I would say two places. First, it comes from the experience of the founders of this group. It's easy to say that all Christians will speak in tongues when you come to Christ if you spoke in tongues when you came to Christ. The problem is of course for the rest of us who believe we experienced conversion and yet did not speak in tongues.
If the founders of this group spoke in tongues when they had their conversion experiences, it is easy enough to interpret the fillings with the Spirit accordingly. After all, on three occasions in Acts groups who receive the Holy Spirit speak in tongues (Pentecost, Gentiles, followers of John the Baptist).
Here we encounter an important dynamic of biblical interpretation. The book of Acts has a "gap" with regard to the relationship between receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The text of Acts does not say that those who receive the Holy Spirit always speak in tongues. The reader must then infer whether 1) we are meant to assume speaking in tongues every time someone receives the Spirit in Acts, even though Acts does not say so or 2) there were only certain key occasions when speaking in tongues occurred.
We might note that Philo the Jew mentions a tradition that a fire issued from Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Law and that this fire could be heard in articulate speech. The Jews of this period associated the Feast of Pentecost with the giving of the Law, so Luke and/or God was giving more than just some sign of conversion in the speaking of tongues on the Day of Pentecost. Perhaps this is an indication that God was inaugurating the new covenant in which He wrote His laws on our hearts instead of on tablets of stone (cf. Jer. 31; 2 Cor. 3; Heb. 8). Some would say this symbolizes the reversal of the confusion at the Tower of Babel.
In any case, speaking in tongues has a strong symbolic significance here, a significance that our dictionary doesn't come equipped with because we are not ancient Jews. The tongues that took place in Acts 10 make it clear that the Gentile experience of the Spirit was in no way inferior to the inaugurative experience of the Jews at Pentecost. The purpose of narrating speaking in tongues at Ephesus to the followers of John the Baptist is less clear and, in my opinion, provides the strongest argument for the group we are discussing.
Nevertheless, their position is largely an argument from silence. Tongues does not play a major role in the New Testament. It appears almost exclusively in these three Acts passages and in 1 Corinthians. Of course there are significant differences even between 1 Corinthians and Acts on this score. The tongues of Acts seem to be human languages that help unbelievers come to Christ. The tongues of 1 Corinthians push unbelievers away and seem to be something like the tongues of angels (13:1).
In 1 Corinthians Paul addresses a problem in Corinthian worship relating to the use of tongues, and the overall tendency of 1 Corinthians 14 is to promote the use of prophecy over tongues in worship. Paul allows the use of interpreted tongues only and then only two or three in a service.
He says not to forbid tongues, which is clear enough about the direction of the conversation: he is not promoting, he is not prohibiting. I do not say this to demean the use of tongues--I don't actually have a problem with Pentecostal groups that might have uninterpreted tongues throughout the whole worship service. Paul was writing to the Corinthian church within the parameters of their context. I suspect that many Pentecostal churches actually are edified by uninterpreted tongues in their worship! (and by the way, I use this same line of argument to justify the Wesleyan Church's prohibition of tongues in public worship--it would not edify in our churches but create immense conflict).
My point is that I have good reason to think that an approach that considers speaking in tongues so essential to Christianity is out of focus. As Paul says, "All don't speak in tongues, do they?" (1 Cor. 12). In Greek this is a question expecting a negative answer. No, all don't speak in tongues. Paul makes no distinctiong between the gift of tongues and tongues as an evidence of the Holy Spirit. This is splicing done from the outside of the text looking in. Paul's primary point indeed seems to be to tell a Corinthian group that thinks its hot stuff that its not as hot as it thinks.
Well, my blather goes on too long. A final word about the comment in the latter part of Mark 16 in later manuscripts predicting that Christians will speak in tongues. Some groups in Kentucky take the comment "they will pick up snakes" as a command and so pick up poisonous snakes in their worship. But this comment is an indicative, a description. It is not an imperative or command. It says what will happen, not what must happen.
And of course in the end these verses were not in the original of Mark. Eusebius at the beginning of the fourth century mentions that the ending was absent from almost all the Greek manuscripts he has seen of Mark. The earliest manuscripts of Mark do not have it. There is a shorter ending in some manuscripts that reflect texts of Mark floating around that supplemented the text with something else. All in all, these verses start the chapter all over as if 16:1-8 didn't even exist. It is largely a summary of various post-resurrection statements in the other gospels.
Well that's it for this one... Blessings on all and hopefully no offense taken for my opinions...
Sunday, February 20, 2005
The Science/Religion Debate
The debate at Lakeview was interesting, and I hope it was helpful to many there. It was very "tame," and Ryan's step-Dad was very congenial. Professor Van de Merwe and Mark Smith didn't have a chance to get into much detail. It was just an hour long and probably it was appropriate to stay somewhat general.
One important omission from the Christian side was perhaps the most important of all for us: the resurrection. The idea that a "Big Bang" needed a big push makes sense, but it says very little about what the "Mover" was like. It is the resurrection that begins to get at the Christian God in earnest. I'm sure this question was in the mix, but they just didn't get to it because of time.
It is the resurrection that identifies God with Christ. Jesus died on the cross. It is ludicrous to suggest he wasn't really dead, as some loons have.
Then many individuals claimed to see him alive thereafter. These individuals died for their faith. These individuals saw the risen Jesus at different times and places. It is not reasonable to think they lied, given their lives. At best the skeptic can say these Christians were deceived. If so, a lot of them were deceived at different times and places.
And no one has ever produced Jesus' body. The earliest arguments against the resurrection mentioned in Matthew 28 are that the disciples stole the body. But that means even the skeptics of that day knew there was no body.
Crossan suggests maybe dogs ate the body below the cross. But where then did the traditions about Joseph of Arimathea come from? Just some random name made up and matched to some arbitrary place of origin? Nah, sounds like a real person that lived and walked among the early Christians, someone people knew about, someone who was proud of the role he played in it all.
So we have no body, and we have a lot of people who thought they saw him. Hmm. Of course if you don't believe that resurrections can happen anything's possible. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Then again, if you are open to the possibility, this certainly is the best candidate for a resurrection in all history.
The skeptic had some questions that are hard too. If I were born in Saudi Arabia, there's an excellent chance I would be a Muslim. But then again, if I were born in 1200 Italy there's an excellent chance I would believe the sun went around the earth. I consider myself very privileged to be born where I was. So the fact that I was born a Christian does not necessarily mean Christianity is wrong.
The question of God's fairness is a more difficult issue. While I don't know God's mind, I'd like to think He judges people on the basis of how their heart responds to the "light" they have rather than the specifics of what their mind thinks. But these are inter-Christian issues beyond a belief in the Christian God.
Another question the skeptic raised was why God did not reveal Himself to us in the manner of a Moses or an Abraham. But if we look carefully, God didn't do such overt appearances very often even in Bible times. This line of thought leads me to things I've blogged on before. Maybe a great deal of how we understand God does have to do with our processes of understanding as much as they do God himself. I sometimes wonder if we create false expectations of our "chummy" conception of God that in the end are not the primary way He operates. If so, then maybe we are just setting ourselves up for a skeptic's question of this sort.
After saying that, I don't have all the answers. I sometimes worry about the hyper-apologist Christians who feel like they need to "prove" Christianity. I think a restful faith that believes and doesn't worry so much is safer and maybe ultimately more inviting to non-Christians.
One important omission from the Christian side was perhaps the most important of all for us: the resurrection. The idea that a "Big Bang" needed a big push makes sense, but it says very little about what the "Mover" was like. It is the resurrection that begins to get at the Christian God in earnest. I'm sure this question was in the mix, but they just didn't get to it because of time.
It is the resurrection that identifies God with Christ. Jesus died on the cross. It is ludicrous to suggest he wasn't really dead, as some loons have.
Then many individuals claimed to see him alive thereafter. These individuals died for their faith. These individuals saw the risen Jesus at different times and places. It is not reasonable to think they lied, given their lives. At best the skeptic can say these Christians were deceived. If so, a lot of them were deceived at different times and places.
And no one has ever produced Jesus' body. The earliest arguments against the resurrection mentioned in Matthew 28 are that the disciples stole the body. But that means even the skeptics of that day knew there was no body.
Crossan suggests maybe dogs ate the body below the cross. But where then did the traditions about Joseph of Arimathea come from? Just some random name made up and matched to some arbitrary place of origin? Nah, sounds like a real person that lived and walked among the early Christians, someone people knew about, someone who was proud of the role he played in it all.
So we have no body, and we have a lot of people who thought they saw him. Hmm. Of course if you don't believe that resurrections can happen anything's possible. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Then again, if you are open to the possibility, this certainly is the best candidate for a resurrection in all history.
The skeptic had some questions that are hard too. If I were born in Saudi Arabia, there's an excellent chance I would be a Muslim. But then again, if I were born in 1200 Italy there's an excellent chance I would believe the sun went around the earth. I consider myself very privileged to be born where I was. So the fact that I was born a Christian does not necessarily mean Christianity is wrong.
The question of God's fairness is a more difficult issue. While I don't know God's mind, I'd like to think He judges people on the basis of how their heart responds to the "light" they have rather than the specifics of what their mind thinks. But these are inter-Christian issues beyond a belief in the Christian God.
Another question the skeptic raised was why God did not reveal Himself to us in the manner of a Moses or an Abraham. But if we look carefully, God didn't do such overt appearances very often even in Bible times. This line of thought leads me to things I've blogged on before. Maybe a great deal of how we understand God does have to do with our processes of understanding as much as they do God himself. I sometimes wonder if we create false expectations of our "chummy" conception of God that in the end are not the primary way He operates. If so, then maybe we are just setting ourselves up for a skeptic's question of this sort.
After saying that, I don't have all the answers. I sometimes worry about the hyper-apologist Christians who feel like they need to "prove" Christianity. I think a restful faith that believes and doesn't worry so much is safer and maybe ultimately more inviting to non-Christians.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Biblical Interpretive Paradigms: Part 3
To continue...
I'd now like to look at another aspect of the group's interpretive paradigm, namely, the idea that unless you are baptized in water (in the name of Jesus, as the last entry discussed), you are not going to make it to heaven.
First of all, I believe the group has rightly ascertained that Acts 2:38 treats receiving the Spirit as a part of coming to Christ in Acts 2. I feel my Wesleyan background, using its own interpretive paradigm, has often associated the Day of Pentecost with a work of grace subsequent to becoming a Christian (entire sanctification, following the lead of John Fletcher rather than John Wesley). It took me years to listen to the biblical text on this one. I agree with the group that Acts treats reception of the Holy Spirit as an essential component in coming to Christ, not as a work subsequent to conversion.
Indeed, I would say that Paul, Acts, and Hebrews treat the reception of the Spirit as the defining element of becoming a Christian (cf. Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 5:5).
But is baptism in water as essential as "baptism in the Spirit" or the reception of the Spirit, terms that Luke-Acts seems to use interchangeably. Some groups, including some in my own tradition, make fine distinctions between phrases like "baptism in the Spirit," "filling with the Spirit," "receiving the Spirit," and the "fulness of the Spirit." But these are moves made from the outside of the text looking in. The text does not make any explicit distinctions of this sort--they are read into the text rather than out of it.
Jesus in Luke foretells baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts implies that Pentecost is the fulfillment of this prediction. The Day of Pentecost is thus baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 equates receiving the Spirit with the Pentecost experience. They are said to have been filled with the Spirit on this day (2:4). Finally, the phrase fulness of the Spirit does not even occur in the New Testament. Once again we see that the definitions and dictionary a person brings to the text determines the meaning you see in the text.
So how essential is water baptism? It is clearly important. Acts 2:38 treats it as normative. The first words out of the Ethiopian eunuch's mouth after Philip convinces him of the gospel relate to water for baptism (Acts 8). Suffice it to say, the idea of a Christian group forbidding water baptism or even not encouraging it would have been foreign to the book of Acts.
But is it as important and essential as "baptism in the Holy Spirit"? Will an unbaptized Quaker or Salvationist miss heaven over this? What about someone who dies before they get to a baptismal? The group in question is keen to point out that Acts 2:38 says that the baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins." The reception of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned here as the mechanism of cleansing--the water baptism is.
On the other hand, this is a lot of weight to put on the preposition "into" in the Greek. Words like these can have many different nuances, and the group is taking these words in a very, very narrow sense, probably much narrower than they were originally meant.
Thus Acts 15:8-9 speak of the purification coming by way of the Holy Spirit: "God who knows the heart witnessed to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He also gave to us, and he showed no difference between us and them when he cleansed their hearts on the basis of their faith." The coming of the Holy Spirit in the incidence to which Peter refers took place before these Gentiles had been baptized (Acts 10). This fact demonstrates that the two "baptisms"--baptism in the Holy Spirit and water baptism--are separable experiences.
Indeed, at Samaria they were baptized and did not receive the Spirit (Acts 8). This incongruous situation led Peter and John to make a special trip to Samaria, presumably to "fix" this "problem" (although here more interpretation is involved on my part).
Paul can associate joining together with Christ with baptism (Rom. 6:4). But more often than not it is the Holy Spirit he focuses on as the boundary marker between sonship and non-sonship (e.g., Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; cf. Eph. 1:14; Heb. 6:4-6). In 1 Corinthians he actually downplays the significance of baptism because of local problems there: "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1:17).
In short, baptism in water is clearly associated with the cleansing of the heart in Paul and Acts. But 1) since water baptism and Spirit baptism are separable experiences in Acts, 2) since when the distinction is not made the spiritual seems to take precedence, and 3) since the spiritual is more often mentioned and water baptism is not, on the whole water baptism seems secondary to Spirit baptism.
So would a Spirit baptized person who was not water baptized go to heaven? The NT doesn't directly address this question. True, the thief on the cross was never baptized, but the Holy Spirit had not yet been given at that time. He was like an Old Testament saint in that regard.
I'm not sure I have a knock down drag out argument except to say that it is not the baptism that the NT authors emphasize as the operative element in conversion. 1 John speaks of the heart, for example.
True, Paul does have followers of John the Baptist become rebaptized at Ephesus (Acts 19). But the reason was because John's baptism did not involve receiving the Holy Spirit. There may also be other features involved here, historical factors leading Acts (cf. John) to emphasize that following the message of John the Baptist and following Jesus is not the same thing.
So I probably cannot prove what any NT author would say about the unbaptized Quaker or the person who gets in a car accident on their way to their baptism. But would God have accepted any of the Gentiles in Acts 10 after they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? I think He would have, although this is an inference. And while I cannot absolutely prove it, it seems to me that the baptism of the group in this passage (Acts 10:47) is almost a kind of after-the-fact ratification of that which the Holy Spirit had already done in them.
So inferences are involved on both sides of the issue. I have to infer what the NT authors would say about an unbaptized Quaker. I'm trying to do so on the basis of what the text says. The group in question is also inferring an answer to this question. In particular, they are inferring that all the relevant passages that don't mention water baptism while talking about the Spirit in conversion assume it as equally essential. All in all, their interpretation centers primarily on a rigid reading of one verse (Acts 2:38), whose interpretation is then inferred in all other places in the NT.
But we cannot assume that Paul has the same precise theology as Luke--or even that Luke is giving us Peter's exact words on the Day of Pentecost (there's significant evidence to conclude that the sermons of Acts give us as much of Luke as they do of the historical sermons in question). That means that the group's case is built on 1) the "normal" process of conversion in Acts (without any comment on the unusual) and 2) inference from the "normal" examples of Acts. The NT makes no direct comment on the "unusual" circumstances we are addressing.
In my next post I'll address the question of whether Acts/the NT present tongues as the evidence of having received the Holy Spirit.
I'd now like to look at another aspect of the group's interpretive paradigm, namely, the idea that unless you are baptized in water (in the name of Jesus, as the last entry discussed), you are not going to make it to heaven.
First of all, I believe the group has rightly ascertained that Acts 2:38 treats receiving the Spirit as a part of coming to Christ in Acts 2. I feel my Wesleyan background, using its own interpretive paradigm, has often associated the Day of Pentecost with a work of grace subsequent to becoming a Christian (entire sanctification, following the lead of John Fletcher rather than John Wesley). It took me years to listen to the biblical text on this one. I agree with the group that Acts treats reception of the Holy Spirit as an essential component in coming to Christ, not as a work subsequent to conversion.
Indeed, I would say that Paul, Acts, and Hebrews treat the reception of the Spirit as the defining element of becoming a Christian (cf. Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 5:5).
But is baptism in water as essential as "baptism in the Spirit" or the reception of the Spirit, terms that Luke-Acts seems to use interchangeably. Some groups, including some in my own tradition, make fine distinctions between phrases like "baptism in the Spirit," "filling with the Spirit," "receiving the Spirit," and the "fulness of the Spirit." But these are moves made from the outside of the text looking in. The text does not make any explicit distinctions of this sort--they are read into the text rather than out of it.
Jesus in Luke foretells baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts implies that Pentecost is the fulfillment of this prediction. The Day of Pentecost is thus baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 equates receiving the Spirit with the Pentecost experience. They are said to have been filled with the Spirit on this day (2:4). Finally, the phrase fulness of the Spirit does not even occur in the New Testament. Once again we see that the definitions and dictionary a person brings to the text determines the meaning you see in the text.
So how essential is water baptism? It is clearly important. Acts 2:38 treats it as normative. The first words out of the Ethiopian eunuch's mouth after Philip convinces him of the gospel relate to water for baptism (Acts 8). Suffice it to say, the idea of a Christian group forbidding water baptism or even not encouraging it would have been foreign to the book of Acts.
But is it as important and essential as "baptism in the Holy Spirit"? Will an unbaptized Quaker or Salvationist miss heaven over this? What about someone who dies before they get to a baptismal? The group in question is keen to point out that Acts 2:38 says that the baptism is "for the forgiveness of sins." The reception of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned here as the mechanism of cleansing--the water baptism is.
On the other hand, this is a lot of weight to put on the preposition "into" in the Greek. Words like these can have many different nuances, and the group is taking these words in a very, very narrow sense, probably much narrower than they were originally meant.
Thus Acts 15:8-9 speak of the purification coming by way of the Holy Spirit: "God who knows the heart witnessed to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He also gave to us, and he showed no difference between us and them when he cleansed their hearts on the basis of their faith." The coming of the Holy Spirit in the incidence to which Peter refers took place before these Gentiles had been baptized (Acts 10). This fact demonstrates that the two "baptisms"--baptism in the Holy Spirit and water baptism--are separable experiences.
Indeed, at Samaria they were baptized and did not receive the Spirit (Acts 8). This incongruous situation led Peter and John to make a special trip to Samaria, presumably to "fix" this "problem" (although here more interpretation is involved on my part).
Paul can associate joining together with Christ with baptism (Rom. 6:4). But more often than not it is the Holy Spirit he focuses on as the boundary marker between sonship and non-sonship (e.g., Rom. 8:9; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; cf. Eph. 1:14; Heb. 6:4-6). In 1 Corinthians he actually downplays the significance of baptism because of local problems there: "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1:17).
In short, baptism in water is clearly associated with the cleansing of the heart in Paul and Acts. But 1) since water baptism and Spirit baptism are separable experiences in Acts, 2) since when the distinction is not made the spiritual seems to take precedence, and 3) since the spiritual is more often mentioned and water baptism is not, on the whole water baptism seems secondary to Spirit baptism.
So would a Spirit baptized person who was not water baptized go to heaven? The NT doesn't directly address this question. True, the thief on the cross was never baptized, but the Holy Spirit had not yet been given at that time. He was like an Old Testament saint in that regard.
I'm not sure I have a knock down drag out argument except to say that it is not the baptism that the NT authors emphasize as the operative element in conversion. 1 John speaks of the heart, for example.
True, Paul does have followers of John the Baptist become rebaptized at Ephesus (Acts 19). But the reason was because John's baptism did not involve receiving the Holy Spirit. There may also be other features involved here, historical factors leading Acts (cf. John) to emphasize that following the message of John the Baptist and following Jesus is not the same thing.
So I probably cannot prove what any NT author would say about the unbaptized Quaker or the person who gets in a car accident on their way to their baptism. But would God have accepted any of the Gentiles in Acts 10 after they received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? I think He would have, although this is an inference. And while I cannot absolutely prove it, it seems to me that the baptism of the group in this passage (Acts 10:47) is almost a kind of after-the-fact ratification of that which the Holy Spirit had already done in them.
So inferences are involved on both sides of the issue. I have to infer what the NT authors would say about an unbaptized Quaker. I'm trying to do so on the basis of what the text says. The group in question is also inferring an answer to this question. In particular, they are inferring that all the relevant passages that don't mention water baptism while talking about the Spirit in conversion assume it as equally essential. All in all, their interpretation centers primarily on a rigid reading of one verse (Acts 2:38), whose interpretation is then inferred in all other places in the NT.
But we cannot assume that Paul has the same precise theology as Luke--or even that Luke is giving us Peter's exact words on the Day of Pentecost (there's significant evidence to conclude that the sermons of Acts give us as much of Luke as they do of the historical sermons in question). That means that the group's case is built on 1) the "normal" process of conversion in Acts (without any comment on the unusual) and 2) inference from the "normal" examples of Acts. The NT makes no direct comment on the "unusual" circumstances we are addressing.
In my next post I'll address the question of whether Acts/the NT present tongues as the evidence of having received the Holy Spirit.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Biblical Interpretive Paradigms: Part 2
To continue...
As best I can tell, the book of Acts, especially Acts 2, provides one of the most important "centers" or controlling elements in the way this group reads Scripture. Thus Acts 2:38 says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit."
The group correctly reads the verse to say:
1. Peter associates the forgiveness of his audience's sins with baptism.
2. This baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ"--nothing is said of God the Father or the Holy Spirit.
3. A person receives the Holy Spirit in association with such repentance and baptism.
Let's see how the group relates these three aspects of the verse to their key beliefs.
First let's look at their insistence that such baptism be in the name of Jesus [only] and their rejection of the idea of the Trinity.
They have correctly noticed that the book of Acts consistently involves a baptism in the name of Jesus. Nothing is said in Acts about baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Indeed, I suspect they are right to think that the earliest Christians baptized in the name of Jesus (cf. Rom. 6:3).
But as pre-modern readers, they cannot allow other segments of the early church to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Matt. 28:19). They view the Bible as a single text written by God, so the historical tensions that almost certainly existed in the early church are mowed down by the lawn mower called "harmonization."
At first glance, harmonization looks like it is the most godly approach to Scripture--finding ways to reinterpret passages of the Bible so that their meaning is no longer in tension with the meaning of other passages. When the Holy Spirit is truly behind such harmonization (that is, leading the reader to truth through it, even though the truth is different from the original meaning) or when a person is either consciously or subconsciously doing it with orthodox faith setting the boundaries, I don't have a problem with it.
But I have two problems with it when it is used to support unorthodox views or when individuals (I am not referring to this group now) use harmonization to dismiss sincere Bible scholars as unspiritual because they don't harmonize. The first problem I have is that harmonizing ultimately rejects the voices of Scripture and substitutes itself for Scripture.
For example, Matthew and Mark record Jesus' healing of a leper and his healing of Peter's mother-in-law in opposite order. A harmonizer might suggest Jesus healed two lepers: one before Peter's mother-in-law and one afterwards. This example is harmless enough, but you have created a senario that neither of the gospels present. You have invented your own scheme and, in a sense, rejected both what Matthew and Mark actually say.
Again, in this case the result is really not that big of a deal. But the Jesus only group actually rejects Matthew's baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in favor of Acts. A clever rationalization ensues--and such splicing is often ingenious. They might argue that "name" is singular and invoke some interpretation that says these three are really all Jesus, just in three phases of his existence. What might seem to be a baptism in the names of three different persons is really just baptism in the one name of Jesus.
This leads me to the second problem I ultimately have with harmonization when it becomes unorthodox or is used to support a condescending attitude toward Bible scholars (again, I am not referring to the group with this last comment). The resultant interpretations are simply wrong in terms of what the text originally meant. It's playing a game with the text. A Bible scholar who genuinely sees tensions in the biblical text may have a much greater respect for the text of the Bible than a harmonizer. That's because such a person is willing to let each part mean whatever it seems to mean. In other words, such a person doesn't shove harmonizations down the Bible's throat. Some people's "idea" of the Bible is far more important to them than the text of the Bible itself.
So in the case of the leper and Peter's mother in law, the wording of the leper story is extremely similar in both gospels. Indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely that Matthew and Mark stand in some literary relationship to one another--that one is either copying its basic text from the other or that they are both drawing on a common source of some type. As such it is overwhelmingly likely that the leper story is the same story placed in different locations by the two authors. Harmonization in this instance is not only not important for faith but it is simply an incorrect interpretation.
Similarly, while Matthew uses the singular for "name," one can only support the idea that this is simply naming Jesus three times if one brings this pre-conception to the text. There is certainly nothing in the text that would lead us in this direction. The resultant interpretation may preserve the "idea" of harmony, but it does so by raping the biblical text of its actual meaning. It ignores what the text wants to say in order to preserve what the interpreter wants the text to say.
Indeed, if anything the New Testament itself pushes us to distinguish Jesus from God, not to identify them. Thus Jesus says he does not know things that the Father does (Mark 13:32). The Father speaks while Jesus prays (e.g., Matt. 3:17). Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Col. 1:15), which seems to place him on the creation side of the equation in Paul's mind (a situation those of us who believe in the Trinity also need to explain). The group no doubt has ingenious ways of reinterpreting these passages, as Christians in general have great "coping strategies" to explain away "naughty verses" that don't fit with our Wesleyan or Baptist or Presbyterian paradigms.
But when we really value the text (and are looking for the original meaning rather than a "spiritual" one), we don't find possible ways to interpret it so it fits with our theology, we try to go with the most probable reading of the text. Inevitably, we begin to see the Bible in context as a chorus of voices that basically are in harmony with each other, but we also see tensions between real people. From my perspective, you simply cannot let the Bible set the agenda without reaching some conclusion of this sort. To do otherwise is to foist on the Bible a view it does not "want" you to have. It would be like trying to honor me for being such an incredible war hero despite my continued protests that I have never been in a war or even in the armed forces. What I really want you to do is to listen to what I'm actually trying to say to you.
Now in saying such things I do not mean to negate my view that it is ultimately great to hear the Spirit speaking in the words apart from what they meant originally. What is important to me is that we don't confuse such spiritual meanings with the original meaning. And even more important to me is that we don't mistake the splicings of our own making with the authoritative voice of God.
As best I can tell, the book of Acts, especially Acts 2, provides one of the most important "centers" or controlling elements in the way this group reads Scripture. Thus Acts 2:38 says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit."
The group correctly reads the verse to say:
1. Peter associates the forgiveness of his audience's sins with baptism.
2. This baptism is "in the name of Jesus Christ"--nothing is said of God the Father or the Holy Spirit.
3. A person receives the Holy Spirit in association with such repentance and baptism.
Let's see how the group relates these three aspects of the verse to their key beliefs.
First let's look at their insistence that such baptism be in the name of Jesus [only] and their rejection of the idea of the Trinity.
They have correctly noticed that the book of Acts consistently involves a baptism in the name of Jesus. Nothing is said in Acts about baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Indeed, I suspect they are right to think that the earliest Christians baptized in the name of Jesus (cf. Rom. 6:3).
But as pre-modern readers, they cannot allow other segments of the early church to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Matt. 28:19). They view the Bible as a single text written by God, so the historical tensions that almost certainly existed in the early church are mowed down by the lawn mower called "harmonization."
At first glance, harmonization looks like it is the most godly approach to Scripture--finding ways to reinterpret passages of the Bible so that their meaning is no longer in tension with the meaning of other passages. When the Holy Spirit is truly behind such harmonization (that is, leading the reader to truth through it, even though the truth is different from the original meaning) or when a person is either consciously or subconsciously doing it with orthodox faith setting the boundaries, I don't have a problem with it.
But I have two problems with it when it is used to support unorthodox views or when individuals (I am not referring to this group now) use harmonization to dismiss sincere Bible scholars as unspiritual because they don't harmonize. The first problem I have is that harmonizing ultimately rejects the voices of Scripture and substitutes itself for Scripture.
For example, Matthew and Mark record Jesus' healing of a leper and his healing of Peter's mother-in-law in opposite order. A harmonizer might suggest Jesus healed two lepers: one before Peter's mother-in-law and one afterwards. This example is harmless enough, but you have created a senario that neither of the gospels present. You have invented your own scheme and, in a sense, rejected both what Matthew and Mark actually say.
Again, in this case the result is really not that big of a deal. But the Jesus only group actually rejects Matthew's baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in favor of Acts. A clever rationalization ensues--and such splicing is often ingenious. They might argue that "name" is singular and invoke some interpretation that says these three are really all Jesus, just in three phases of his existence. What might seem to be a baptism in the names of three different persons is really just baptism in the one name of Jesus.
This leads me to the second problem I ultimately have with harmonization when it becomes unorthodox or is used to support a condescending attitude toward Bible scholars (again, I am not referring to the group with this last comment). The resultant interpretations are simply wrong in terms of what the text originally meant. It's playing a game with the text. A Bible scholar who genuinely sees tensions in the biblical text may have a much greater respect for the text of the Bible than a harmonizer. That's because such a person is willing to let each part mean whatever it seems to mean. In other words, such a person doesn't shove harmonizations down the Bible's throat. Some people's "idea" of the Bible is far more important to them than the text of the Bible itself.
So in the case of the leper and Peter's mother in law, the wording of the leper story is extremely similar in both gospels. Indeed, it is overwhelmingly likely that Matthew and Mark stand in some literary relationship to one another--that one is either copying its basic text from the other or that they are both drawing on a common source of some type. As such it is overwhelmingly likely that the leper story is the same story placed in different locations by the two authors. Harmonization in this instance is not only not important for faith but it is simply an incorrect interpretation.
Similarly, while Matthew uses the singular for "name," one can only support the idea that this is simply naming Jesus three times if one brings this pre-conception to the text. There is certainly nothing in the text that would lead us in this direction. The resultant interpretation may preserve the "idea" of harmony, but it does so by raping the biblical text of its actual meaning. It ignores what the text wants to say in order to preserve what the interpreter wants the text to say.
Indeed, if anything the New Testament itself pushes us to distinguish Jesus from God, not to identify them. Thus Jesus says he does not know things that the Father does (Mark 13:32). The Father speaks while Jesus prays (e.g., Matt. 3:17). Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Col. 1:15), which seems to place him on the creation side of the equation in Paul's mind (a situation those of us who believe in the Trinity also need to explain). The group no doubt has ingenious ways of reinterpreting these passages, as Christians in general have great "coping strategies" to explain away "naughty verses" that don't fit with our Wesleyan or Baptist or Presbyterian paradigms.
But when we really value the text (and are looking for the original meaning rather than a "spiritual" one), we don't find possible ways to interpret it so it fits with our theology, we try to go with the most probable reading of the text. Inevitably, we begin to see the Bible in context as a chorus of voices that basically are in harmony with each other, but we also see tensions between real people. From my perspective, you simply cannot let the Bible set the agenda without reaching some conclusion of this sort. To do otherwise is to foist on the Bible a view it does not "want" you to have. It would be like trying to honor me for being such an incredible war hero despite my continued protests that I have never been in a war or even in the armed forces. What I really want you to do is to listen to what I'm actually trying to say to you.
Now in saying such things I do not mean to negate my view that it is ultimately great to hear the Spirit speaking in the words apart from what they meant originally. What is important to me is that we don't confuse such spiritual meanings with the original meaning. And even more important to me is that we don't mistake the splicings of our own making with the authoritative voice of God.
Thoughts on Interpretive Paradigms: Part I
I had originally posted this on my blog for philosophy class (http://philosophicaljourney.blogspot.com). But I decided I was getting off track for a class so thought I would republish/continue the series here.
A local group of Christians with which I am a little familiar provides us with an excellent test case for my claim that the paradigms and dictionaries we bring to the text are even more determinative for the meaning we see in the Bible than the text of the Bible itself.
With what little knowledge I have, I would characterize the group in terms of three key beliefs which differ from most mainstream churches (if I am wrong on details, this entry is more about how we read the Bible than about the group per se):
1. A belief that speaking in tongues is the evidence of having the Holy Spirit (in distinction from the gift of tongues, which I suppose would be those who continue to speak in tongues regularly after conversion). Those who do not speak in tongues are not truly saved.
2. A belief that a person should only be baptized in Jesus' name. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is inappropriate because of the manner of baptism in Acts. Those who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity must be rebaptized. Further, a person cannot be saved unless s/he is baptized (although children who have not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven).
3. A disbelief in the Trinity. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in fact three phases or modes of the same person. God is one person, not three.
Now, how does this theology work in terms of how the Bible is appropriated. I will give a description in terms of my claims about how we read the Bible.
This is a wonderful example of a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible. The overriding presumption is that the words of the Bible form a single message. Therefore, words from one book of the Bible are interpreted on the basis of controlling interpretations from other words from other books. This approach, typical of so many Christian groups, usually reflects a lack of awareness of how to read the books of the Bible in context. This approach is particularly typical of the "Left Behind" approach to prophecy, which mixes words from various contexts all over the Bible into a coherent paradigm.
The original meaning of an individual book is of course what the words of that book meant when the book was produced. A contextual reading of 1 Thessalonians thus asks what situation Paul was in when he wrote it, what the words likely meant in Paul's mind, and what the words likely meant in the minds of the Thessalonians.
This is of course how the words "want" to be read. Perhaps it is valid to read them in terms of God's message for us, perhaps in fact that is what it means to consider them Scripture (I am now alluding to a post-modern way of using Scripture). But this is not how the words themselves "want" to be read--it is not what Jesus, Paul, or the other authors understood their words to mean. When 2 Thessalonians 2 says, "Didn't I tell you these things when I was with you," it clearly wants us to take the I as the apostle Paul and the you as the Thessalonians. Paul did not tell anyone alive the things to which these words refer.
In my second post, I will explore ways in which the group in question infuses the words of the Bible with the definitions of their "tradition" and how they "glue" words from one context to words from other contexts. All of these operations take place outside the text and the resultant meanings are distinct from the original meanings of the text. From a post-modern perspective, however, these observations in themselves do not necessarily mean the group is wrong. They can modify their paradigm by claiming to have the correct spiritual interpretation of the text. At the moment, however, these processes take place on a pre-modern plane. That is, the group does not realize they are not reading the words with the meanings Jesus, Paul, or the other New Testament authors understood the words to have.
A local group of Christians with which I am a little familiar provides us with an excellent test case for my claim that the paradigms and dictionaries we bring to the text are even more determinative for the meaning we see in the Bible than the text of the Bible itself.
With what little knowledge I have, I would characterize the group in terms of three key beliefs which differ from most mainstream churches (if I am wrong on details, this entry is more about how we read the Bible than about the group per se):
1. A belief that speaking in tongues is the evidence of having the Holy Spirit (in distinction from the gift of tongues, which I suppose would be those who continue to speak in tongues regularly after conversion). Those who do not speak in tongues are not truly saved.
2. A belief that a person should only be baptized in Jesus' name. Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is inappropriate because of the manner of baptism in Acts. Those who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity must be rebaptized. Further, a person cannot be saved unless s/he is baptized (although children who have not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven).
3. A disbelief in the Trinity. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in fact three phases or modes of the same person. God is one person, not three.
Now, how does this theology work in terms of how the Bible is appropriated. I will give a description in terms of my claims about how we read the Bible.
This is a wonderful example of a pre-modern interpretation of the Bible. The overriding presumption is that the words of the Bible form a single message. Therefore, words from one book of the Bible are interpreted on the basis of controlling interpretations from other words from other books. This approach, typical of so many Christian groups, usually reflects a lack of awareness of how to read the books of the Bible in context. This approach is particularly typical of the "Left Behind" approach to prophecy, which mixes words from various contexts all over the Bible into a coherent paradigm.
The original meaning of an individual book is of course what the words of that book meant when the book was produced. A contextual reading of 1 Thessalonians thus asks what situation Paul was in when he wrote it, what the words likely meant in Paul's mind, and what the words likely meant in the minds of the Thessalonians.
This is of course how the words "want" to be read. Perhaps it is valid to read them in terms of God's message for us, perhaps in fact that is what it means to consider them Scripture (I am now alluding to a post-modern way of using Scripture). But this is not how the words themselves "want" to be read--it is not what Jesus, Paul, or the other authors understood their words to mean. When 2 Thessalonians 2 says, "Didn't I tell you these things when I was with you," it clearly wants us to take the I as the apostle Paul and the you as the Thessalonians. Paul did not tell anyone alive the things to which these words refer.
In my second post, I will explore ways in which the group in question infuses the words of the Bible with the definitions of their "tradition" and how they "glue" words from one context to words from other contexts. All of these operations take place outside the text and the resultant meanings are distinct from the original meanings of the text. From a post-modern perspective, however, these observations in themselves do not necessarily mean the group is wrong. They can modify their paradigm by claiming to have the correct spiritual interpretation of the text. At the moment, however, these processes take place on a pre-modern plane. That is, the group does not realize they are not reading the words with the meanings Jesus, Paul, or the other New Testament authors understood the words to have.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Rice's Trip to Disneyworld
I'm in a bit of an ornery mood, so maybe I should make my usual disclaimers first. I think Bush has a good heart and good intentions. I think Condoleeza Rice is competent and sincere.
Now let the sarcasm begin...
Condoleeza Rice has a great smile, but every time I see her in a new photo op in a new country, the comic in me has been saying... "That reminds me of something--something funny. What is it?"
I put it together this morning. It's a Disneyworld photo. Every picture looks like she should be standing next to Goofy or Mickey or Minnie. Once I made the connection, it was all over.
Rice is going on a little tour, a little Spring Break trip to see famous characters she's heard of. Of course they're just doing their job, taking pictures with foreign tourists with cameras. It's no secret that Western Europe was hoping they would be dealing with John Kerry about now, but they'll play ball with Condi if they have to. Of course Eastern Europe has always been more supportive of us, partially because we're their patron, partially because they understand dictatorships, partially because they're used to getting things done the violent way.
Rice has also invited Abbas and Sharon to come to the U.S. Bush's trying to get some credit for the budding peace he's had nothing to do with. Or maybe he has secretly been working behind the scenes in some covert operation no one knows about. That would be smart, since any association with the U.S. would only derail Abbas' street cred. with the Palestinians. Naw, don't think so.
Bush is now trying to get in on the action after they've already signed a cease fire. Too late. The most important part of Middle East peace is now underway, no thanks to Bush.
Meanwhile Bush's secular Iraqi administration has apparently lost the election, apparently come in third. No doubt a sign of their approval of the way we run things. We'll now be dealing with a religious Shiite administration. That will be interesting. Of course that's why we actually invaded Iraq... to bring justice to the 9-11 terrorists, no, I mean to stop Hussein from using WMD on us, no, I mean to set up a sympathetic democracy in the Middle East to influence the area, no, to set up a semi-democractic Shiite regime to run Iraq the way it should be--the Muslim way. What a happy day for the women of Iraq.
Now let the sarcasm begin...
Condoleeza Rice has a great smile, but every time I see her in a new photo op in a new country, the comic in me has been saying... "That reminds me of something--something funny. What is it?"
I put it together this morning. It's a Disneyworld photo. Every picture looks like she should be standing next to Goofy or Mickey or Minnie. Once I made the connection, it was all over.
Rice is going on a little tour, a little Spring Break trip to see famous characters she's heard of. Of course they're just doing their job, taking pictures with foreign tourists with cameras. It's no secret that Western Europe was hoping they would be dealing with John Kerry about now, but they'll play ball with Condi if they have to. Of course Eastern Europe has always been more supportive of us, partially because we're their patron, partially because they understand dictatorships, partially because they're used to getting things done the violent way.
Rice has also invited Abbas and Sharon to come to the U.S. Bush's trying to get some credit for the budding peace he's had nothing to do with. Or maybe he has secretly been working behind the scenes in some covert operation no one knows about. That would be smart, since any association with the U.S. would only derail Abbas' street cred. with the Palestinians. Naw, don't think so.
Bush is now trying to get in on the action after they've already signed a cease fire. Too late. The most important part of Middle East peace is now underway, no thanks to Bush.
Meanwhile Bush's secular Iraqi administration has apparently lost the election, apparently come in third. No doubt a sign of their approval of the way we run things. We'll now be dealing with a religious Shiite administration. That will be interesting. Of course that's why we actually invaded Iraq... to bring justice to the 9-11 terrorists, no, I mean to stop Hussein from using WMD on us, no, I mean to set up a sympathetic democracy in the Middle East to influence the area, no, to set up a semi-democractic Shiite regime to run Iraq the way it should be--the Muslim way. What a happy day for the women of Iraq.
Friday, February 04, 2005
My Answer to a Question on Bush
I wrote enough in response to Jake that I thought I would post it by itself:
Here's what Jake wrote:
Just a quick question. Do you still view the war as disasterous as you previously expressed? Or does the high voter turn-out in Iraq seem to indicate that maybe this war had some very good objectives that it is meeting? Has your opinion changed at all?The reason I ask is that while I was fairly ambivalent about the war, when I heard initial estimates of 60% voter-turn out, it definitely swayed me. (I haven't followed news closely enough to hear the actually voter turn-out percentage.) Perhaps the vote count is no indication of how people feel about the war; maybe the Iraqis are just making the most of the situation. But at first glance, it sure seems like many Iraqis are not as opposed to the war as some of Bush's critics. Thoughts?
My response:
My main problems with the war were two-fold:
1. I don't feel we started it under the right circumstances. As a matter of principle, the end doesn't justify the means when other important principles are at stake--at least not without much ado. I have always thought that Bush's goals were good and that most Iraqis would rather have someone else in charge other than Saddam.
For me it's not so much the idea of ousting Saddam that was the problem. It was the cavalier and alienating way in which Bush went about it. Those who are in power do well to remember that they will not always be in power. And when that happens then the new power will exert its idea of justice or vengence on you. The doctrine of preemption is very dangerous--especially when someone else is using it on you.
By the way, the groups that voted both have ulterior motives that may cause us tremendous problems yet, although I hope not. The Kurds are patiently going along with us in hopes that they can become Kurdistan and separate from Iraq altogether. That's why the Turks have opposed this action altogether--they don't want their Kurds revolting in the region and don't want the Kurds to retake Kirkuk. These are future conflicts that will almost certainly come and I don't look forward to them. I sympathize with the Kurds, but I dread the death that will probably take place as they move forward with their goals.
The Shiites are following Al Sustani with similar thoughts. They want to have a Shiite theocracy something like Iran. Again, they're playing along with the system because they know their numbers will ultimately give them the upper hand in the formation of any future state.
Meanwhile the Sunnis are under the thumb of the insurgents, ticked on the one hand that they are no longer in power as the minority. Their voter turnout was atrocious out of fear.
2. My second problem with the war was the wholesale cultural and religious ignorance with which Bush's administration seemed to execute it. Bush clearly had no idea we would face what we've faced. They were dismissive of the reaction we would have in the Islamic world.
On the whole I would say that Bush has gotten lucky. There are so many other scenarios that could have been the reality (and frankly still could be). He played Russian roulette on wishful thinking. The gun went off but only maimed him. Now am I expected to praise him because he's managed to get the patient out of intensive care--a patient he put there?
I will praise him. I'll praise him for good intentions. I'll praise him for being willing to stick it out. I'll praise him for the improved health of the patient.
But I'm not going to let him operate on Iran, North Korea, or Social Security unless he is really clear with me about the operating procedures. (as if I have anything to do with anything he does)
Here's what Jake wrote:
Just a quick question. Do you still view the war as disasterous as you previously expressed? Or does the high voter turn-out in Iraq seem to indicate that maybe this war had some very good objectives that it is meeting? Has your opinion changed at all?The reason I ask is that while I was fairly ambivalent about the war, when I heard initial estimates of 60% voter-turn out, it definitely swayed me. (I haven't followed news closely enough to hear the actually voter turn-out percentage.) Perhaps the vote count is no indication of how people feel about the war; maybe the Iraqis are just making the most of the situation. But at first glance, it sure seems like many Iraqis are not as opposed to the war as some of Bush's critics. Thoughts?
My response:
My main problems with the war were two-fold:
1. I don't feel we started it under the right circumstances. As a matter of principle, the end doesn't justify the means when other important principles are at stake--at least not without much ado. I have always thought that Bush's goals were good and that most Iraqis would rather have someone else in charge other than Saddam.
For me it's not so much the idea of ousting Saddam that was the problem. It was the cavalier and alienating way in which Bush went about it. Those who are in power do well to remember that they will not always be in power. And when that happens then the new power will exert its idea of justice or vengence on you. The doctrine of preemption is very dangerous--especially when someone else is using it on you.
By the way, the groups that voted both have ulterior motives that may cause us tremendous problems yet, although I hope not. The Kurds are patiently going along with us in hopes that they can become Kurdistan and separate from Iraq altogether. That's why the Turks have opposed this action altogether--they don't want their Kurds revolting in the region and don't want the Kurds to retake Kirkuk. These are future conflicts that will almost certainly come and I don't look forward to them. I sympathize with the Kurds, but I dread the death that will probably take place as they move forward with their goals.
The Shiites are following Al Sustani with similar thoughts. They want to have a Shiite theocracy something like Iran. Again, they're playing along with the system because they know their numbers will ultimately give them the upper hand in the formation of any future state.
Meanwhile the Sunnis are under the thumb of the insurgents, ticked on the one hand that they are no longer in power as the minority. Their voter turnout was atrocious out of fear.
2. My second problem with the war was the wholesale cultural and religious ignorance with which Bush's administration seemed to execute it. Bush clearly had no idea we would face what we've faced. They were dismissive of the reaction we would have in the Islamic world.
On the whole I would say that Bush has gotten lucky. There are so many other scenarios that could have been the reality (and frankly still could be). He played Russian roulette on wishful thinking. The gun went off but only maimed him. Now am I expected to praise him because he's managed to get the patient out of intensive care--a patient he put there?
I will praise him. I'll praise him for good intentions. I'll praise him for being willing to stick it out. I'll praise him for the improved health of the patient.
But I'm not going to let him operate on Iran, North Korea, or Social Security unless he is really clear with me about the operating procedures. (as if I have anything to do with anything he does)
Thursday, February 03, 2005
State of the Union
I guess I should comment on the State of the Union. I haven't heard all of it; I've mostly heard a bit of the talking heads on both sides. My wife Angie said Bush did a really good job in what she heard (and for those of you who know her, that's a real compliment). You can tell that he really does care and really does want to do good.
Most of the Democrats who've responded seem to be making fools of themselves. They should just admit that things are going pretty well for Bush. How can you do anything else when it seems to be a good thing for most of the Iraqi people? I'm not sure it does much good to keep rehashing the flub-ups of going to war. Bush won the election so that page is now past. If we think about another war, the debate can start again.
I think we need the Democratic party around to emphasize the good things Republicans have to deemphasize because of their constituencies. But the Democratic leaders now seem like a bunch of buffoons... Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, ... Can't they find anyone with charisma? I'm not sure Hilary qualifies.
I won't say much about Bush's goals. I've already written a little on Social Security and foreign policy. Here's hoping democracy takes hold in Iraq and that someone saves Social Security without leaving anyone insecure.
All in all, I'd say perhaps the best thing going on right now is the potential mending of relations between Israel and the Palestinians--and Bush hasn't really had much of anything to do with it.
Most of the Democrats who've responded seem to be making fools of themselves. They should just admit that things are going pretty well for Bush. How can you do anything else when it seems to be a good thing for most of the Iraqi people? I'm not sure it does much good to keep rehashing the flub-ups of going to war. Bush won the election so that page is now past. If we think about another war, the debate can start again.
I think we need the Democratic party around to emphasize the good things Republicans have to deemphasize because of their constituencies. But the Democratic leaders now seem like a bunch of buffoons... Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, ... Can't they find anyone with charisma? I'm not sure Hilary qualifies.
I won't say much about Bush's goals. I've already written a little on Social Security and foreign policy. Here's hoping democracy takes hold in Iraq and that someone saves Social Security without leaving anyone insecure.
All in all, I'd say perhaps the best thing going on right now is the potential mending of relations between Israel and the Palestinians--and Bush hasn't really had much of anything to do with it.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
The TNIV and World Magazine
There was another article on the TNIV in World magazine this week, predictably negative. It was more of the same and a feeble (though perhaps effective) attempt to derail the potential success of the TNIV, Today's NIV. The New Testament came out a few years back, but the full Bible comes out (supposedly) this month.
The title of the article, "Stealth Version," refers in part to the fact that Zondervan won't let these people take a peak at the full Bible it until it is fully published. Ha! Why in the world would Zondervan give it to them knowing exactly what they're going to say and do? Good grief, do they think they're imbeciles? All they want to do is to derail the version before it even comes out--that's why the World published the article at this time, just before the TNIV comes out. After all, its easier to stop the car before it starts than after its moving.
Another complaint is what the author calls Zondervan's "double speak." The idea is that what Zondervan calls a "gender accurate" translation is really an inclusive language translation.
But what really has gotten under the craw of Dobson and others is the fact that "everyone agreed" in 1997 not to produce inclusive language Bibles. At least that's what the Colorado group most objects. They say that Zondervan entered the agreement but hasn't kept true to its word.
It is possible that Zondervan has engaged in some "double speak." They claim that only two of their representatives entered into the agreement but that these representatives did not have the authority to speak for Zondervan itself. And the idea of a "gender accurate" translation is a bit of a political dodge, although I certainly would not call the TNIV an inclusive language Bible. It only inclusivizes things it thinks were originally inclusive (what it means by "gender accurate")
Ultimately I don't care. If Zondervan agreed to something that prohibited a version like the TNIV, they shouldn't have. Dobson's group is wrong-headed to think it godly not to produce a version like this one.
In truth, the TNIV really does try to be "accurate" in its rendering of gender in the following sense: it only translates something like "sons" as "children" if it thinks thats what Paul ultimately meant. It only does "parents" for "fathers" when it thinks that's what the original meant. It only translates "brothers" as "brothers and sisters" when it thinks that's what the original really meant. It does not mess with God gender. It does not change or fiddle with passages on husbands as heads of homes or women being silent in the churches. In short, the TNIV simply does what the NLT and NRSV had already done.
But Dobson's group had no influence on these versions. Nor did it protest this way when they came out. The difference is that this time it's personal.
Frankly I prefer formal equivalence translations that stick to the original wording and sentence structure. They allow me to be lazy when I don't feel like using my Greek New Testament or Hebrew Bible. If I'm preaching, the NLT or Message do a far better dynamic equivalence translation to translate the "meaning" in modern categories and language. The TNIV is neither fully formal nor fully dynamic. It's much better than the NIV, but then again, I never really liked the NIV in the first place.
But I stand fully behind Zondervan and I'll use the TNIV because it is a righteous translation. Dobson's group is misguided on this one and manifesting "zeal without knowledge."
The title of the article, "Stealth Version," refers in part to the fact that Zondervan won't let these people take a peak at the full Bible it until it is fully published. Ha! Why in the world would Zondervan give it to them knowing exactly what they're going to say and do? Good grief, do they think they're imbeciles? All they want to do is to derail the version before it even comes out--that's why the World published the article at this time, just before the TNIV comes out. After all, its easier to stop the car before it starts than after its moving.
Another complaint is what the author calls Zondervan's "double speak." The idea is that what Zondervan calls a "gender accurate" translation is really an inclusive language translation.
But what really has gotten under the craw of Dobson and others is the fact that "everyone agreed" in 1997 not to produce inclusive language Bibles. At least that's what the Colorado group most objects. They say that Zondervan entered the agreement but hasn't kept true to its word.
It is possible that Zondervan has engaged in some "double speak." They claim that only two of their representatives entered into the agreement but that these representatives did not have the authority to speak for Zondervan itself. And the idea of a "gender accurate" translation is a bit of a political dodge, although I certainly would not call the TNIV an inclusive language Bible. It only inclusivizes things it thinks were originally inclusive (what it means by "gender accurate")
Ultimately I don't care. If Zondervan agreed to something that prohibited a version like the TNIV, they shouldn't have. Dobson's group is wrong-headed to think it godly not to produce a version like this one.
In truth, the TNIV really does try to be "accurate" in its rendering of gender in the following sense: it only translates something like "sons" as "children" if it thinks thats what Paul ultimately meant. It only does "parents" for "fathers" when it thinks that's what the original meant. It only translates "brothers" as "brothers and sisters" when it thinks that's what the original really meant. It does not mess with God gender. It does not change or fiddle with passages on husbands as heads of homes or women being silent in the churches. In short, the TNIV simply does what the NLT and NRSV had already done.
But Dobson's group had no influence on these versions. Nor did it protest this way when they came out. The difference is that this time it's personal.
Frankly I prefer formal equivalence translations that stick to the original wording and sentence structure. They allow me to be lazy when I don't feel like using my Greek New Testament or Hebrew Bible. If I'm preaching, the NLT or Message do a far better dynamic equivalence translation to translate the "meaning" in modern categories and language. The TNIV is neither fully formal nor fully dynamic. It's much better than the NIV, but then again, I never really liked the NIV in the first place.
But I stand fully behind Zondervan and I'll use the TNIV because it is a righteous translation. Dobson's group is misguided on this one and manifesting "zeal without knowledge."
Monday, January 31, 2005
Three Cheers for the Shiites and Kurds
By accounts so far, the election yesterday went better than expected. Hurray! How could a Christian wish them anything but success in their movement toward freedom and democracy? Regardless of our debates over the way the war started and other issues, I have nothing but high hopes that it will turn out as well as the idealogues in Washington hoped it would.
Three cheers for the Shiites and Kurds, and may the Sunnis find their way to participation too.
Three cheers for the Shiites and Kurds, and may the Sunnis find their way to participation too.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Bush, Inaugurations, and Fights for Freedom
It looks like I'm finally done with a long project, so I can give my two cents on Bush's inaugural address. How could I have held off so long, you're thinking.
One thing I want to make clear again is that I really think Bush has good intentions. I'm not one of those who think it's all about oil, for example. And I'm really willing to believe that he's a born again Christian, although I don't think he has technically used these words of himself (I could be wrong).
Of course this doesn't mean I idealize him as a Christian whose example I want to follow. Anyone who knows me, particularly in class, know my failings. They are enormous, so I'm not saying I'm better than Bush on any number of things that are important--especially for being President.
On the other hand, there are some things I think he could improve on. I was disappointed that he didn't take the time to address the Tsunami immediately because he was on vacation. Sure, I respect the need for a President to have space--just like a pastor needs to have some space that the church can't get into. I don't think he did wrong--but he was not the best President that day.
And I was a little irritated that I had to be soothed by Gulianni after 9-11 while Bush was flying around somewhere in Air Force One. Sure, they needed to make sure he was safe. They did nothing wrong--but he was not the best President that day.
But none of these things are very serious or important. They're trivial matters that were just a little disappointing to me. I suspect Bush errs a little on the self-centered side, or at least he's not as caring and daring as I prefer in a President (remember Bush senior yawning and looking at his watch during Presidential debates).
But the address.
It scared me. Are we really going to try to overthrow every totalitarian regime in the world? Of course it was not a good speech because of its vague generalities. I've come to expect this from Bush. He repeats the same phrase over and over without really saying anything specific.
So what did it mean? What was he trying to say about what we will be doing the next four years? The speech didn't really tell me. Are we going to invade Iran and North Korea?
Well, we're not, even if Bush was thinking this. There's no way America will let him. If he proposes a new war, there will be a debate this time, and his reasons will come under scrutiny. There will be no "don't debate in reverence to those who lost their lives to 9-11." There will be no "don't debate because we need morale to be up."
Congress simply will not give Bush approval to attack any nation that does not attack us again. It's one thing to try to defend a vote you mistakenly made in the past. It's another to vote on something you're going to do with a lot more experience than you had the last time.
Of course, I could be wrong...
One thing I want to make clear again is that I really think Bush has good intentions. I'm not one of those who think it's all about oil, for example. And I'm really willing to believe that he's a born again Christian, although I don't think he has technically used these words of himself (I could be wrong).
Of course this doesn't mean I idealize him as a Christian whose example I want to follow. Anyone who knows me, particularly in class, know my failings. They are enormous, so I'm not saying I'm better than Bush on any number of things that are important--especially for being President.
On the other hand, there are some things I think he could improve on. I was disappointed that he didn't take the time to address the Tsunami immediately because he was on vacation. Sure, I respect the need for a President to have space--just like a pastor needs to have some space that the church can't get into. I don't think he did wrong--but he was not the best President that day.
And I was a little irritated that I had to be soothed by Gulianni after 9-11 while Bush was flying around somewhere in Air Force One. Sure, they needed to make sure he was safe. They did nothing wrong--but he was not the best President that day.
But none of these things are very serious or important. They're trivial matters that were just a little disappointing to me. I suspect Bush errs a little on the self-centered side, or at least he's not as caring and daring as I prefer in a President (remember Bush senior yawning and looking at his watch during Presidential debates).
But the address.
It scared me. Are we really going to try to overthrow every totalitarian regime in the world? Of course it was not a good speech because of its vague generalities. I've come to expect this from Bush. He repeats the same phrase over and over without really saying anything specific.
So what did it mean? What was he trying to say about what we will be doing the next four years? The speech didn't really tell me. Are we going to invade Iran and North Korea?
Well, we're not, even if Bush was thinking this. There's no way America will let him. If he proposes a new war, there will be a debate this time, and his reasons will come under scrutiny. There will be no "don't debate in reverence to those who lost their lives to 9-11." There will be no "don't debate because we need morale to be up."
Congress simply will not give Bush approval to attack any nation that does not attack us again. It's one thing to try to defend a vote you mistakenly made in the past. It's another to vote on something you're going to do with a lot more experience than you had the last time.
Of course, I could be wrong...
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Infant Baptism
I guess one of Bence's classes got somewhat heated over infant baptism, so I thought I would weigh in.
First of all, I have divided feelings on the issue. On the one hand, I value my baptism. I can remember it, and it is meaningful that I can remember it. It symbolized for me my commitment to Christ. Notice the operative terms in this paragraph: I... I... I... for me my. Believer's baptism is "me" centered, and modern Western culture is individualist in orientation.
On the other hand, I think children are "in" until God brings them to the point where they can choose not to be. Did the early church baptize infants? I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, for the ancient world was a group oriented culture (e.g., Acts 16:15, 33). I do believe that the children of Christians ate the Lord's Supper along with everyone else, since it was originally a meal (1 Cor. 10). The assumption would have been that they were "in" until one way or another they made it clear they were not.
Incidentally, my read on the New Testament leans toward the "security" rather than the "one sin you're out side." New Testament authors treat the members of their churches as if there is a long period of iffiness before a person is out and damned.
So I like the symbolism of infant baptism that puts a claim on the salvation of our children--not a presumption that they will be saved, but a commitment to cooperate with God's prevenient grace and a symbolic affirmation that they are more "in" than "out." They are sanctified by the believing parents and thus made holy (1 Cor. 7:14).
I believe children of an early age go to heaven when they die--whether they are baptized or not. I don't think they're like animals who don't count, and I have a hard time believing God sends them to hell when they had no chance at all.
Now also important is my belief that baptism doesn't actually save you. I think in theory you can make it to heaven without baptism (a relief to you Salvationists, Quakers, and babies out there). Nevertheless, I think it is an important symbol that the New Testament universally affirms as expected.
In fact, I think it is more than just a symbol in the sense that as a sacrament, I think it actually catalyzes God's grace to you. I would go so far as to say that I believe an infant who has been baptized has a better chance of eventually becoming a Christian than one that has not, even though I know this poses some issues for the matter of free will (but then again, so does the idea of praying for the lost).
And so, I see benefits to both. Believer's baptism is more meaningful to me because I make the choice and receive the sacramental benefit consciously. But as a parent, infant baptism places a claim on the child for God in a sacramental way and says, this child is God's--stay away Satan.
I wish we could do it twice, frankly, if it didn't seem to play games of disbelief with God. I would rebaptize someone if they wished, however, because I believe God is very pragmatic.
So where do I come down on this issue? I am sympathetic to both practices. Because baptism doesn't actually save you, I don't think the timing is as important as some people make it (the Wesleyan Church thankfully allows baptism at any age or even never at all).
But ultimately I had my children baptized because I didn't want them hanging in limbo during this period of their life (yes, in a Wesleyan church). God considers them "in" during this period, so I wanted them to be symbolically in as well. I also wanted them to receive any sacramental benefit it might carry.
And lastly I deplore the self-centered individualism of Western culture. Christianity isn't all about me. You (plural) are the temple of God, not you singular (1 Cor. 3:16). I think the next few years will see an increasing awareness among American Christians of how hyper-self-preoccupied we are--without even realizing it, I hate to say.
First of all, I have divided feelings on the issue. On the one hand, I value my baptism. I can remember it, and it is meaningful that I can remember it. It symbolized for me my commitment to Christ. Notice the operative terms in this paragraph: I... I... I... for me my. Believer's baptism is "me" centered, and modern Western culture is individualist in orientation.
On the other hand, I think children are "in" until God brings them to the point where they can choose not to be. Did the early church baptize infants? I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, for the ancient world was a group oriented culture (e.g., Acts 16:15, 33). I do believe that the children of Christians ate the Lord's Supper along with everyone else, since it was originally a meal (1 Cor. 10). The assumption would have been that they were "in" until one way or another they made it clear they were not.
Incidentally, my read on the New Testament leans toward the "security" rather than the "one sin you're out side." New Testament authors treat the members of their churches as if there is a long period of iffiness before a person is out and damned.
So I like the symbolism of infant baptism that puts a claim on the salvation of our children--not a presumption that they will be saved, but a commitment to cooperate with God's prevenient grace and a symbolic affirmation that they are more "in" than "out." They are sanctified by the believing parents and thus made holy (1 Cor. 7:14).
I believe children of an early age go to heaven when they die--whether they are baptized or not. I don't think they're like animals who don't count, and I have a hard time believing God sends them to hell when they had no chance at all.
Now also important is my belief that baptism doesn't actually save you. I think in theory you can make it to heaven without baptism (a relief to you Salvationists, Quakers, and babies out there). Nevertheless, I think it is an important symbol that the New Testament universally affirms as expected.
In fact, I think it is more than just a symbol in the sense that as a sacrament, I think it actually catalyzes God's grace to you. I would go so far as to say that I believe an infant who has been baptized has a better chance of eventually becoming a Christian than one that has not, even though I know this poses some issues for the matter of free will (but then again, so does the idea of praying for the lost).
And so, I see benefits to both. Believer's baptism is more meaningful to me because I make the choice and receive the sacramental benefit consciously. But as a parent, infant baptism places a claim on the child for God in a sacramental way and says, this child is God's--stay away Satan.
I wish we could do it twice, frankly, if it didn't seem to play games of disbelief with God. I would rebaptize someone if they wished, however, because I believe God is very pragmatic.
So where do I come down on this issue? I am sympathetic to both practices. Because baptism doesn't actually save you, I don't think the timing is as important as some people make it (the Wesleyan Church thankfully allows baptism at any age or even never at all).
But ultimately I had my children baptized because I didn't want them hanging in limbo during this period of their life (yes, in a Wesleyan church). God considers them "in" during this period, so I wanted them to be symbolically in as well. I also wanted them to receive any sacramental benefit it might carry.
And lastly I deplore the self-centered individualism of Western culture. Christianity isn't all about me. You (plural) are the temple of God, not you singular (1 Cor. 3:16). I think the next few years will see an increasing awareness among American Christians of how hyper-self-preoccupied we are--without even realizing it, I hate to say.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Bush's "Bring It On"
Now that the election is over, Bush is more willing to talk about his miscalculations. Frankly, I can't blame him too much for not talking about them before the election. I mean, I don't expect him to be stupid. He clearly made the right political move in staying on message and not admitting to mistakes.
But his recent comments are so "old news" to me and anticlimactic that why is he even talking about it? Isn't this exactly what I and so many others have been saying forever now?
Here is an excerpt from AOL news on Bush's recent comments:
"On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there. To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said, 'My answer is, Bring 'em on.'
"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."
What was that all about?
I and and so many others have been saying forever now that the War on Iraq far from slowing down terrorism has simply "brought it on" with such force that we are in a much more precarious world-wide terrorist situation than before 9-11. Bush wasn't admitting this much, admittedly. He was just reving up the troops. I mean, he had no idea that we might actually face some serious opposition. At least that's not what Wolfowitz was telling him... :)
I don't want to hear feeble admissions. Just don't make any more colossal blunders and get us out of this mess.
But his recent comments are so "old news" to me and anticlimactic that why is he even talking about it? Isn't this exactly what I and so many others have been saying forever now?
Here is an excerpt from AOL news on Bush's recent comments:
"On July 2, 2003, two months after he had declared an end to major combat in Iraq, Bush promised U.S. forces would stay until the creation of a free government there. To those who would attack U.S. forces in an attempt to deter that mission, Bush said, 'My answer is, Bring 'em on.'
"Sometimes, words have consequences you don't intend them to mean," Bush said Thursday. "'Bring 'em on' is the classic example, when I was really trying to rally the troops and make it clear to them that I fully understood, you know, what a great job they were doing. And those words had an unintended consequence. It kind of, some interpreted it to be defiance in the face of danger. That certainly wasn't the case."
What was that all about?
I and and so many others have been saying forever now that the War on Iraq far from slowing down terrorism has simply "brought it on" with such force that we are in a much more precarious world-wide terrorist situation than before 9-11. Bush wasn't admitting this much, admittedly. He was just reving up the troops. I mean, he had no idea that we might actually face some serious opposition. At least that's not what Wolfowitz was telling him... :)
I don't want to hear feeble admissions. Just don't make any more colossal blunders and get us out of this mess.
Nonsense Over Prayers
Michael Newdow is at it again. He is trying to get the courts to ban Bush from praying in Jesus' name at the inauguration.
I get so angry at both sides on issues like this one. On the one hand, who cares whether this guy feels like such prayers "force him to accept unwanted religious beliefs." Of course they don't, but what a wimpy argument. Let's move churches away from public thoroughfares so that he is not forced to acknowledge that some people believe in God as he passes. Come on, no one's forcing him to believe in God, the sissy. Oh no, I just saw a mosque, I'm being uncontrollably sucked into the vortex of Islam. Get a life.
On the other hand, America is not a Christian nation. It may be a nation with a large degree of Christian influence in its history, but Christianity is not its official religion. While I don't think the establishment clause means separation of church and state, if it does mean anything it means that America does not have a specific religious identity. If Christians want to make it a Christian nation, they will have to change the Constitution, perhaps even practice civil disobedience.
But be willing to suffer the consequences. If you want the 10 commandments in your courthouse as an endorsement of a specifically Christian ethic to the exclusion of others, you are doing so unconstitutionally and prepare to be removed from office. There's nothing wrong with being willing to go to jail for violating the law on principle. But don't pretend like you're somehow acting within the current Constitution's limits.
The Constitution advocates pluralism, the equal practice of all religions side by side. In doing so it does not endorse any. This is the difference between separation of church and state and the non-establishment clause. Non-establishment allows for pluralism. Bush can pray a Christian prayer and if we elect a Muslim next, he can pray a Muslim one. We can have the 10 commandments in our courthouses, along with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws. We can say "in God we trust" as a traditional formula without specific endorsement of any one understanding of God. We can have manger scenes on courthouse lawns, but get ready for Kwanza and Hannukah too.
Separation of church and state, on the other hand, is the attempt to eliminate religion from the public forum. This is almost to establish atheism as the national religion.
So Newdow needs to get a grip and allow that the rest of us are free to unoffensively practice our religion in the public forum. Meanwhile fundamentalists need to get through their head that they will have to change the Constitution to make this a Christian nation. America is currently a melting pot, a religious neutral zone. Its current set up is not to eliminate religious life, but to allow all to practice their religion as unencumbered by governmental interference as possible. Maybe we as Christians should work to take over America. But as it stands, we haven't yet.
P.S. My philosophy class is using a blog if you're interested: www.philosophicaljourney.blogspot.com.
I get so angry at both sides on issues like this one. On the one hand, who cares whether this guy feels like such prayers "force him to accept unwanted religious beliefs." Of course they don't, but what a wimpy argument. Let's move churches away from public thoroughfares so that he is not forced to acknowledge that some people believe in God as he passes. Come on, no one's forcing him to believe in God, the sissy. Oh no, I just saw a mosque, I'm being uncontrollably sucked into the vortex of Islam. Get a life.
On the other hand, America is not a Christian nation. It may be a nation with a large degree of Christian influence in its history, but Christianity is not its official religion. While I don't think the establishment clause means separation of church and state, if it does mean anything it means that America does not have a specific religious identity. If Christians want to make it a Christian nation, they will have to change the Constitution, perhaps even practice civil disobedience.
But be willing to suffer the consequences. If you want the 10 commandments in your courthouse as an endorsement of a specifically Christian ethic to the exclusion of others, you are doing so unconstitutionally and prepare to be removed from office. There's nothing wrong with being willing to go to jail for violating the law on principle. But don't pretend like you're somehow acting within the current Constitution's limits.
The Constitution advocates pluralism, the equal practice of all religions side by side. In doing so it does not endorse any. This is the difference between separation of church and state and the non-establishment clause. Non-establishment allows for pluralism. Bush can pray a Christian prayer and if we elect a Muslim next, he can pray a Muslim one. We can have the 10 commandments in our courthouses, along with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws. We can say "in God we trust" as a traditional formula without specific endorsement of any one understanding of God. We can have manger scenes on courthouse lawns, but get ready for Kwanza and Hannukah too.
Separation of church and state, on the other hand, is the attempt to eliminate religion from the public forum. This is almost to establish atheism as the national religion.
So Newdow needs to get a grip and allow that the rest of us are free to unoffensively practice our religion in the public forum. Meanwhile fundamentalists need to get through their head that they will have to change the Constitution to make this a Christian nation. America is currently a melting pot, a religious neutral zone. Its current set up is not to eliminate religious life, but to allow all to practice their religion as unencumbered by governmental interference as possible. Maybe we as Christians should work to take over America. But as it stands, we haven't yet.
P.S. My philosophy class is using a blog if you're interested: www.philosophicaljourney.blogspot.com.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Poem for a New Year
From fifty-nine to aught o'clock
One year is lost, another bought.
What's done is done, what's gone be not
It came but once, now never sought.
Time waited long for its begin
From all eternity to send
Then just as soon behind it left
For all eternity to sift.
2004 an even year?
Then nervous I await an odd
1000 plus dead in a war
Whose lives were best spent otherwhere
And billions spent that could have helped
So many other better fare
Add hundred thousands just in time
For this years death toll up to climb
Chaotic waters, primeval power
Gave to us tsunami's hour
It's all a mystery to me
A man alive, and now he's dead
A year is here, and now it's past
And only God persists to last
But why to see the time now out,
The contents from the glass outpoured,
Should rather think the glass' destin
For savors of the year in store
One year is lost, another bought.
What's done is done, what's gone be not
It came but once, now never sought.
Time waited long for its begin
From all eternity to send
Then just as soon behind it left
For all eternity to sift.
2004 an even year?
Then nervous I await an odd
1000 plus dead in a war
Whose lives were best spent otherwhere
And billions spent that could have helped
So many other better fare
Add hundred thousands just in time
For this years death toll up to climb
Chaotic waters, primeval power
Gave to us tsunami's hour
It's all a mystery to me
A man alive, and now he's dead
A year is here, and now it's past
And only God persists to last
But why to see the time now out,
The contents from the glass outpoured,
Should rather think the glass' destin
For savors of the year in store
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Overambitious New Years Goals
I seldom accomplish anywhere near close to all my goals, and those I do accomplish usually take a lot longer than I planned... but that never stops me from making them :)
1. I want to finish learning Aramaic this year. I've started several times but I found a great workbook this Fall that goes beyond OT Aramaic to the dialects of Jesus and the rabbis. It's very well done.
2. Every day I want to read some devotional material on the Bible, read a little more in the OT, or follow the morning or evening prayer of the Book of Common Prayer. The nature of my job leads me to study the Bible and pray daily, but I want to hear more from what others are saying and praying.
3. I want to finish reading the Qur'an. It's one of those things a person who teaches religion needs to have read at some point.
4. I'd like to read a little every day, maybe 20 pages, or at least once a week, something I don't have to read. I've got a whole list.
5. Ideally I'd like to write about an hour a day, although it usually turns out to be about an hour a week. The Corinthians commentary won't be done by semester beginning, but I'm cranking as best I can. The next contestant is my stuff on the afterlife, which I hope to pitch to Eerdmans before the semester begins. Kevin Wright is going to help me do some research, so I'll let him steer me in some direction with regard to an article unless he wants to work on some of this other stuff.
6. I have several other goals, but I'll be lucky to come anywhere close to the ones I've mentioned, so I'll leave it at that.
1. I want to finish learning Aramaic this year. I've started several times but I found a great workbook this Fall that goes beyond OT Aramaic to the dialects of Jesus and the rabbis. It's very well done.
2. Every day I want to read some devotional material on the Bible, read a little more in the OT, or follow the morning or evening prayer of the Book of Common Prayer. The nature of my job leads me to study the Bible and pray daily, but I want to hear more from what others are saying and praying.
3. I want to finish reading the Qur'an. It's one of those things a person who teaches religion needs to have read at some point.
4. I'd like to read a little every day, maybe 20 pages, or at least once a week, something I don't have to read. I've got a whole list.
5. Ideally I'd like to write about an hour a day, although it usually turns out to be about an hour a week. The Corinthians commentary won't be done by semester beginning, but I'm cranking as best I can. The next contestant is my stuff on the afterlife, which I hope to pitch to Eerdmans before the semester begins. Kevin Wright is going to help me do some research, so I'll let him steer me in some direction with regard to an article unless he wants to work on some of this other stuff.
6. I have several other goals, but I'll be lucky to come anywhere close to the ones I've mentioned, so I'll leave it at that.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Rumsfeld
I've been a little irritated with the fuss over Rumsfeld these last days, the calls for him to resign.
My irritation is not that I'm a big Rumsfeld fan. It's that it's ultimately not his fault--it's President Bush's. No one who voted for Bush this last election has any right to complain about what's going on in Iraq right now. Although many scoffed at the phrase, Kerry was at least dead on with the phrase "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place," and I watched in awe as President Bush feebly responded with his, "Shh! Hold your voice down. You wouldn't want to discourage the troops, you unamerican!"
I have confidence that the troops will do what needs to be done. We're in this mess regardless of whether we should be or not, and we'd better not leave the country in worse shape than it was when we came. That certainly means hundreds more American lives. Infuriating, yes, but now our moral duty. And our men and women will see the job through.
But wrong war--we were fighting terrorism and bin Laden in particular. Now we've helped his recruiting and added the Baathists of Iraq.
Wrong time--dethroning Hussein was a good goal, no complaints with the goal. But this was not the time to invade.
Wrong place--bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq. Frankly, the most potent place is Israel. We've done nothing here in the spark point.
Don't blame Rumsfeld for the loss of life. Blame the neo-cons in Washington who convinced Bush that the Iraqis would stream flowers before our tanks. Idiots.
My irritation is not that I'm a big Rumsfeld fan. It's that it's ultimately not his fault--it's President Bush's. No one who voted for Bush this last election has any right to complain about what's going on in Iraq right now. Although many scoffed at the phrase, Kerry was at least dead on with the phrase "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place," and I watched in awe as President Bush feebly responded with his, "Shh! Hold your voice down. You wouldn't want to discourage the troops, you unamerican!"
I have confidence that the troops will do what needs to be done. We're in this mess regardless of whether we should be or not, and we'd better not leave the country in worse shape than it was when we came. That certainly means hundreds more American lives. Infuriating, yes, but now our moral duty. And our men and women will see the job through.
But wrong war--we were fighting terrorism and bin Laden in particular. Now we've helped his recruiting and added the Baathists of Iraq.
Wrong time--dethroning Hussein was a good goal, no complaints with the goal. But this was not the time to invade.
Wrong place--bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq. Frankly, the most potent place is Israel. We've done nothing here in the spark point.
Don't blame Rumsfeld for the loss of life. Blame the neo-cons in Washington who convinced Bush that the Iraqis would stream flowers before our tanks. Idiots.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Reflections on the Semester Past
Another four months, another semester.
Sometimes I feel like my life is just rushing past. Unlike students, who can look to a graduation for a segment of their life accomplished, I feel sometimes like I am in an endless cycle of rush. Rush to teach, rush to keep up with all the things I require students to do... I'm sure the students would be happy for me not to make the assignments. :) But then they wouldn't learn nothin'.
As I waded through the three foot high pile of paper to record and evaluate, I felt "above average" about the semester. I would have liked to talk to many about their thoughts represented by this pile, but it didn't happen this time. But I believe just doing the assignments had to be a learning experience of some sort, hopefully a significant one. Now I have two weeks to evaluate myself, my androgogy, my philosophy of each course.
There was some disappointment in the pile--papers that imply that I either didn't communicate or failed to convince on some of my strongest views and thoughts. That's part of the re-evaluation process-how can I communicate better what I want them to know.
For philosophy, I feel that I mostly gave them names and labels, with a few deep thoughts thrown in here and there. What if I were to spend the whole semester working out my own philosophy in front of them, in dialog with them, the "great thinkers" and the "great questions." Selfish, perhaps better learning--but it would mean completely revising the course and a lot more work throughout the semester. Hardly a priority and it would be unwise. Who knows, two weeks till the syllabus...
For NT Survey, I took my discussion of hermeneutics away from the front. The result: position papers largely unaware of some of my signature ideas. This time I think I'll devote a whole day to chapter 2 of the textbook again, but I'll put it in the middle of the course when we're doing 1 Corinthians. I also noticed that my extensive questions on the New Testament itself didn't work. I need to boil them down and make sure we get to the chapters of the textbook on Women, Revelation, etc...
Upper level Bible courses continue to vex me. The papers I received were "without form and void." Actually, they weren't void--they represented really good work. But without a model for them to look at and with the tension between Lennox's verse by verse model and the more Asbury answer a question approach, they just wandered. I somehow need to clarify what I want them to do.
Other than that, I feel really good about what I've been doing with having them learn the content, particularly the now standard exam questions on explaining the situation of each book and being able to give a chapter by chapter run through.
So the game goes on... projects for break later...
Sometimes I feel like my life is just rushing past. Unlike students, who can look to a graduation for a segment of their life accomplished, I feel sometimes like I am in an endless cycle of rush. Rush to teach, rush to keep up with all the things I require students to do... I'm sure the students would be happy for me not to make the assignments. :) But then they wouldn't learn nothin'.
As I waded through the three foot high pile of paper to record and evaluate, I felt "above average" about the semester. I would have liked to talk to many about their thoughts represented by this pile, but it didn't happen this time. But I believe just doing the assignments had to be a learning experience of some sort, hopefully a significant one. Now I have two weeks to evaluate myself, my androgogy, my philosophy of each course.
There was some disappointment in the pile--papers that imply that I either didn't communicate or failed to convince on some of my strongest views and thoughts. That's part of the re-evaluation process-how can I communicate better what I want them to know.
For philosophy, I feel that I mostly gave them names and labels, with a few deep thoughts thrown in here and there. What if I were to spend the whole semester working out my own philosophy in front of them, in dialog with them, the "great thinkers" and the "great questions." Selfish, perhaps better learning--but it would mean completely revising the course and a lot more work throughout the semester. Hardly a priority and it would be unwise. Who knows, two weeks till the syllabus...
For NT Survey, I took my discussion of hermeneutics away from the front. The result: position papers largely unaware of some of my signature ideas. This time I think I'll devote a whole day to chapter 2 of the textbook again, but I'll put it in the middle of the course when we're doing 1 Corinthians. I also noticed that my extensive questions on the New Testament itself didn't work. I need to boil them down and make sure we get to the chapters of the textbook on Women, Revelation, etc...
Upper level Bible courses continue to vex me. The papers I received were "without form and void." Actually, they weren't void--they represented really good work. But without a model for them to look at and with the tension between Lennox's verse by verse model and the more Asbury answer a question approach, they just wandered. I somehow need to clarify what I want them to do.
Other than that, I feel really good about what I've been doing with having them learn the content, particularly the now standard exam questions on explaining the situation of each book and being able to give a chapter by chapter run through.
So the game goes on... projects for break later...
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
How would He govern (for the betterment)
At this point I remind myself that I am not designing a system of governance from scratch. Almost everyone--if not everyone--in this room is an American. We have a Constitution that presents us with a law with which I must begin if I am a Christian ruler in America.
Here God models a first insight for us--He starts with people where they are and works to bring them of their own "free will" to where He wants them to be. The very nature of biblical revelation thrusts this conclusion on us time and time again. Each book reflects the language and paradigms of its own time and place, from the stars in between the waters in Genesis 1 to the three heavens of Paul.
Thankfully, there is a great deal of overlap between America's laws and Christian values. Our Constitution is a social contract meant to protect the rights of all within its boundaries. It thus in theory is wired against the harm of anyone.
In my opinion, when we can show that certain actions harm others, we can work within the system to outlaw them. At times our culture has a blind spot to such harm. Slavery would be one instance. The refusal to give voice to women was another. We might look to abortion and racial discrimination as two instances that we are currently working on today. These are areas in which the law still allows individuals to do harm to others.
I believe a Christian ruler would work as wise as a serpent within our society to make it as harmless as a dove toward the unborn and toward those many others disempowered in it. By this comment I mean that some paths to these ends are more effective than others. For example, shooting abortion doctors hardly reduces the number of abortions or brings its legal end any closer.
I believe a Christian rulers would work within the American system for the benefit of all. While the Constitution really works more against the detriment of all than for the benefit of all, this is a small step our system allows.
A Christian ruler would thus make a priority the empowerment of the oppressed or downtrodden. I cannot believe that a Christian ruler would not make it a priority to educate and transform those who are in a perpetual cycle of disempowerment in society. While it is true that such cycles are often a product of choices, they are not empowered choices. How could it not be Christian to help others from the slavery of their environment?
God does not insist that people choose Him. But He seeks to influence others for Him. A ruler who would write off or simply abandon some segment of society, without seeking to woo it to the better, is not worthy to have Christ's name in front of him or her.
Here God models a first insight for us--He starts with people where they are and works to bring them of their own "free will" to where He wants them to be. The very nature of biblical revelation thrusts this conclusion on us time and time again. Each book reflects the language and paradigms of its own time and place, from the stars in between the waters in Genesis 1 to the three heavens of Paul.
Thankfully, there is a great deal of overlap between America's laws and Christian values. Our Constitution is a social contract meant to protect the rights of all within its boundaries. It thus in theory is wired against the harm of anyone.
In my opinion, when we can show that certain actions harm others, we can work within the system to outlaw them. At times our culture has a blind spot to such harm. Slavery would be one instance. The refusal to give voice to women was another. We might look to abortion and racial discrimination as two instances that we are currently working on today. These are areas in which the law still allows individuals to do harm to others.
I believe a Christian ruler would work as wise as a serpent within our society to make it as harmless as a dove toward the unborn and toward those many others disempowered in it. By this comment I mean that some paths to these ends are more effective than others. For example, shooting abortion doctors hardly reduces the number of abortions or brings its legal end any closer.
I believe a Christian rulers would work within the American system for the benefit of all. While the Constitution really works more against the detriment of all than for the benefit of all, this is a small step our system allows.
A Christian ruler would thus make a priority the empowerment of the oppressed or downtrodden. I cannot believe that a Christian ruler would not make it a priority to educate and transform those who are in a perpetual cycle of disempowerment in society. While it is true that such cycles are often a product of choices, they are not empowered choices. How could it not be Christian to help others from the slavery of their environment?
God does not insist that people choose Him. But He seeks to influence others for Him. A ruler who would write off or simply abandon some segment of society, without seeking to woo it to the better, is not worthy to have Christ's name in front of him or her.
How would He govern? (Free Will)
The issue of free will is one of debate among Christians. But I think we can all agree that whether or not we ultimately have free will, we act like we do.
And God lets us. Even if God is ultimately pulling the strings, He lets some murderers think that they are enacting their own free will in choosing to kill others. In short, God does not make the world conform to His will--not yet, at least.
Even our risen Lord does "not yet have everything under his feet" (Heb. 2:8). He is in one sense still waiting until his enemies are put under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).
For some mysterious reason, God allows people to disobey His will down here. Indeed, He often allows them to do so far beyond anything we would stomach as a Christian ruler. He allows people to murder and steal from each other. He allows Holocausts, genocide, and millions of abortions. These are some of the most pressing questions of Christian faith, why God allows evil to happen to His people.
Surely our first rule of Christian governance must come into play here--a Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those both within and without the nation. Surely we will not allow murder. Surely we will pass laws that protect our citizens from one another.
But doesn't God show us by the way He governs the world that He much prefers to woo people to Him than to force them to Him? Does He model an approach that seeks to influence and change people so that they come to Him willingly rather than one that focuses on outward action regardless of any heart change?
How do we decide where to force conformity to His will (e.g., murder) and where we allow people to sin to their own detriment?
It is clear that God's model implies that a Christian ruler would not force everyone to believe in God or to go to church. A Christian ruler would seek to influence others to believe in God and go to church, but it would allow the nation the other choice as well, to its detriment.
Would a Christian ruler make sure all businesses were closed on Sunday, to faciliate going to church? I think he or she might--in the 1940's. But I don't think a Christian ruler today would. Why? Because such a law would not draw non-Christians to Christ today. It would push them away.
So we are left with the same question again. Clearly God would have a Christian ruler work for the benefit of all. But God would allow individuals to disobey His will at some points also, to their detriment. What rule of thumb should a Christian ruler use to decide which principle to invoke at what point?
And God lets us. Even if God is ultimately pulling the strings, He lets some murderers think that they are enacting their own free will in choosing to kill others. In short, God does not make the world conform to His will--not yet, at least.
Even our risen Lord does "not yet have everything under his feet" (Heb. 2:8). He is in one sense still waiting until his enemies are put under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).
For some mysterious reason, God allows people to disobey His will down here. Indeed, He often allows them to do so far beyond anything we would stomach as a Christian ruler. He allows people to murder and steal from each other. He allows Holocausts, genocide, and millions of abortions. These are some of the most pressing questions of Christian faith, why God allows evil to happen to His people.
Surely our first rule of Christian governance must come into play here--a Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those both within and without the nation. Surely we will not allow murder. Surely we will pass laws that protect our citizens from one another.
But doesn't God show us by the way He governs the world that He much prefers to woo people to Him than to force them to Him? Does He model an approach that seeks to influence and change people so that they come to Him willingly rather than one that focuses on outward action regardless of any heart change?
How do we decide where to force conformity to His will (e.g., murder) and where we allow people to sin to their own detriment?
It is clear that God's model implies that a Christian ruler would not force everyone to believe in God or to go to church. A Christian ruler would seek to influence others to believe in God and go to church, but it would allow the nation the other choice as well, to its detriment.
Would a Christian ruler make sure all businesses were closed on Sunday, to faciliate going to church? I think he or she might--in the 1940's. But I don't think a Christian ruler today would. Why? Because such a law would not draw non-Christians to Christ today. It would push them away.
So we are left with the same question again. Clearly God would have a Christian ruler work for the benefit of all. But God would allow individuals to disobey His will at some points also, to their detriment. What rule of thumb should a Christian ruler use to decide which principle to invoke at what point?
How would He govern? (God vis-a-vis world)
The reason that Jesus' ethics in the Sermon on the Mount only seem to give us a partial sense of how a Christian would govern is because his words, like those of so much of the New Testament, were aimed at the governed rather than the governing. Jesus, Paul, Peter and others presume that the situation in which the Christian will find him or herself is one in which the governing force is either completely independent of or more likely hostile toward him/her.
Jesus' words on turning the other cheek picture a person in the role of the slapped. Paul draws a sharp dichotomy between church and state in his comment that we make judgments in the church but that God will judge the world--leave it to Him (1 Cor. 5). Hebrews and 1 Peter both picture the Christian as the stranger and alien on the earth, not as the emperor or senator.
On the one hand, the love ethic--love God and love others--is the greatest absolute of the Christian ethic. God gives no exceptions to this rule, so we can set down the first rule of Christian governance. A Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those within as well as without.
As a side note, it does seem likely to me that for God, His justice ultimately does triumph over His mercy if there is a hell without the possibility of repentance. God is not bound by some abstract "rule" that says He doesn't really want to send people to hell, but He has no choice. If God is God, He has a choice. If God consigns individuals irrevocably to hell, then He must ultimately consider love of Him a priority over love of others.
But I believe the opposite priority is in force on earth. On earth, mercy should triumph over justice. The cross is the ultimate demonstration of this principle.
Of course it is true also that God occasionally does seem to enact justice before mercy on earth as well. While He most of the time gives us a chance to repent up until our deaths, Ananias and Sapphira were immediately taken from the earth. Similarly, if there is such a thing as the unpardonable sin, it is an irrevocable instance of God's justice set in stone on earth. In general, we might suppose that there are people who we observe to be unwaveringly unrepentant. Has God withdrawn the grace that leads to repentance from such individuals? In other words, is this the triumph of justice over mercy even on the earth and before the final judgment?
To return to our subject, the teachings of Jesus while on earth and those of the other New Testament authors do not address as directly the question of governance as they do the question of those governed. A nation will not turn the other cheek long before it makes the transition from the governing to the governed. "If someone shoots an ICBM at the east coast, give the coordinates to the west coast as well"? If this is the Christian way to govern, then Christians will not govern for long. Some take this position--Christians simply should not get involved in governance.
But I would suggest that the most appropriate model God gives us for how a Christian would govern is not Jesus' ethical teaching aimed at the disempowered.
Similarly, I would suggest that it is not God's relationship with Israel that provides the model either. On the one hand, I have already suggested several clear differences between our situation and that of God's relationship with ancient Israel. We have no Moses. We have no biblical basis for thinking ourselves a chosen nation over other nations. And the New Testament modifies several Old Testament laws beyond continuance.
Further, the relationship between God and Israel is more analogous to that of Christ and the church than to that of God and the world. Although Israel often did not keep the covenant, Israel represented those who were "in," as the church (also full of sinners) represents those who are putatively "in."
But a nation like America is not a gathering of those who are "in." It is a mixture of the ins and outs.
In the end, it is the relationship between God and the world or that of the risen Lord and the world that is a closer model. In other words, the biblical model that comes closest to that of a Christian governing a society is that of God governing the world, a world both with people who serve Him and a preponderance of those who don't.
Jesus' words on turning the other cheek picture a person in the role of the slapped. Paul draws a sharp dichotomy between church and state in his comment that we make judgments in the church but that God will judge the world--leave it to Him (1 Cor. 5). Hebrews and 1 Peter both picture the Christian as the stranger and alien on the earth, not as the emperor or senator.
On the one hand, the love ethic--love God and love others--is the greatest absolute of the Christian ethic. God gives no exceptions to this rule, so we can set down the first rule of Christian governance. A Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those within as well as without.
As a side note, it does seem likely to me that for God, His justice ultimately does triumph over His mercy if there is a hell without the possibility of repentance. God is not bound by some abstract "rule" that says He doesn't really want to send people to hell, but He has no choice. If God is God, He has a choice. If God consigns individuals irrevocably to hell, then He must ultimately consider love of Him a priority over love of others.
But I believe the opposite priority is in force on earth. On earth, mercy should triumph over justice. The cross is the ultimate demonstration of this principle.
Of course it is true also that God occasionally does seem to enact justice before mercy on earth as well. While He most of the time gives us a chance to repent up until our deaths, Ananias and Sapphira were immediately taken from the earth. Similarly, if there is such a thing as the unpardonable sin, it is an irrevocable instance of God's justice set in stone on earth. In general, we might suppose that there are people who we observe to be unwaveringly unrepentant. Has God withdrawn the grace that leads to repentance from such individuals? In other words, is this the triumph of justice over mercy even on the earth and before the final judgment?
To return to our subject, the teachings of Jesus while on earth and those of the other New Testament authors do not address as directly the question of governance as they do the question of those governed. A nation will not turn the other cheek long before it makes the transition from the governing to the governed. "If someone shoots an ICBM at the east coast, give the coordinates to the west coast as well"? If this is the Christian way to govern, then Christians will not govern for long. Some take this position--Christians simply should not get involved in governance.
But I would suggest that the most appropriate model God gives us for how a Christian would govern is not Jesus' ethical teaching aimed at the disempowered.
Similarly, I would suggest that it is not God's relationship with Israel that provides the model either. On the one hand, I have already suggested several clear differences between our situation and that of God's relationship with ancient Israel. We have no Moses. We have no biblical basis for thinking ourselves a chosen nation over other nations. And the New Testament modifies several Old Testament laws beyond continuance.
Further, the relationship between God and Israel is more analogous to that of Christ and the church than to that of God and the world. Although Israel often did not keep the covenant, Israel represented those who were "in," as the church (also full of sinners) represents those who are putatively "in."
But a nation like America is not a gathering of those who are "in." It is a mixture of the ins and outs.
In the end, it is the relationship between God and the world or that of the risen Lord and the world that is a closer model. In other words, the biblical model that comes closest to that of a Christian governing a society is that of God governing the world, a world both with people who serve Him and a preponderance of those who don't.
How would He govern? (Preliminaries 2)
We have established biblically that America is not Israel. We have also hinted that even if we could find a modern "Israel" that had the same relationship as ancient Israel did, God would not deal with them in exactly the same way He did ancient Israel. We have the New Testament to reckon with and the Lordship of Jesus Christ administrated through the Holy Spirit in this domain.
By the way, nor is the current Israel yet the Israel of promise. Most prophecies of return related to the return of Israel from Babylon in 538BC. Paul does predict that all Israel will be saved. But this has not happened--indeed, it is illegal to try to convert people to Christ in modern Israel. Most Israelis are not even religious. The last statistics I heard were that modern day Israel was 85% secular. Perhaps they will become the Israel of promise one day, but it has not happened yet. For all we know, they will be destroyed and restored again before these things happen--if indeed this is the way to interpret these biblical passages.
We now come to another important preliminary: we have no certain Moses among us. If we are to be a theocracy, we must have a Moses to show us the way. Who of us is ready to give a particular denomination the authority to set the law and decide what God's precise will is in law?
Indeed, the history of church and state relations seems often checkered with excesses and ungodliness. I doubt many of us would enjoy Geneva if we were transported to the days when Calvin influenced its laws. Which of us desires to be a pilgrim making his or her way to America to escape the persecution of the Puritans in England or that of the Lutherans and Catholics in Europe? I would not want to be a Catholic bishop under Henry VIII or a Protestant one under Bloody Mary. And while Susanna Wesley was fond of Oliver Cromwell, I personally would not aspire to live under his thumb.
I heard once that Charles Spurgeon, a famous Baptist of England, was once asked why the Baptists never burned anyone at the stake. His answer was immensely insightful: "We were never in power."
We should read the first amendment boundary between church and state against the backdrop of these situations. A healthy distance between church and state saves us from ourselves and from the times we frequently mistake our interpretations and thoughts from those of God.
And the claim that we will base our laws on the Bible is misleading and potentially very dangerous. Whose interpretation of the Bible will you use? Most of those who say this only know to read the Bible as it appears to them and have little awareness of the original meaning of these words--and how different it was from their own thoughts. Both Jesus and Paul model a spiritual interpretation of the Bible's words that cannot be quantified or pinned down. It is only as valid as the Spirit behind the prophecy, and it is always subject to the spirits of other prophets in our midst.
In short, Adam's Fall has impaired our moral and natural image. Entailed in these impairments is a need for checks and balances in our thoughts and understandings, because we are all stuck in our heads. No one person or denomination or nation has a corner on God's thoughts.
By the way, nor is the current Israel yet the Israel of promise. Most prophecies of return related to the return of Israel from Babylon in 538BC. Paul does predict that all Israel will be saved. But this has not happened--indeed, it is illegal to try to convert people to Christ in modern Israel. Most Israelis are not even religious. The last statistics I heard were that modern day Israel was 85% secular. Perhaps they will become the Israel of promise one day, but it has not happened yet. For all we know, they will be destroyed and restored again before these things happen--if indeed this is the way to interpret these biblical passages.
We now come to another important preliminary: we have no certain Moses among us. If we are to be a theocracy, we must have a Moses to show us the way. Who of us is ready to give a particular denomination the authority to set the law and decide what God's precise will is in law?
Indeed, the history of church and state relations seems often checkered with excesses and ungodliness. I doubt many of us would enjoy Geneva if we were transported to the days when Calvin influenced its laws. Which of us desires to be a pilgrim making his or her way to America to escape the persecution of the Puritans in England or that of the Lutherans and Catholics in Europe? I would not want to be a Catholic bishop under Henry VIII or a Protestant one under Bloody Mary. And while Susanna Wesley was fond of Oliver Cromwell, I personally would not aspire to live under his thumb.
I heard once that Charles Spurgeon, a famous Baptist of England, was once asked why the Baptists never burned anyone at the stake. His answer was immensely insightful: "We were never in power."
We should read the first amendment boundary between church and state against the backdrop of these situations. A healthy distance between church and state saves us from ourselves and from the times we frequently mistake our interpretations and thoughts from those of God.
And the claim that we will base our laws on the Bible is misleading and potentially very dangerous. Whose interpretation of the Bible will you use? Most of those who say this only know to read the Bible as it appears to them and have little awareness of the original meaning of these words--and how different it was from their own thoughts. Both Jesus and Paul model a spiritual interpretation of the Bible's words that cannot be quantified or pinned down. It is only as valid as the Spirit behind the prophecy, and it is always subject to the spirits of other prophets in our midst.
In short, Adam's Fall has impaired our moral and natural image. Entailed in these impairments is a need for checks and balances in our thoughts and understandings, because we are all stuck in our heads. No one person or denomination or nation has a corner on God's thoughts.
How would He govern? (Preliminaries 1)
Tomorrow is the religion colloquium at IWU, and I'm supposed to present on this topic. By the way, all are invited and you can get chapel credit (10-1 in the banquet rooms). There will also be a discussion time. I won't present everything I write today here, but I'm priming my pump.
Now that "we" are in power--if indeed moral issues of evangelical flavor pushed Bush over the top--how are we to rule?
My topic is how would God rule?
On the one hand, this is a question that we must filter--because none of us is God. To some degree, we know how God governed ancient Israel. But we are not ancient Israel. For example, the circumstances that led to food laws no longer exist. While there are legitimate grounds for disagreement on this topic, I personally think the food laws had more to do with distinguishing Israel from their neighboring peoples than because of health. After all, did they really cook pork better in Paul's day than they did in the day of Moses?
Similarly, God no longer deals with the earth through a specific ethnic group. The scope of misunderstanding involved in taking Ezra to prohibit interracial dating is staggering. This line of attack is such thinly veiled prejudice that I have no problem dismissing the spiritual advice of any group that would dare twist Scripture and God's will so blatantly.
This latter matter brings us to an important point. Ancient Israel repeatedly demonstrated that they were not worthy or holy enough to be called God's people. Such a designation was truly a matter of God's grace. It was God who called them to be His people, despite their unfaithfulness and unworthiness.
There has been no biblical revelation pronouncing any other nation to be God's people, God's unique mirror to the world. Indeed, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, American nor Russian, Iraqi nor Canadian, but you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I would say that I aspire for America to be conformed to God's will. If by calling ourselves a "Christian nation" we mean that we as individual Americans surrender our lives to God and will try as best we can to work as Americans to bring this nation in conformity to His will--if these things are what we mean, then no problem.
But we are not pure enough and the American flag is not untainted enough to presume itself the new Israel. There is no new Israel. God does not love us Laodicean and Pharisaic American Christians any more than He loves the Christian Iraqis who are currently fleeing for their life. If there were gradations in God's love, I think He would love them more because their Christianity comes with a price.
I believe God is very practical. If I were pastoring, I would not make a big stink about there being an American flag on the pulpit. But I would register what I believe to be God's thoughts on the matter. Thus saith the LORD: "No nation's flag is pure enough to be on a level with Me or My word. Put the flag by the piano if you want, to remind you to use democracy to make America as godly as you can. But don't even dare to think America has arrived spiritually or that your sinful nation is worthy of My favor. It will be by My grace if you are saved; America cannot earn my favor any more than anyone else can."
I believe many of us will have to repent in heaven for our spiritual pride on some of these matters. I believe God will honor the Christians from many, many other nations for a spirituality so much deeper than ours that we will fall on our faces in shame before our Lord at the thought that we were so blind to think ourselves somehow special for where we were born.
Now that "we" are in power--if indeed moral issues of evangelical flavor pushed Bush over the top--how are we to rule?
My topic is how would God rule?
On the one hand, this is a question that we must filter--because none of us is God. To some degree, we know how God governed ancient Israel. But we are not ancient Israel. For example, the circumstances that led to food laws no longer exist. While there are legitimate grounds for disagreement on this topic, I personally think the food laws had more to do with distinguishing Israel from their neighboring peoples than because of health. After all, did they really cook pork better in Paul's day than they did in the day of Moses?
Similarly, God no longer deals with the earth through a specific ethnic group. The scope of misunderstanding involved in taking Ezra to prohibit interracial dating is staggering. This line of attack is such thinly veiled prejudice that I have no problem dismissing the spiritual advice of any group that would dare twist Scripture and God's will so blatantly.
This latter matter brings us to an important point. Ancient Israel repeatedly demonstrated that they were not worthy or holy enough to be called God's people. Such a designation was truly a matter of God's grace. It was God who called them to be His people, despite their unfaithfulness and unworthiness.
There has been no biblical revelation pronouncing any other nation to be God's people, God's unique mirror to the world. Indeed, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, American nor Russian, Iraqi nor Canadian, but you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I would say that I aspire for America to be conformed to God's will. If by calling ourselves a "Christian nation" we mean that we as individual Americans surrender our lives to God and will try as best we can to work as Americans to bring this nation in conformity to His will--if these things are what we mean, then no problem.
But we are not pure enough and the American flag is not untainted enough to presume itself the new Israel. There is no new Israel. God does not love us Laodicean and Pharisaic American Christians any more than He loves the Christian Iraqis who are currently fleeing for their life. If there were gradations in God's love, I think He would love them more because their Christianity comes with a price.
I believe God is very practical. If I were pastoring, I would not make a big stink about there being an American flag on the pulpit. But I would register what I believe to be God's thoughts on the matter. Thus saith the LORD: "No nation's flag is pure enough to be on a level with Me or My word. Put the flag by the piano if you want, to remind you to use democracy to make America as godly as you can. But don't even dare to think America has arrived spiritually or that your sinful nation is worthy of My favor. It will be by My grace if you are saved; America cannot earn my favor any more than anyone else can."
I believe many of us will have to repent in heaven for our spiritual pride on some of these matters. I believe God will honor the Christians from many, many other nations for a spirituality so much deeper than ours that we will fall on our faces in shame before our Lord at the thought that we were so blind to think ourselves somehow special for where we were born.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Theology 4: God as Good and Just
Christians also believe that God is love (1 John 4:8). Let's take a moment to ponder what this claim might mean in relation to His role as creator.
Plato/Socrates pondered the question "Is good good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good." The implicit answer I perceive most Christians to take--and the answer most popular among Christian philosophers and ethicists seems to fall into the category of "God loves good because it is good." Those who take this position would probably not word it this way, but it is how I would categorize their position.
What I mean is that Christians tend to predicate goodness of God's "nature," as something He could not be anything but. The opposing idea is known as "Divine Command Theory." This is the idea that anything God commands is good, even if he were to command someone to offer his only son as a sacrifice (:-)
I have problems with the idea that God loves the good because it is good or because it is His essential nature. For one thing, I'm not sure what this means. Good is a ultimately an adjective when it comes to concrete reality. Only as an abstract concept is it a noun. Are we then saying that God only does "good" things?
But what are good things? A child would say they are things that bring pleasure, while something is bad if it brings pain. Adults come to speak of the "greater good." One person might say these are goods that ultimately bring greater happiness in the philosophical sense (eudaimonia). However, pain may be involved on the way to that greater good.
Talk of a "moral structure" to the universe seems equally ambiguous to me. Even C. S. Lewis reduced such a structure to the fact that people everywhere have a sense of right and wrong, not to a specific list. Indeed, it is very difficult to find a core list of morals accepted by all cultures everywhere. Perhaps all healthy cultures have a sense that it is wrong to kill certain "innocents," although such innocents are variously designated.
Finally, something inside of me wants to say that God could create a universe where the things we think of as bad are good and the things we think of as good are bad. This is not that universe, but there is a part of me that hesitates to venture anything about God's "nature" in anything but a sense relative to this universe. This approach places God beyond our universe in mystery, as it would seem a true God should be--not something our minds can tame and grasp in neat systems of philosophical-theological thought.
Also, I want to allow God to do things that would be evil for me to do even within this universe. The most famous example is God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Somehow it seems a cop-out to me to suggest that God was just testing Abraham, that God could never have let Abraham go through with it. I want to say that God sets the rules, He commands and thus defines what is "good."
Nevertheless, I believe that He has defined "good" as love in this universe, where love is both the attitude and the act of benefiting others. He has done this particularly through Christian revelation but also partially through creation. Good thus does involve on a basic level working toward the greatest possible happiness and pleasure of others.
By faith I believe God chooses to operate by His own rules in this universe--that He operates toward the greater happiness and ultimately pleasure of all. But God alone is allowed to violate His own rules--by definition any such action will be good if He does it. Also, His "nature" as love must be balanced with another representation of His "nature" in this universe, namely, His justice...
Plato/Socrates pondered the question "Is good good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good." The implicit answer I perceive most Christians to take--and the answer most popular among Christian philosophers and ethicists seems to fall into the category of "God loves good because it is good." Those who take this position would probably not word it this way, but it is how I would categorize their position.
What I mean is that Christians tend to predicate goodness of God's "nature," as something He could not be anything but. The opposing idea is known as "Divine Command Theory." This is the idea that anything God commands is good, even if he were to command someone to offer his only son as a sacrifice (:-)
I have problems with the idea that God loves the good because it is good or because it is His essential nature. For one thing, I'm not sure what this means. Good is a ultimately an adjective when it comes to concrete reality. Only as an abstract concept is it a noun. Are we then saying that God only does "good" things?
But what are good things? A child would say they are things that bring pleasure, while something is bad if it brings pain. Adults come to speak of the "greater good." One person might say these are goods that ultimately bring greater happiness in the philosophical sense (eudaimonia). However, pain may be involved on the way to that greater good.
Talk of a "moral structure" to the universe seems equally ambiguous to me. Even C. S. Lewis reduced such a structure to the fact that people everywhere have a sense of right and wrong, not to a specific list. Indeed, it is very difficult to find a core list of morals accepted by all cultures everywhere. Perhaps all healthy cultures have a sense that it is wrong to kill certain "innocents," although such innocents are variously designated.
Finally, something inside of me wants to say that God could create a universe where the things we think of as bad are good and the things we think of as good are bad. This is not that universe, but there is a part of me that hesitates to venture anything about God's "nature" in anything but a sense relative to this universe. This approach places God beyond our universe in mystery, as it would seem a true God should be--not something our minds can tame and grasp in neat systems of philosophical-theological thought.
Also, I want to allow God to do things that would be evil for me to do even within this universe. The most famous example is God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Somehow it seems a cop-out to me to suggest that God was just testing Abraham, that God could never have let Abraham go through with it. I want to say that God sets the rules, He commands and thus defines what is "good."
Nevertheless, I believe that He has defined "good" as love in this universe, where love is both the attitude and the act of benefiting others. He has done this particularly through Christian revelation but also partially through creation. Good thus does involve on a basic level working toward the greatest possible happiness and pleasure of others.
By faith I believe God chooses to operate by His own rules in this universe--that He operates toward the greater happiness and ultimately pleasure of all. But God alone is allowed to violate His own rules--by definition any such action will be good if He does it. Also, His "nature" as love must be balanced with another representation of His "nature" in this universe, namely, His justice...
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Theology 3: God as Creator
After laying down some ground rules, I'd like to begin now with God.
I start with the faith claim that God created the world out of nothing. This claim seems rational to me in the sense that it is reasonable to believe that the universe had a cause and that its cause was a masterful designer. I do not know enough about astrophysics to speak authoritatively on the physics of such a beginning. But it would seem reasonable that there has only been one beginning and that some cause from beyond this universe is a reasonable trigger.
If God created the world out of nothing, He must be all world powerful. He must at least be able to do anything that is possible to do in this world. We must suspect He can do much more than is possible, but we cannot infer anything beyond this creation using reason alone. We have no point of reference to do so.
If God designed this world out of nothing, He must have knowledge of all possible worlds in conjunction with this universe. He must know all the potentialities of the world. He knows suffering; He knows evil; He gains no knowledge by becoming human. Everything that is to be known in this world is known by Him.
Whether God knows not just all the potentialities but the actualities of the universe is an issue of faith it would seem rather than reason.
But in short, we cannot by reason infer much beyond these inferences relative to our universe. We have no frame of reference by which even to understand what it might mean to be beyond this universe. Reason consigns us to resort to mystery.
Further, we suspect that the revealed truths that Scripture and Christian tradition present us about God's nature are also relative to our understanding. They are the face of God in relation to our universe. Who are we to limit or presume on what a divine "nature" might be in essence beyond this world?
I stand on mystery then. I assume that God has all power and knowledge of all potentialities. By faith I presume He has knowledge of all actualities beyond potentialities. I do not limit God's natures to that which is logically possible in this universe but allow for paradox.
I start with the faith claim that God created the world out of nothing. This claim seems rational to me in the sense that it is reasonable to believe that the universe had a cause and that its cause was a masterful designer. I do not know enough about astrophysics to speak authoritatively on the physics of such a beginning. But it would seem reasonable that there has only been one beginning and that some cause from beyond this universe is a reasonable trigger.
If God created the world out of nothing, He must be all world powerful. He must at least be able to do anything that is possible to do in this world. We must suspect He can do much more than is possible, but we cannot infer anything beyond this creation using reason alone. We have no point of reference to do so.
If God designed this world out of nothing, He must have knowledge of all possible worlds in conjunction with this universe. He must know all the potentialities of the world. He knows suffering; He knows evil; He gains no knowledge by becoming human. Everything that is to be known in this world is known by Him.
Whether God knows not just all the potentialities but the actualities of the universe is an issue of faith it would seem rather than reason.
But in short, we cannot by reason infer much beyond these inferences relative to our universe. We have no frame of reference by which even to understand what it might mean to be beyond this universe. Reason consigns us to resort to mystery.
Further, we suspect that the revealed truths that Scripture and Christian tradition present us about God's nature are also relative to our understanding. They are the face of God in relation to our universe. Who are we to limit or presume on what a divine "nature" might be in essence beyond this world?
I stand on mystery then. I assume that God has all power and knowledge of all potentialities. By faith I presume He has knowledge of all actualities beyond potentialities. I do not limit God's natures to that which is logically possible in this universe but allow for paradox.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Hopes for the Future
It looks like Bush has won, although it may take a day or two for Kerry to admit it.
In some respects this is a relief. I approve of many of the President's faith based initiatives. My Dad does prison ministry in a prison specifically set aside for people of faith. I don't have to worry about Kerry outlawing such things (if he would have). Bush will hopefully appoint Supreme Court judges who do not legislate morality (one way or the other). Perhaps Kerry would have appointed pro-active judges with agendas.
My hopes? I hope that since Bush is in his second term he will come clean with us. I hope he will not worry about politics and will get down to business. I hope he will work on the deficit instead of throwing money at us at least in part so we will like him (I believe he was also trying to help the economy). I hope he's learned his lesson in Iraq and won't go charging any more windmills. I hope he'll show some intelligence in the pursuit of real threats to our security. I hope he'll be a whole lot humbler in his bold initiatives and take the untested advice of conservative think tanks with several grains of salt.
Frankly, I suspect he's learned some lessons. I consider so much of his first term as incompetence and ignorance. I hope he somewhere deep down recognizes that too, even if he doesn't admit it. If he has learned from his mistakes, then he might redeem his first term in the second.
My fears? Well, there is my fear that he hasn't really learned anything, that he isn't just playing politics when he denies that he's made any mistakes. I personally prefer for a different party to control Congress than controls the White House--this provides checks and balances. I fear with an even more conservative Senate Bush will have free reign to experiment on us some more.
I'm also a little scared that we conservative Christians have so much power in America. I'm scared because I don't think we have as much figured out as we think we do. I would never give a Calvin the keys to Geneva, a Bloody Mary or a Cromwell the keys to England. I fear that we might do evil in God's name.
I knew I would feel this way no matter who won--that I would have some hopes overshadowed by even more fears. And so it is, a restless night before more restless days.
I pray the Lord humble us all. The temptation to sin is usually stronger in victory than in defeat.
In some respects this is a relief. I approve of many of the President's faith based initiatives. My Dad does prison ministry in a prison specifically set aside for people of faith. I don't have to worry about Kerry outlawing such things (if he would have). Bush will hopefully appoint Supreme Court judges who do not legislate morality (one way or the other). Perhaps Kerry would have appointed pro-active judges with agendas.
My hopes? I hope that since Bush is in his second term he will come clean with us. I hope he will not worry about politics and will get down to business. I hope he will work on the deficit instead of throwing money at us at least in part so we will like him (I believe he was also trying to help the economy). I hope he's learned his lesson in Iraq and won't go charging any more windmills. I hope he'll show some intelligence in the pursuit of real threats to our security. I hope he'll be a whole lot humbler in his bold initiatives and take the untested advice of conservative think tanks with several grains of salt.
Frankly, I suspect he's learned some lessons. I consider so much of his first term as incompetence and ignorance. I hope he somewhere deep down recognizes that too, even if he doesn't admit it. If he has learned from his mistakes, then he might redeem his first term in the second.
My fears? Well, there is my fear that he hasn't really learned anything, that he isn't just playing politics when he denies that he's made any mistakes. I personally prefer for a different party to control Congress than controls the White House--this provides checks and balances. I fear with an even more conservative Senate Bush will have free reign to experiment on us some more.
I'm also a little scared that we conservative Christians have so much power in America. I'm scared because I don't think we have as much figured out as we think we do. I would never give a Calvin the keys to Geneva, a Bloody Mary or a Cromwell the keys to England. I fear that we might do evil in God's name.
I knew I would feel this way no matter who won--that I would have some hopes overshadowed by even more fears. And so it is, a restless night before more restless days.
I pray the Lord humble us all. The temptation to sin is usually stronger in victory than in defeat.
Monday, November 01, 2004
The Other Side: Can a Republican be a Christian?
Dear Ken,
I’m really struggling with how a Christian could ever vote Republican. I mean Jesus made it the cornerstone of his earthly ministry to help the poor and downtrodden. Republicans are always favoring the wealthy and the powerful. They oppose welfare and programs to help women in trouble. How could a Christian be Republican when Jesus had such strong things to say against the rich?
How could anyone think that the party that opposed civil rights for African-Americans and equal rights for women represented God? If you find a person who belongs to the KKK or is really racist, they’re almost always a Republican. It’s always the Republicans who work against women having equal pay.
And what’s up with the Christians who support this war? How could anyone think Jesus would favor war or capital punishment? How does that fit with turning the other cheek? How could anyone think that the party of guns was the party of Christ? Jesus would be just as concerned with the innocent Iraqis dying as with our troops. How in the world could the party of war be the party of Christ? God told us to love our enemies. I have to consider the hate coming out of the Republican Party a sign that it isn’t of God.
And what’s up with the environment, man? God made this world! How could anyone think it was Christian to spoil God’s land? How can anyone be a Christian and not be absolutely in favor of protecting this world and the environment?
Now I don’t like abortion any more than anyone else, but we Democrats became pro-choice to save the teens that were dying while having back alley abortions in secret. We aren’t pro-abortion; we’re pro-choice. Is it better, a child to grow up in circumstances that make it a child of hell?
And I don’t see the Republicans adopting or going down to the crisis pregnancy center to help anyone. It’s always the Democrats who help these girls. The Republicans are always happy to tell someone else what they can and cannot do. But they don’t really care about the people. Jesus was just the opposite. He didn’t tell people what to do; he tried to help them. What would Jesus vote? He'd be a liberal Democrat, and Jerry Falwell would preach that he was going to hell!
I’m at a complete loss to imagine how anyone could be a Christian and vote Republican. Can you help me out with this one?
Justin
Justin,
You can’t just say that all Republicans think or feel in all these ways any more than you can say all Democrats agree with you. There are a lot of Republicans like me who don’t agree with everything in the Republican platform. I would consider myself fairly pro-environment and relatively anti-war, although I’m not a pacifist.
I also believe we should help the poor and downtrodden, that it is appropriate for the system to work for the empowerment of the little man. To me that isn’t always the same as a “free hand-out.” I do feel that my party has been on the wrong side of most of the social issues these last years, from the civil rights movement to women’s rights.
Abortion is a tougher issue. If abortion is murder—especially late term abortions—then it would seem that the child has a moral claim. But I agree that it doesn’t do for us simply to oppose the abortion while ignoring the problems of these girls.
I don’t think either party has the right to call itself the party of God. The best thing we can all do is to get past such nonsense. God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I suspect we reveal blind spots in our own spirituality if we think one or the other party has a corner on the truth.
Ken
I’m really struggling with how a Christian could ever vote Republican. I mean Jesus made it the cornerstone of his earthly ministry to help the poor and downtrodden. Republicans are always favoring the wealthy and the powerful. They oppose welfare and programs to help women in trouble. How could a Christian be Republican when Jesus had such strong things to say against the rich?
How could anyone think that the party that opposed civil rights for African-Americans and equal rights for women represented God? If you find a person who belongs to the KKK or is really racist, they’re almost always a Republican. It’s always the Republicans who work against women having equal pay.
And what’s up with the Christians who support this war? How could anyone think Jesus would favor war or capital punishment? How does that fit with turning the other cheek? How could anyone think that the party of guns was the party of Christ? Jesus would be just as concerned with the innocent Iraqis dying as with our troops. How in the world could the party of war be the party of Christ? God told us to love our enemies. I have to consider the hate coming out of the Republican Party a sign that it isn’t of God.
And what’s up with the environment, man? God made this world! How could anyone think it was Christian to spoil God’s land? How can anyone be a Christian and not be absolutely in favor of protecting this world and the environment?
Now I don’t like abortion any more than anyone else, but we Democrats became pro-choice to save the teens that were dying while having back alley abortions in secret. We aren’t pro-abortion; we’re pro-choice. Is it better, a child to grow up in circumstances that make it a child of hell?
And I don’t see the Republicans adopting or going down to the crisis pregnancy center to help anyone. It’s always the Democrats who help these girls. The Republicans are always happy to tell someone else what they can and cannot do. But they don’t really care about the people. Jesus was just the opposite. He didn’t tell people what to do; he tried to help them. What would Jesus vote? He'd be a liberal Democrat, and Jerry Falwell would preach that he was going to hell!
I’m at a complete loss to imagine how anyone could be a Christian and vote Republican. Can you help me out with this one?
Justin
Justin,
You can’t just say that all Republicans think or feel in all these ways any more than you can say all Democrats agree with you. There are a lot of Republicans like me who don’t agree with everything in the Republican platform. I would consider myself fairly pro-environment and relatively anti-war, although I’m not a pacifist.
I also believe we should help the poor and downtrodden, that it is appropriate for the system to work for the empowerment of the little man. To me that isn’t always the same as a “free hand-out.” I do feel that my party has been on the wrong side of most of the social issues these last years, from the civil rights movement to women’s rights.
Abortion is a tougher issue. If abortion is murder—especially late term abortions—then it would seem that the child has a moral claim. But I agree that it doesn’t do for us simply to oppose the abortion while ignoring the problems of these girls.
I don’t think either party has the right to call itself the party of God. The best thing we can all do is to get past such nonsense. God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I suspect we reveal blind spots in our own spirituality if we think one or the other party has a corner on the truth.
Ken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
