(Part three of the Layman's Theology series. You can find part two here.)
[preface]
Thanks to everyone who commented on part 2 (all of the comments are on the MySpace version of the blog). Theology isn't something that should be done in a vacuum. To the contrary, rethinking theology by one's self can lead to really bad places like Waco, Texas or Jonestown. So to keep me from starting my own cult, please feel free to comment, critique, or complain about anything in this series. Or pass a link along to someone who might be interested.
Thanks.
[end preface]
I've wrestled with this topic before in my blog (see post 191 and 251) and each time I've mentioned the fact that I don't have a complete understanding of what exactly salvation entails. As a kind of preface, let me say that this post won't be my last word on the subject but let me share my most recent thoughts.
Linking to my previous posts about salvation has been interesting for me because while rereading those posts, I was able to see a kind of progression. In post 191, I wrote about salvation as being freed from slavery to sin. In post 251 I talked about...actually, I'm not exactly sure what I was getting at but I think I was trying to say that in addition to the personal component of salvation, there is a societal aspect to the Gospel - that what Jesus ultimately wants to do is not just save individuals but also to save whole societies (and that's a loaded statement which I'll unpack later...perhaps in another entry).
I think both those posts are useful but they don't really get at answering one of the big questions I have about salvation. This question has to do with the first century church - a church that had to endure lethal amounts of persecution. As a christian, depending on where you lived, you could be subject to assault from the Romans who saw this new cult as a threat to the Pax Romana or from Jews who considered the teachings of Jesus to be blasphemy. Despite the fact that declaring one's self to be a christian could get you killed, christianity exploded across the continent such that a mere three hundred years after the death and resurrection of Christ, the emperor of Rome, Constatine I, legalized the worship of Christ with the Edict of Milan.
So my question is, what was it that those first christians found so compelling about the Gospel that they were willing to die for it? Because to be honest with you, if I had been living in an area where christians are persecuted today (places in the Middle East or South Asia, for example), I don't think I would have accepted Christ with the messages I heard here in America - that Jesus died so that I could have a "personal relationship" (a metaphor that I'm not entirely comfortable with - see post 270) with God. I mean, that would have been cool but I don't know if that would have been enough for me to adopt a life where I would likely be disowned by my family and ran the risk of being tortured and/or killed if my conversion was reported.
Or think of it this way. If I were a missionary in Sri Lanka, what would I be telling them about Jesus that would convince them to risk all that they hold dear?
That question, what is it about the Gospel that people then and now believe in such that they are willing to lay everything (every thing) down for it, has been a kind of litmus test for me as I've tried to rethink salvation. If it wasn't worth death then it wasn't good enough.
Now before I risk disappointing you all, let me state up front that I'm still working through this issue, but I'll share my current thoughts on it. And while I can't state with absolute certainty that I would die for my new understanding of the Gospel and salvation (because who can be certain until they're staring at the business end of a rifle), I can say that it has made the life I live now more meaningful, and that's a good start isn't it?
Okay then, here we go.
I think the best way to understand salvation is to think of it as signing on to be a part of a revolution - a movement to upend a world that has lost its way and to set things right again. That is the good news of the Gospel.
In the first two chapters of Genesis, God creates the cosmos and it is good, perfect, flawless. And then in chapter three, Adam and Eve, duped by the serpent, eat fruit off the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
And then the shit hit the fan.
Every instance of injustice, of betrayal, of meaningless suffering, rancor, and defeat can be traced back to that little taste. Pride, lust, envy, and every other dark need that drives us entered the scene, poisoning even our best intentions. Large to small, top to bottom, everything in the world that's not as it should be is torqued because of the fall. Everything from national stories like the racism that seeks to unequally punish the Jena Six or the incomprehensible fact that in the richest nation in the world, two years after the fact, New Orleans is still a tragedy; to international issues like the genocide in Darfur, the never-ending dispute in Israel, or the megalomaniacal government of Burma; down to the little nuisances of everyday life - drivers who don't know how to merge, people with fifteen items in the twelve item grocery line, stupid workplace situations.
All of these things because of the fall in Genesis three. As a result, everything else in the Bible from Genesis four through Revelation twenty two has to do with God helping us to get back what was lost. And this powerful play goes on and God commands us to contribute a verse!
Yes, Christ died so we could be freed from slavery to sin and be reconciled to God but that is ONLY THE BEGINNING. As precious as this freedom is, it's kind of like a fringe benefit or a signing bonus. It's not the point of accepting or following Christ. To me, the part of the Gospel that is worth more than life itself is the idea that through the work of Christ on the cross, we become a part of God's plan of redemption and reconciliation. It's like we're given a transfer from the wrecking crew to the repair crew. All the things that are wrong with the world - we become partners in God's plan to set all things right.
And it took me a long time to figure this out, but this work of repair happens on a variety of scales. Very few of us have the resources to tackle global or national problems but wherever we are, in whatever way we can, we are given the task of making our little piece of the world a better place - a place more in line with God's design for it.
A couple months ago, I wrote about how I realized that even though most of my day is spent with boxes and files, keeping those boxes and files as neat and organized as I can is as valid a way of living out my calling as any other (at least until this band thing gets played out). And writing this blog. Although it may not seem like it, I've probably put in close to ten hours on this entry, trying out different ways of saying things - exploring avenues, jettisoning whole sections that were superfluous or not getting at what I wanted to say. I write because it's a tool that God has given me and for me to not use it is simply sin.
Is the idea that we are saved into the task of remaking the world back into what it should be worth dying for? Is this something like what those in the first century church (and those in areas today where persecution still runs rampant) believed such that they were willing to be torn apart by lions or stoned to death? I don't think it's as simple as that - each person must have their own reasons for the faith they hold, but at least for me, it makes christianity something more (far more) than just a Sunday morning show. For me, this means that even though I have very little personal interaction at my workplace, keeping things in order even if nobody notices, even if I don't get any credit, even if the next person just goes in and messes things up again, I am doing my part to make my little bit of the world more like it would have if the fall had never occurred.
You know, having come this far in this entry, I realize that it's not that I want to redefine salvation. It's not that the Four Spiritual Laws are wrong - to the contrary, it is a clear way to explain some key theological concepts - it's just that, well, to be frank, it's too clean and clinical. It doesn't give me anything to sink my teeth into. It doesn't tell me how my life is supposed to change after accepting its statements.
To be fair, back when I was trained to use the Four Spiritual Laws tract, I was told to try to invite the person I was counseling to my church or get them hooked up with a church close to where they lived so they could establish deeper roots. Um...I don't mean to diss, but most churches (at least most that I attended) focus on what my pastor has occasionally referred to as spiritual narcissism - focusing so much on one's own spiritual health that one fails to be the blessing that they're called to be.
I don't want to be saved onto a treadmill of studying the Bible for the sake of looking like a know-it-all at church. I want to be saved into a mission to change the world for the better. And how does that happen? Well everyone's calling is unique but basically it involves doing whatever you can (with whatever you have, wherever you are) to make the world more like it would be if the fall had never happened or the way things will be when Christ comes again to set things right once and for all.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
273. yet another excuse
Blah.
Okay, I really, really want to get to more posts in my Layman's Theology series but my church has been in the midst of a huge renovation project and I've been helping out a lot.
Whether we're ready for it or not, Quest 4.0 goes live this Sunday so I'll have my nights back to myself again.
I've mainly been helping out with the sound system gear and while I know we can have everything working this weekend, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I wish we had at least one more week to finish the install and tweak everything. (warning, techno-speak ahead) It's a pretty major upgrade - we're going from a sixteen channel, one monitor mix setup to a thirty two channel, four monitor mix plus subs plus sound piped to other rooms in the building. We have far less EQ than I'd like (only one 1/3 band EQ that we're using for mains), far more compression than we need (12! channels), and not nearly enough time to train people on it all.
That said, it's going to be a really sweet system. We've been playing music through the mains while working on the renovation and I've consistently been surprised at how clean our new Mackie S408 loudspeakers (emphasis on "loud") sound.
So stay tuned. And feel free to needle me with nasty comments if I don't get back to posting more entries next week.
Okay, I really, really want to get to more posts in my Layman's Theology series but my church has been in the midst of a huge renovation project and I've been helping out a lot.
Whether we're ready for it or not, Quest 4.0 goes live this Sunday so I'll have my nights back to myself again.
I've mainly been helping out with the sound system gear and while I know we can have everything working this weekend, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I wish we had at least one more week to finish the install and tweak everything. (warning, techno-speak ahead) It's a pretty major upgrade - we're going from a sixteen channel, one monitor mix setup to a thirty two channel, four monitor mix plus subs plus sound piped to other rooms in the building. We have far less EQ than I'd like (only one 1/3 band EQ that we're using for mains), far more compression than we need (12! channels), and not nearly enough time to train people on it all.
That said, it's going to be a really sweet system. We've been playing music through the mains while working on the renovation and I've consistently been surprised at how clean our new Mackie S408 loudspeakers (emphasis on "loud") sound.
So stay tuned. And feel free to needle me with nasty comments if I don't get back to posting more entries next week.
Monday, September 10, 2007
272. an uncensored take on omnipotence
[PREFACE]
Sorry it took so long to get around to posting this but it's a difficult topic and so this entry has gone through a couple of major revisions. I still don't think it's as polished as it should be but I'm tired of working on it and I want to move on to other thoughts in this series.
Please, please, please let me know what you think in the comments section, especially if you disagree.
[END PREFACE]
A Layman's Theology, Part 2.
In the past few years, there is one epiphany I've had about God that has helped me make sense of him and his world and it goes like this:
God is God and can do whatever it is he wants to do because that's what it is to be God.
There are a number of places in the Bible where we are told to fear God. Many modern interpretations of these verses suggest that a better way to understand the way "fear" is being used is to substitute the word "respect." But I wonder if by fear, the writers actually meant, well, fear. I mean, think about the world those writers lived in. There were no scientific explanations for the world that surrounded them. An earthquake was not, as we now understand it, the result of a shift in tectonic plates - it was a terrifying display of powers as mysterious as they were cataclysmic. Also, there were no microbiological explanations for illnesses. Our present day celebration of a child's first birthday harkens back to a time when many babies died in their first months of life (often during childbirth) and so reaching the one year mark was truly a cause to celebrate.
I think it's nearly impossible for us to understand what a terrible and fearsome world this used to be because while we have not been able to domesticate all of the wild powers of this planet (hurricanes for example), we are able to explain their origins and predict the paths of their destruction. We also know how to prepare for the wrath they bring. Also, modern medicine has extended the length and quality of life in ways that no one could have dreamed of two hundred (let alone two thousand plus) years ago and even when cures are beyond the abilities of modern medicine, death and demise are usually able to be explained in clinical terms.
Science has allowed us to subdue much of what used to terrorize by linking causes to effects. This has led to a subconscious intolerance for that which we can't predict or understand and I think this has tainted our view of God. It has led to the view of God where some believe that we can influence or predict the behavior of God the way we do natural, physical phenomenon. Some believe we can do this by praying a certain way (more on this idea further down) or recognizing the signs of the times.
I think it is a mistake to lessen our fear of God the way we've lessened our fear of nature. God is as much of a unexplainable terror today as thunder and lightning were to the disciples. I think the easiest way to acknowledge this is to concede that God is God and can do whatever it is he wants to do.
It's this fear that is the foundation for the wisdom spoken of in Psalms and in Proverbs. Yes, God cares for us and provides for our needs the way he does for the birds and the lilies but he does so out of love and grace, not because he has to.
Let me approach this from another angle.
Normally the sentiment, "God is God and can do whatever it is he wants to do" is compacted down into a single, handy word known as omnipotence and it sounds more innocuous when condensed like that but when you unpack that word, don't you find something like what I just put forward above? So as politically incorrect and cold as it may sound, I really do believe that God does not have to explain himself - the things he does and doesn't do. And while that notion may offend our ideas of freedom and accountability, they don't apply to God because well, who are we to judge?
In Romans 9:14-24, Paul takes on this very idea of God's sovereignty and our disrespect in questioning it. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Again, as offensive as it may sound to us, we have no right to question God. I mean, sure we can ask whatever questions we want but God is under no obligation to provide an answer.
Think about the Book of Job. Most of that book is made up of Job asking God why a huge set of calamities have plagued him and in the end, does God explain himself to Job? No. He spends four chapters questioning Job, basically asking Job what his credentials are and how they give him the right to question him.
This uncensored view of omnipotence has actually been a boon for me because I spent my formative years as a christian in churches where they preached what I've previously called transactional theology. I would frequently hear sermons where the pastor would say that if you did so and so then God would do such and such. This equation could take the form of the personal, "if you pray for your spouse in a certain way then God will bless your marriage," or the political, "if this group of lost people would just repent from their evil ways then God would bless this nation."
On a personal note, there are two things that I've always wanted from God: to meet and eventually marry my wife and to interact with him in the personal way that I've heard so many other christians talk about. With both of these desires I was told by many church leaders and christian books what I needed to do in order to have God bring these things into my life. But no matter what I tried, I remained single and God remained silent. And for a long time, I beat myself up about this, thinking that I wasn't good enough or trying hard enough or reading the right books because the way I was hearing the advice, it seemed like a sure thing. If I did the proper actions then, like cause and effect, God would respond with the desired outcome. But that's not the way things went down.
It was when I finally realized that God doesn't jump through hoops that I was able to make peace with my situation in life. I came to understand that God is free to impart or withhold whatever blessings he choses and so not receiving what I prayed and tried to work for was not necessarily a result of a lack of some spiritual effort on my part but was merely the way God chose to let my life play out. I was able to relax because as far as I could tell, my being single and not being able to hear from God was not the result of a character flaw or some lack of special knowledge that I wasn't privy to. It was just God's will.
Some might object that such a view of God makes him out to be unfair or cruel or capricious, but how so? I mean, isn't it infinitely more unfair for us mere created creatures to object to the one who crafted the universe, to accuse him of giving us stones when we asked for bread? Isn't it cruel of us to forget our place in God's created order and to criticize him for not acting as we think he should - and this after he left the splendor of heaven to commune with us on this dusty, depraved planet, eventually dying an unimaginably cruel and unjust death for we spoiled creatures.
No, I think viewing God in all of his omnipotent autonomy leads to the opposite view - that any and all blessings he imparts are not something he is obliged to provide, rather they are unfathomably loving acts of infinite, unimaginable kindness and benevolence. Simply put, we don't deserve anything from God (apart from judgement) and so anything we have that is good in our life is there only by his amazing grace.
Thanks be to God.
Sorry it took so long to get around to posting this but it's a difficult topic and so this entry has gone through a couple of major revisions. I still don't think it's as polished as it should be but I'm tired of working on it and I want to move on to other thoughts in this series.
Please, please, please let me know what you think in the comments section, especially if you disagree.
[END PREFACE]
A Layman's Theology, Part 2.
In the past few years, there is one epiphany I've had about God that has helped me make sense of him and his world and it goes like this:
God is God and can do whatever it is he wants to do because that's what it is to be God.
There are a number of places in the Bible where we are told to fear God. Many modern interpretations of these verses suggest that a better way to understand the way "fear" is being used is to substitute the word "respect." But I wonder if by fear, the writers actually meant, well, fear. I mean, think about the world those writers lived in. There were no scientific explanations for the world that surrounded them. An earthquake was not, as we now understand it, the result of a shift in tectonic plates - it was a terrifying display of powers as mysterious as they were cataclysmic. Also, there were no microbiological explanations for illnesses. Our present day celebration of a child's first birthday harkens back to a time when many babies died in their first months of life (often during childbirth) and so reaching the one year mark was truly a cause to celebrate.
I think it's nearly impossible for us to understand what a terrible and fearsome world this used to be because while we have not been able to domesticate all of the wild powers of this planet (hurricanes for example), we are able to explain their origins and predict the paths of their destruction. We also know how to prepare for the wrath they bring. Also, modern medicine has extended the length and quality of life in ways that no one could have dreamed of two hundred (let alone two thousand plus) years ago and even when cures are beyond the abilities of modern medicine, death and demise are usually able to be explained in clinical terms.
Science has allowed us to subdue much of what used to terrorize by linking causes to effects. This has led to a subconscious intolerance for that which we can't predict or understand and I think this has tainted our view of God. It has led to the view of God where some believe that we can influence or predict the behavior of God the way we do natural, physical phenomenon. Some believe we can do this by praying a certain way (more on this idea further down) or recognizing the signs of the times.
I think it is a mistake to lessen our fear of God the way we've lessened our fear of nature. God is as much of a unexplainable terror today as thunder and lightning were to the disciples. I think the easiest way to acknowledge this is to concede that God is God and can do whatever it is he wants to do.
It's this fear that is the foundation for the wisdom spoken of in Psalms and in Proverbs. Yes, God cares for us and provides for our needs the way he does for the birds and the lilies but he does so out of love and grace, not because he has to.
Let me approach this from another angle.
Normally the sentiment, "God is God and can do whatever it is he wants to do" is compacted down into a single, handy word known as omnipotence and it sounds more innocuous when condensed like that but when you unpack that word, don't you find something like what I just put forward above? So as politically incorrect and cold as it may sound, I really do believe that God does not have to explain himself - the things he does and doesn't do. And while that notion may offend our ideas of freedom and accountability, they don't apply to God because well, who are we to judge?
In Romans 9:14-24, Paul takes on this very idea of God's sovereignty and our disrespect in questioning it. "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" Again, as offensive as it may sound to us, we have no right to question God. I mean, sure we can ask whatever questions we want but God is under no obligation to provide an answer.
Think about the Book of Job. Most of that book is made up of Job asking God why a huge set of calamities have plagued him and in the end, does God explain himself to Job? No. He spends four chapters questioning Job, basically asking Job what his credentials are and how they give him the right to question him.
This uncensored view of omnipotence has actually been a boon for me because I spent my formative years as a christian in churches where they preached what I've previously called transactional theology. I would frequently hear sermons where the pastor would say that if you did so and so then God would do such and such. This equation could take the form of the personal, "if you pray for your spouse in a certain way then God will bless your marriage," or the political, "if this group of lost people would just repent from their evil ways then God would bless this nation."
On a personal note, there are two things that I've always wanted from God: to meet and eventually marry my wife and to interact with him in the personal way that I've heard so many other christians talk about. With both of these desires I was told by many church leaders and christian books what I needed to do in order to have God bring these things into my life. But no matter what I tried, I remained single and God remained silent. And for a long time, I beat myself up about this, thinking that I wasn't good enough or trying hard enough or reading the right books because the way I was hearing the advice, it seemed like a sure thing. If I did the proper actions then, like cause and effect, God would respond with the desired outcome. But that's not the way things went down.
It was when I finally realized that God doesn't jump through hoops that I was able to make peace with my situation in life. I came to understand that God is free to impart or withhold whatever blessings he choses and so not receiving what I prayed and tried to work for was not necessarily a result of a lack of some spiritual effort on my part but was merely the way God chose to let my life play out. I was able to relax because as far as I could tell, my being single and not being able to hear from God was not the result of a character flaw or some lack of special knowledge that I wasn't privy to. It was just God's will.
Some might object that such a view of God makes him out to be unfair or cruel or capricious, but how so? I mean, isn't it infinitely more unfair for us mere created creatures to object to the one who crafted the universe, to accuse him of giving us stones when we asked for bread? Isn't it cruel of us to forget our place in God's created order and to criticize him for not acting as we think he should - and this after he left the splendor of heaven to commune with us on this dusty, depraved planet, eventually dying an unimaginably cruel and unjust death for we spoiled creatures.
No, I think viewing God in all of his omnipotent autonomy leads to the opposite view - that any and all blessings he imparts are not something he is obliged to provide, rather they are unfathomably loving acts of infinite, unimaginable kindness and benevolence. Simply put, we don't deserve anything from God (apart from judgement) and so anything we have that is good in our life is there only by his amazing grace.
Thanks be to God.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
271. truly, a gift from God
Christianity has been under attack by atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, and to be fair, I think we deserve it. Let me state unequivocally that I find a literal, seven day account of creation to be indefensible. Likewise, I think the more recent arguments for Intelligent Design, while not as bankrupt as those in the young earth creationism camp, are still woefully eclipsed by the torrential avalanche of evidence that supports good 'ol Darwinian Evolution. So as a christian, I find it frustrating and disheartening to see creationists and ID advocates act as the mouthpiece for the christian position in areas where science and faith overlap. This so often being the case, I think it's no wonder that the church is thought to be populated by anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, Biblical literalists who deserve to be mocked by atheists.
That's why I was thrilled to find this fascinating mini-debate/discussion between host of the podcast, Point Of Inquiry, D.J. Grothe, and Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Grothe had Collins on his show to talk about Collins' book, The Language of God, where he talks about the compatibility of science and faith - that choosing one does not mean one has to reject the other.
What I find so refreshing about this discussion is his rejection of dishonest tactics on both sides of the debate between believers and atheists. One of my favorite bits comes about thirty one minutes into the discussion where he talks about how centuries before Darwin and the idea that the universe is billions of years old, Saint Augustine did a close study of Genesis and found that it was not meant to be taken literally. He goes on to say that a strictly literal interpretation of the creation story is a very recent development in the grand scheme of biblical studies.
I really hope to be able to pick up Collins' book soon (that damn budget) because if it's half as thrilling as he is in this debate, it'll be a a book that will knock my socks off.
Again, you can hear the debate here:
http://cache.libsyn.com/pointofinquiry/POI_2007_08_31_Francis_Collins.mp3
That's why I was thrilled to find this fascinating mini-debate/discussion between host of the podcast, Point Of Inquiry, D.J. Grothe, and Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Grothe had Collins on his show to talk about Collins' book, The Language of God, where he talks about the compatibility of science and faith - that choosing one does not mean one has to reject the other.
What I find so refreshing about this discussion is his rejection of dishonest tactics on both sides of the debate between believers and atheists. One of my favorite bits comes about thirty one minutes into the discussion where he talks about how centuries before Darwin and the idea that the universe is billions of years old, Saint Augustine did a close study of Genesis and found that it was not meant to be taken literally. He goes on to say that a strictly literal interpretation of the creation story is a very recent development in the grand scheme of biblical studies.
I really hope to be able to pick up Collins' book soon (that damn budget) because if it's half as thrilling as he is in this debate, it'll be a a book that will knock my socks off.
Again, you can hear the debate here:
http://cache.libsyn.com/pointofinquiry/POI_2007_08_31_Francis_Collins.mp3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
