How is the church like the New Testament Gospels?

My big thought from Sunday school reading this week:

The New Testament has four Gospels; three are "syn-optic" -- they see Jesus together but each with a different perspective. The fourth one is way out there with its own perspective (arguably).

How is the Church (or my local congregation in particular) like the four Gospels? IMO: If we uphold the unity of the four Gospels as part of one book of God, while recognizing their differences, we should in like manner uphold the unity of the congregation/the Church universal while recognizing the diversity of perspective of Jesus & God within that body.

Dr. Ed Meadors always asked this question in his NT classes at Taylor: "What would you miss if this book/this pericope was absent from our Bibles?"

Similarly, we should ask: "What would we be missing if this person/this theological perspective was absent from our church?"

[This is the entire blog post.]

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Baptism and Ordination

Thoughts from theologian Ben Myers on baptism:
(faith-theology.blogspot.com)

"If you want to be ordained in order to become a really serious and committed disciple of Christ, then you have denied your baptism. If you want to be ordained in order to progress beyond ordinary d...iscipleship, then you have denied your baptism. If you want to be ordained in order to “serve the Lord full-time”, then you have denied your baptism."

This makes sense to me as a criticism of certain improper motives for seeking ordination. Others also might take it as a criticism of the institutional practice of ordination. What do you think?

(This is the entire post.)


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

I had this idea a while ago and forgot to post it here for discussion until today. The prompt for my doing so was its appropriateness as a response for this post on Halden's blog.

Regarding the fact that 1 Timothy 2 roots its “I do not allow a woman to teach” doctrine in the creation narrative…. I had what was, for me, a bit of a brainwave the other Sunday. There’s another teaching in scripture that is rooted in the creation narrative: Exodus 20:8-11. Yet the Sabbath commandment is unique among the Ten Words in its NOT being repeated in the NT. And while our strategies may differ in how we deal with the Sabbath commandment in our lives, surely we can all agree that Moses’ idea of how to “Keep the Sabbath holy” is bound to his culture, time, and place, and is not for us today.

(This is the complete post.)

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Some thoughts on the imperfection of the scriptures

OK, I know with a title like that I should watch out for people carrying pitchforks! :)

But consider: first of all, "perfection" is relative. "Perfect" is often used to mean "complete", "not lacking in anything". Pragmatically speaking, however, we might use "perfect" to mean "entirely sufficient for ...". Notice the elipsis - the missing term. Hence the relativity of perfection; at least on this conception of perfection.

We evangelicals often throw around a handful of adjectives when we talk about scripture, and usually we don't stop to explain what we mean by them. Adjectives like "inspired", "inerrant", "infallible", "authoritative", "complete", "perfect", even "holy". When we give lectures or write textbooks, then we sometimes take a stab at defining some of these terms in reference to scripture. Textbook "infallibilists" say that scripture is "perfect", "inerrant", or "inspired", or "authoritatve", or "complete" in all matters pertaining to faith and practice. I am probably a textbook infallibilist by many people's lights. I'm willing to affirm that scripture is complete and perfect rel. to all faith (i.e., doctrine) and practice. Textbook "inerrantists" (sometimes called "fundamentalists") complain that infallibilists leave out the inerrancy and authority and perfection of scripture in all matters of history (and maybe even science?). Perhaps the idea is that if the Gospel of Luke says such-and-such was governor of such-and-such territory around the time of Jesus' birth, then this historical fact is unquestionably true. Many inerrantists might further insist that since the Fourth Gospel says Jesus cleansed the Temple close to the beginning of his three-year ministry, and the Synoptic Gospels say Jesus cleansed the Temple at the beginning of Passion Week, after the Triumphal Entry, he must have done it twice. Some inerrantists might further insist that God created all things in heaven and earth in seven twenty-four hour days. (Outside of the textbook accounts, people like me often question whether the Bible actually makes all of these factual claims -- leaving alone the "inerrancy" of what the Bible actually does claim.)

Still, I'm willing to grant significant intelligibility to textbooks' making a distinction between one group ("infallibilists") that say the Bible is trustworthy and true with regard to faith + practice only, and another group ("inerrantists") that say the Bible is trustworthy and true with regard to faith + practice + "mundane" history. Even though as a student of religions--or as a philosopher--I'm not sure what else there is to any religion -- or to life in general -- besides faith [what you believe] and practice [what you do]. I guess there's more to reality than one's life (individual or communal). And facts of "mundane history" arguably are part of the reality that extends beyond one's life.

To pick back up on my original train of thought ... "perfection" is relative. I might say (wearing an "infallibilist" hat) that scripture is "perfect" or "entirely sufficient" on all matters of faith and practice. In my saying this, I probably intend to leave room for significant diversity of opinion on many matters within the community of the faithful. Regardless of what one might think about the veracity of the Bible's many historical claims (and I do not here mean to deny them), there are many historical facts on which the Bible is silent. The socio-political history of ancient China, for example. Or the dates of all the important battles of the American Revolution. So, whether the Bible is "perfect" or not, depends on what we are asking of it. Since we don't expect an account of ancient Chinese or 18th century American history, its lacking these things does not blemish its "perfection" in our eyes. Well and good. And really, I don't know of anyone who does expect those things from the Bible (Well...unless there was someone in the 18th century that thought Revelation predicted all that would happen in the next 30-50 years??)

However, I think there are other things we come to the Bible expecting, quite often. I include myself here. It would be nice if the Bible was more helpful in our making decisions. Not just morally, but about important life issues -- like where to go to college, what to major in, what career to pursue, or whom to marry (or whether to marry at all!), for example. I have actually known people who opened their Bible and expected to find answers to these questions. I probably have been one of them. Even leaving those things aside, it would be nice if the Bible gave us clear, immediate guidance on all our moral and ethical practices. Without having to do complicated exegesis or systematic theology or Christian ethics through lenses of tradition and reason, I mean. Sadly, the Bible seems to me to be silent on important issues like abortion, torture, and universal health care. (That is, if we're not reading it and then using tradition and reason to mediate scripture and Christian ethics.) Suffice it to say -- and here is my main point in sum -- we all have questions, really important questions, that the Bible does not answer. That is, the scriptures are not entirely sufficient for our intellectual and practical lives. Even while they may be sufficient for our "faith and practice" in the textbook sense (as I here affirm). In this sense, then, scripture is woefully imperfect.

Now, there's good news and bad news. The good news is, God didn't just give us the Bible.

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." (Hebrews 1:1-4, ESV)

The perfect and complete Word of God is the Son, Jesus, the resurrected and exalted one. He is perfect as "the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of [God's] nature". He is complete in that he is final -- he is the last Word of God, spoken "in these last days".

The bad news is that even having Jesus -- whether found in the pages of scripture or in the Spirit indwelling our hearts -- we are still going to have difficulty getting answers to all of our questions. Certainly many of our answers will be fallible. Thus there will continue to be disagreements among the saints. Relative to our questions, Jesus too is imperfect.

Friends, we have to learn to deal with imperfection. I guess answering all of our questions--even all of our theological and moral questions--wasn't God's purpose in communicating with us about Godself.

Still, we have this promise in our imperfect scriptures -- make of it what you will:

"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him." (James* 1:5, ESV)

---

* Aside: I think it is a real travesty of Anglo-dominated Western Christianity that we have forgotten the name of the brother of our Lord, which was actually the same as the birth name of Israel -- Jacob. If you didn't know, it was changed throughout the New Testament when the King James version was translated, in honor of King James himself. Any Greek text you find will still read "Jacob" -- a Hebrew name, not a Scottish one. I almost want to complain that it's anti-Semitic. At the very least, we do a disservice to the tradition of the early Church, and the memory of one of the pillars of the church at Jerusalem by mis-naming him every time we speak of him or cite the book that bears his name. IMO, it's long since time that new translations of the New Testament into English depart from the 17th century tradition of using the name "James".

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Some Reflections on Love & Marriage - in 2 parts

1.

Halden observes about 1 Corinthians 13's characterization of love that
"Love Is F***ing Stupid". Kim Fabricius suggests a proper biblical-theological interpretation, namely: "Jesus is F***ing Stupid". As Paul might say, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor 1:25, ESV).

Even those of us who have an impulse to joyfully and foolishly proclaim in response: Yes, Amen, "Love will kill you. ... Love will kill you by rendering you pathetic, naive, and stupid. To love according to this Scriptural definition will inevitably result in the crucifixion of any successful and attractive mode of existence. The love that the gospel invites us into is one that does nothing less than reduce us to nothing. The gospel makes us pathetic, lonely, manipulable, vulnerable, empty." -- There is also an impulse to emphasize that we do have (and should have!) boundaries. "The fact is that we all have limits that we’re not going to cross when it comes to loving others. There is some stuff that we just won’t bear. That’s how it is. If we try to deny this we are liars."

I embrace Halden's radical exposition of Christian love. At the same time, I find myself affirming Sharad's response:

"This post perfectly illustrates how incomprehensible the Bible is apart from some sort of theological context. 1 Corinthians isn’t a sonnet. It’s not Paul waxing abstract on the virtue of virtues. If it’s read that way it does result in an reprehensible co-dependence that only invites abuse.
The reason that love isn’t fucking stupid is because it isn’t characterized by the purposeless “for-it’s-own-sake” kind of idealism that is rightly lampooned by Nietzsche. Love is directed by an external reality called “the kingdom of God” in which human beings find out what they are for. Whatever human beings are for constrains and directs the love described in ch. 13. Paul thinks human beings are made for the enjoyment of God in Christ. That means that love isn’t passive - it’s patient and kind in the pursuit of that end. It bears all things to that end. Believing all things is a corollary to rejoicing in the truth - a refusal to distort the truth in pursuit of that end. It endures what must be endured to pursuing that end.
Jesus doesn’t embody the battered-wife-syndrome interpretation of this passage. He was, on several occasions, not nice. Jesus does, however, perfectly embody these characteristics if you see the kingdom of God as the telos which defines these descriptions.
Love, by this definition, refuses to forsake someone else because they’ve hurt us - instead we patiently hold the truth before them and offer the possibility of reconciliation if they choose to acknowledge it. We do endure their rage, frustration and denial in the process.
Anyone who’s had children who’ve done terrible things understand a type of love that doesn’t enable their behavior but continues to extend relationship and openness to reconciliation. It hurts like hell, and it’s f***ing beautiful."

There's certainly lots to generate controversial discussion here. And not controversy of a sort that can straightforwardly be sorted into two categories: "kingdom ethics" vs. "worldly wisdom".

...

2.

In a much older post, Halden discusses "romantic love" in the thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Life Together.

There are essentially two forms of communion that are possible, one is direct, immediate relationship with another person, resulting in a fusion between the self and the other. The second possibility is communion with the other through Christ, who stands between the self and the other as mediator, denying any possibility of immediacy, domination, or fusion of the self and the other.

”In the self-centered community there exists a profound, elemental emotional desire for community, for immediate contact with other human souls, just as in the flesh there is a yearning from immediate union with other flesh. This desire of the human soul seeks the complete intimate fusion of I and You, whether this occurs in the union of love or — what from this self-centered perspective is after all the same thing — in forcing the other into one’s own sphere of power and influence.”

This sort of dominating, possessive love is decried by Bonhoeffer as predatory on genuine Christian love and community. In the Christian community our communion with one another can never be an expression of the extension of ourself into the other, but rather of receiving the other as gift insofar as Christ sees fit to gift us with one another amidst the concreteness and difficulty of life under the Word of God.

”Because Christ stands between me and an other, I must not long for unmediated community with that person. As only Christ was able to speak to me in such a way that I was helped, so others too can only be helped by Christ alone. However, this means that I must release others from all my attempts to control, coerce, and dominate them with my love. In their freedom from me, other persons want to be loved for who they are, as those for whom Christ became a human being, died, and rose again, as those from whom Christ won the forgiveness of sins and prepared eternal life.”

Bonhoeffer goes on to argue as follows, “Self-centered love loves the other for the sake of itself; spiritual love loves the other for the sake of Christ. That is why self-centered love seeks direct contact with other persons. It loves them, not as free persons, but as those whom it binds to itself. It wants to do everything it can to win and conquer; it puts pressure on the other person. It desires to irresistible, to dominate. Self-centered love does not think much of truth. It makes the truth relative, since nothing, not even the truth, must come between it and the person loved. Emotional, self-centered love desires other persons, their company. It wants them to return its love, but it does not serve them. On the contrary, it continues to desire even when it seems to be serving.”

I find myself reflecting mostly on this last paragraph. My thoughts: "When truth threatens the status quo of a romantic relationship, how might the servant-love of Christ differ in its response from that of self-centered love? What happens when a motive to serve conflicts with a motive to desire to be loved? As Halden says: "The line between Carrie Bradshaw [self-centered love] and Dietrich Bonhoeffer [servant love] runs through each one of our hearts"."

Which is more important to serve, to keep alive and healthy? -- A union or relationship for its own sake, or the people in that relationship? A friend opined to me recently (in the context of our discussing Christian marriage) that it is the job of the Christian community to love and support the two persons, in whatever way is healthiest for them -- it is not the job of the Christian community to keep the two people together (in marriage) "no matter what". [I am paraphrasing of course.]

Consider cases of domestic abuse, for example. It has occurred far too often (some at all is too often) that a church community has used a "sanctity of marriage" and/or "God hates divorce" argument to exert pressure from without to keep a marriage together when it is really not healthy (for either party) for it to be kept together.

Marriage is a covenant between two people. We talk about "union", but the analogy here is to the covenant between God and God's People. In Christianity as I understand it (even in strong versions of theosis, I think) God and the Church remain ontologically distinct. Sure, I like to think of our community with God through Christ as an extension of the inter-penetrating love of the members of the Trinity. But the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Being (hence, all equally divine) in a way that the Church is not one with God, and never will be.

So marriage does not create a new fundamental entity of which the two partners are ontologically secondary components. Rather the partners, as individuals, are ontologically primary, but they are members of a dyadic community, and in *that* sense they become one. They should be treated, and treat each other, accordingly. As Bonhoeffer suggests: "immediacy, domination, or fusion of the self and the other" is *not* the goal of Christian marriage. (Which should have ramifications for how we understand "the husband is the head of the wife", IMO).


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Anti-Imperialism

Halden has a couple of good posts on Christian political witness and anti-imperialism. Links below:

A Plea for Anti-Empire Polemics (1/20/2009)

"...not to say that critiques of Bush-style neoconservatism are wrong, rather it is that they are just far too easy. Any Christian critique of empire worth its salt must be able to do more than lob shots at the chicanery of the Bush administration. ... If America was an empire yesterday it remains one today despite the Obama administration’s proclamations of hope and seismic change. ... We will almost certainly see a lapse in the rush of anti-empire publications in the next few years. For far too many “progressive” Christians being anti-empire just means being anti-Bush. What is needed now, in light of the (false) hope of the newly inaugurated Obama presidency is ongoing critique of the problems of American empire."

The Ethics of Witness (2/18/2009)

"This puts the Christian in the extremely unpopular position of remaining a critic of all forms of earthly political sovereignty, even (especially?) when they seem to be becoming more morally appealing and worthy. ... What is important to note here is that the inherent antipathy of Christianity towards secular politics is not a negative reaction determined by that which it is against. It is rather the overflow of the abundant gift of life that is wrought by Christ in the resurrection."

Please go read the entire posts yourself.
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Selections from Rudolfo Llinas Talk at UT

(click photo to link to source)

"There is no such thing as mind."

"The brain has but one function: to move intelligently, or intelligent motricity." (very close paraphrase of a central thesis)

"Life, a property of matter is, as are giraffes, inevitable." (direct quote from slide)

"We are not descended from monkeys, we are monkeys." (close to direct quote)

"Cells have personality!" Every individual neuron, as I understand it from his presentation, has a unique way of representing the external world. Cognition works by consensus. All of these individual, quirky representations are summed up and then, with so much variation, the only thing they have in common: that's the truth. Hence, a system made up of unreliable elements is much more reliable than a system made of of reliable elements. (Because if all the elements worked in the same way, 'reliably', then they could all be wrong in the same way.)

"There is no higher and lower!" The brain is a circuit. The thalamus is connected to the cortex, and then the cortex connects back to the thalamus (e.g., in vision). (Note: the cortex does not connect to the "soul".)

Consciousness is synchrony of thalamus & cortex. One provides information (content), the other provides context. When content is put into context, we have attention (consciousness).

Even pigeons recognize themselves in the mirror. All animals are self-aware. Dogs don't recognize themselves in mirrors, but they are not visual, rather they are olfactory. Unlike us, they can mark a fire-hydrant with their scent and recognize themselves there afterwards.

"It's beautiful!" (He used that word a lot. Not specifically of the cephalopod below, although he could have!)


He showed a video of a cephalopod hiding. These are different versions I found on YouTube of exactly the same video:



And in slow motion:


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Romance -- no, not love. Apparently not theology, either.

On “Romance”

(It occurs to me that it would have made sense for me to do this on Valentine’s Day. Oh, well. My curiosity actually arose from my reading my World Religions textbook on Monday, however—I was reading in the chapter on Christianity about Schleiermacher and romantic theology. My driving question: how are all the various uses in contemporary English of “romance” and “romantic” related to one another?)

Let me trace the etymology of the word “romance”, with the help of the Oxford English Dictionary. The original, literal meaning of the word is: vernacular French (the language). This is as opposed to Latin (the non-vernacular). Presumably, this is because French—or at least the Latin of which it was at one point a dialect or offshoot (I’m not really a philologist so I’m not quite sure how this works)—was spoken in Rome, or associated with Romans. By extension, the term came to be applied to the whole group of languages descended from Latin.

So “romance” refers to a language, or a class of languages. What happens when you write a composition in that language? Well, then you have a “romance”. In particular, the OED informs us, a romance (by contrast with literary works in Latin, the non-vernacular) is “A tale in verse, embodying the adventures of some hero of chivalry, esp. of those of the great cycles of mediæval legend, and belonging both in matter and form to the ages of knighthood; also, in later use, a prose tale of a similar character.” I assume that this sort of literature was the most typical written in French, at least at one point in history. Le Morte d’Arthur comes to my mind here—a bit of a red herring, considering that (despite the title) this is actually a work of 15th century English literature (and, this is a prose work, not verse). I venture to guess that Mallory based this work, in part, off of older, French verses. So I suppose this gives us a good example of the “in later use” meaning.

A “romance” later becomes simply a novel; a prose work of fiction. (I think this is the meaning of the French roman?) OED tells us that a romance in this sense is more specifically, “A fictitious narrative in prose of which the scene and incidents are very remote from those of ordinary life; esp. one of the class prevalent in the 16th and 17th centuries, in which the story is often overlaid with long disquisitions and digressions.” Next, it says, a romance is “A romantic novel or narrative.” (Don’t you love it when dictionaries use inflected forms of a word to define that word? Actually, we can forgive OED here because it has already defined “romantic” non-circularly, i.e. earlier in the entry.) So, technically, a “romance” is a novel hearkening back to the “good-old days” of chivalry and knighthood, quests, and so on. “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, you surely realize, is therefore a romance film. I’m wondering if there could ever truly be such a thing as a feminist romance. (Of course, the proper response is, keep going in the entry for further evolutions of the meaning of the word [sorry, Julian, I mean the usage of the word, of course, and so throughout this post :-p].)

We’re at OED’s definition #4, now. A “romance” is “A Spanish historical ballad or short poem of a certain form.” This seems to make sense, given the extension of “romance” to refer to other Latin-derived languages than French, and the application of the term to verse in the appropriate language. (Why this form of Spanish verse is a “romance” and not others remains a mystery.) Now, the OED says something I find puzzling: “From Sp. romance, whence also F. romance.” Wait…unless I misunderstand the term “whence”, OED is claiming that the French word “romance” derives from the Spanish word “romance”. This seems odd to me, since the first meaning given in this entry meant the French language, specifically! Perhaps what this means is that “romance” began in French, to refer to French, was extended to certain types of French literature, was then borrowed by Spanish to refer to certain types of Spanish literature, and then borrowed back by French to refer to still more types of French literature. ?? Anyway, “a Spanish historical ballad” doesn’t seem implausibly far afield from our earlier definition, i.e. an Arthurian legend of chivalry (or some such).

This next definition is listed as 4b, which means it is closely related to the foregoing. “Mus. A short vocal or instrumental piece of a simple or informal character.” Is this because the Spanish ballads were set to a certain kind of music, which then became “romantic music”? (The 1881 Grove’s Dictionary of Music is cited here: “Romance, a term of very vague signification, answering in music to the same term in poetry, where the characteristics are rather those of personal sentiment and expression than of precise form.”) I suppose that’s where the writers of OED came up with the adjective “informal” to describe romantic music. (Sarah—how does this definition of romantic music strike you? There’s nothing else about music in the entry.)

Definition #5: (back to literature now), “That class of literature which consists of romances; romantic fiction. spec. a love story; that class of literature which consists of love stories.” Ah-ha! For the first time, romance is connected to love stories. (Presumably, our current understanding of “romantic” having to do with love comes from “romance” as a literary classification—having to do with language, form, and mythical-chivalrous content—happening (on occasion) to contain love stories as well.

Here’s 5b: “Romantic or imaginative character or quality; redolence or suggestion of, association with, the adventurous and chivalrous. spec. a love affair; idealistic character or quality in a love affair.” Perhaps this is what someone like Anne of Green Gables would mean by calling something “romantic”. (Something I’d like to know—can’t “tomboys” be romantic, or interested in romance, since they are [one on possible stereotype] interested in adventure rather than in playing lady to a knight?)

6. A “romance” can also be a lie, a fiction, a story, an untruth, a tall-tale, a false-hood, yes, a “whopper”. It helps if it is “picturesque”. Perhaps ordinary, un-extravagant, un-picturesque falsehoods wouldn’t qualify as romances. By the way, the parenthetical comment at the end of this entry made me blink a few times: “An extravagant fiction, invention, or story; a wild or wanton exaggeration; a picturesque falsehood. Also without article (cf. ROMAN CATHOLIC n. and a.).” Is there some suggestion here that Catholicism is “roman” or “romantic” because it is made-up or extravagantly false? No, silly! The point is merely that “romance”, meaning falsehood, can occur with or without the article, for linguistically related reasons to “Roman Catholic” occurring with or without the article.
Definition #7 is about “romance” making a contribution to various compound words.
Definition #8 is the last one in this entry, where it finally becomes an adjective (in the foregoing it has always been a noun): “Having the character or attributes associated with romance; chivalrous; romantic.” Notice again the close connection with chivalry, moreso than with love or romance in our common usage.

In all this, I haven’t had much help connecting “romance” to the Romanticism described by my World Religions book—i.e., post-Revolution French people’s longing to escape modern urban civilization and its corrupting influence, and to return to an idealized agrarian, village, family-oriented lifestyle—let alone to the theology of Friedrich Schleiermacher. (BTW--When we say that Schleiermacher’s theology was romantic, we do not mean that he went about singing silly pop songs about being “in love” with Jesus, or “Jesus-is-my-boyfriend” songs, as is asserted by some to be a fashion of our own contemporaries.) Schleiermacher’s view was that emotion, not reason, was how people connect to God, and that religion is basically a “feeling of absolute dependence”. (Maybe some people would connect feeling absolutely dependent with a “Jesus-is-my-boyfriend” attitude—however, “absolute dependence” in my mind hardly characterizes a healthy romantic relationship, e.g. between husband and wife, lover and beloved).

Perhaps I’ll have to write a letter of complaint to the editors; the entry seems incomplete, and this is supposed to be an unabridged, definitive lexicon.
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Brief Digression -- Literalism and Genesis

I'm following a series of posts on reading Genesis 2-3 (two posts so far) by "RJS" at Scot McKnight's blog "Jesus Creed" -- see link in the right-hand column of this page.

I want so share two bits of this conversation, and invite comment on related issues here (or on Facebook).

This is a list offered by one commenter of problems that arise when one attempts to read Gen 1-2 "literally".

Gen 1:

-- the universe, the earth, and life on earth were not created in 6 days. It's more like 14 billion years.

-- the earth was not in existence or in place before the Sun; the earth, like every other planet, arose through the gradual accretion of debris that coalesced over a long period of orbit around the Sun;

-- there is not and never was an expanse of waters above the earth

-- seed bearing plants were not the first kind of plants

-- the moon does not produce light

-- animals and humans were not all vegetarian

Gen. 2:

-- there was a weather cycle including rain by the time plants appeared

-- human beings did not appear suddenly out of nothing

-- the geography of the three rivers flowing out of Eden never existed (we know of two of the rivers, not the third, and they do not have a common headwater above the Persian Gulf)

-- conflict with Gen. 1: man created before animals in Gen. 2

-- male and female humans evolved together; women were not cloned from a man's rib

-- no angel with a flaming sword has yet been discovered in Iraq.

Gen. 3:

-- snakes do not talk

-- God does not walk

And this is from a comment by the same person about the complexities involved in trying to fix one meaning (rooted in authorial intent) for this text--or any Pentateuchal text:

So, I think we have multiple overlapping exegetical hermeuentical issues here:

-- what did the sources (presumably an oral tradition or traditions stretching back to Egypt and Mesopotamia) underlying Gen. 2 understand and intend those stories to mean;

-- what did the Yahwist author / community that first encoded this oral tradition "intend" Gen. 2 to mean;

-- what did the redacting community that compiled the Priestly and Yahwist traditions in Gen. 1 and 2 into a canonical text intend and understand it to mean;

-- what did the Apostolic authors of the NT literature referring to the canonical Hebrew scriptures intend and understand about their use of the Hebrew scriptures.

I would add at least one more: what did / does the Holy Spirit intend for this text to mean as inspired scripture?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that seeking out an individual, unified "authorial intent" isn't really all that helpful with this sort of text.

Here is the link to this commenter's own site (which I haven't visited, but will after posting this): http://www.tgdarkly.com/blog

What do readers think? How do you read Genesis 2-3? Do you aim to find a single meaning which is the Word of God in this text? Dr. Heth always said "one meaning; many applications", but I see difficulty in applying this to the Pentateuch or the OT in general because I'm not sure whose authorial/editorial intent counts, and I suppose that these texts were used during the canonization process to preach different messages to different situations-in-life in different generations. How can God speak to us through these texts?

Vi - a respondent on this post said (in reply to the list of problems raised by attempted literal readings of Gen 1-2) that C. John Collins' _Genesis 1-4_ seems to clear up a lot of these problems. Is this Dr. Collins a prof of yours? Not that that makes you accountable to speak for him or anything, but I'd welcome any insights you have, and I'm curious as to what impressions you formed in a Pentateuch class (assuming you took one) at Covenant.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, Articles 2 & 3: Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit

At Toledo Mennonite Church, we are spending 24 days (starting today, Feb. 9, 2009) together as a congregation studying the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, one article at a time.

For more on the Confession of Faith, including a full text, go here.

---

Here is the summary statement of Article #2, entitled "Jesus Christ". (Link to full-text):

2. We believe in Jesus Christ , the Word of God become flesh. He is the Savior of the world, who has delivered us from the dominion of sin and reconciled us to God by his death on a cross. He was declared to be Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. He is the head of the church, the exalted Lord, the Lamb who was slain, coming again to reign with God in glory.

One classic method of doing biblical Christology is to study the names or titles of Christ used in the Bible. What names does this article of the Confession call Jesus?

1. Jesus Christ
2. The Word of God made flesh
3. The Savior of the world
4. The Son of God with power
5. The Head of the Church
6. The Exalted Lord
7. The Lamb Who was slain
8. The only Foundation which is laid and can be laid
9. The Messiah
10. The Seed of David
11. Prophet of God's Kingdom
12. Teacher of Divine Wisdom
13. Faithful High Priest
14. King who chose the way of the cross
15. Servant
16. Preacher
17. Healer
18. The only Son of God
19. The One in Whom the fullness of God was pleased to dwell
20. The image of the invisible God
21. Him through Whom and for Whom all things have been created
22. Our Lord and the not-yet recognized Lord of the world
23. The One Who shall be acknowledged Lord of all
24. The Lamb of God Who will reign forever and ever

Those who composed this article of this confession consciously gave it an Anabaptist flavor, by emphasizing:

"for example, Jesus' obedience and suffering in his work of atonement, his humility and servanthood as the pathway to exaltation, the believers' experience of Christ in the community of faith, the integration of faith and ethics, and peace as central to the character of Christ."

As has come out in a couple of recent conversations with Sarah, I tend to emphasize the Lordship of Jesus. Jesus is the Resurrected Son of God, the Exalted One, the One given authority over all things, to Whom I owe allegiance. (Even while my allegiance is chosen.) This Lordship is the basis of my anti-imperialist philosophy. And it is the basis of my hope--hope for the salvation of the world and the reconciliation of all things in Christ to God. In a recent study of Ephesians I saw clearly that Jesus' exaltation and authority--and our exaltation with Him--is the basis for our doing the works God has created us, in Jesus, to do. It is the basis for our mission--love of enemy, love of neighbor, proclamation of Jesus' Lordship over a world invaded by sin, injustice, violence, and death, invitation to reconciliation with each other and with God in the new man, Jesus. It is the basis of our spiritual gifts.

What of the humility of Jesus? Jesus is "the king who chose the way of the cross". Philippians tells us to have the mind of Christ in His chosen humiliation to death. What impact does this have on my theology and practice as a Christ-follower?

I think my pacifism must be rooted in Jesus' humility. It couldn't be rooted in Jesus' authority and kingship alone--that could root a kind of Constantinianism--or perhaps Cromwellianism--just as well, by itself.

I want to be pacific in my theological and philosophical discourse (but then, was Jesus? As Julian pointed out on Sunday, Jesus was apparently not afraid to shame his debate partners). I want to be like Jesus in not stopping my pursuit of the Kingdom of God because of resistance from the world and its powers, violent or otherwise. But too often I take the path of least resistance. Procrastination, for example, is much easier than work. And procrastination does not (usually) help me advance the Kingdom of God through my relationships to others. (Well, it depends on how I procrastinate.)

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world; if it was, my servants would be fighting." I need to go on asking myself: do I succumb to the world's rules as I seek to further the Kingdom of God? Am I even tempted? Do I recognize when I am so tempted?

---

Here is the summary statement of Article #3, entitled "Holy Spirit". (Link to full-text):

3. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the eternal Spirit of God, who dwelled in Jesus Christ, who empowers the church, who is the source of our life in Christ, and who is poured out on those who believe as the guarantee of redemption.

In oneness with Jesus, the Spirit is my Lord and my God, and the Spirit is humble, nonviolent, and stops at nothing for the advancement of the Kingdom. The Spirit makes me, with other Christians, one in Christ. The Spirit empowers the members of the Church to do our work. Our having the Spirit is the sign of God's blessings, promises, and gifts to us. The Spirit is present and working through the members of the Body of Christ most when we are unified. Somehow, we must be unified in our diversity of faith and practice, because I believe the Spirit is present and active in the Church today. I want to see the Spirit in my brothers and sisters in Toledo Mennonite. I want to hear the Spirit's call, and feel the Spirit move me to act and use His gifts, given to me, well. I want our church to be visibly alive, the tangible Body of Christ in Toledo.

------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, Article 1: God

At Toledo Mennonite Church, we are spending 24 days (starting today, Feb. 9, 2009) together as a congregation studying the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, one article at a time.

For more on the Confession of Faith, including a full text, go here.

The title of this document is very deliberate. There is no definite article in the title; it is neither the definitive confession of faith, nor is it the Mennonite perspective on the Christian faith (let alone the perspective of the Church of Jesus Christ on matters of doctrine). While according to the introduction to the Confession of Faith, Anabaptists have been writing confessions of this sort since the 1527 Schleitheim Articles, it has been my impression that Anabaptists are not so into creeds as certain other movements arising out of the Reformation have been. (My impressions on this point are, I believe, drawn from John Roth's Beliefs: Mennonite Faith and Practice: namely, that Anabaptists value "doing theology in community", emphasize "the priesthood of all believers" and Protestant notions of "sola scriptura", and see Anabaptist theology as an ongoing conversation albeit within a certain traditional framework). The Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation rejected, I think, the new Reformed scholasticism which defined orthodoxy in terms of a (practically) authoritative tradition that replaced the authoritative tradition of the Catholic Church. (My historical theology here is admittedly sketchy--please correct me if I am guilty of error!)

Still, the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective is intended by its authors to serve six stated functions:

(1) to provide guidelines for the interpretation of Scripture, while at the same time, the confession itself is subject to the authority of the Bible.
(2) to provide guidance for belief and practice; a written statement should support but not replace the lived witness of faith.
(3)to build a foundation for unity within and among churches.
(4)to offer an outline for instructing new church members and for sharing information with inquirers.
(5) to give an updated interpretation of belief and practice in the midst of changing times.
(6) to help in discussing Mennonite belief and practice with other Christians and people of other faiths.

It is my view that the Confession serves primarily a pedagogical and ecumenical purpose, and at the same time offers Mennonite-Anabaptist congregations with some basis for ongoing conversation as we practice doing theology in community. It provides a common framework, but not one with absolute authority. Our own congregation at TMC values its ideological diversity. I myself would offer the metaphor of the raft: we may be redesigning and rebuilding it while we are sailing on it, but we certainly need enough raft to stand on while we do so. (And there are limits to how radically we might redesign the raft without sinking and drowning!)

---

Here is the summary statement of Article #1, entitled "God". (Link to full-text):

1. We believe that God exists and is pleased with all who draw near by faith. We worship the one holy and loving God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternally. God has created all things visible and invisible, has brought salvation and new life to humanity through Jesus Christ, and continues to sustain the church and all things until the end of the age.

The short devotional offered by one of our members for today is a meditation on 2 Corinthians 9:8:

And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that by always having enough of everything, you may share abundantly in every good work.

He writes: "This verse describes for me some of the primary attributes of God as well as demonstrates God’s care for creation, especially those who have been created in God’s image."

Consonant with the historic, orthodox Christian faith, Mennonites believe in the Triune God as the whole Church confesses in the Nicene Creed. What we believe about God pertains to the acts of God in redemptive history. God is the Creator of heaven and earth. God has acted through Christ to give life to humanity in calling a community of faithful disciples. The article declares: "Beginning with Abraham and Sarah, God has called forth a people of faith to worship God alone, to witness to the divine purposes for human beings and all of creation, and to love their neighbors as themselves. (Gen. 12:2-3; Lev. 19:18; Rom. 4:11-25; 1 Pet. 3:9-11) We have been joined to this people through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ and by confessing him to be Savior and Lord as the Holy Spirit has moved us (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 3:22)."

Mennonite identity is centrally, first and foremost, membership in the people of God. We are a community of faith, not merely a class of individuals. And it is as a community that God--acting in Christ and in the Holy Spirit--has created us, His Church (see article #9).

We believe that God is beyond our understanding (Exod. 3:13-14; Job 37; Isa. 40:18-25; Rom. 11:33-36); yet we also believe that God has communicated truth to us about him. "We believe that what we know of God through revelation fits with who God really is." "God both surpasses human understanding and is truly knowable through revelation. Our knowledge of God rests in this tension."

We believe God is most fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, as the Nicene Creed says "very God of very God" (John 1:14, 18; Heb. 1:1-4).

We believe God is revealed as love. "We confess that in the divine being these attributes [which sometimes appear contradictory to us] are perfectly united." Yet, "according to Scripture, the love of God has a certain priority in relation to other divine attributes." So, we confess that God is "holy love", "almighty love", "preserving love", "righteous love", "redemptive love", "suffering love", and "faithful love" (Exod. 20:4-6; 34:5-7; Ps. 25:4-10; Isa. 6; 54:10; Matt. 5:48; Rom. 2:5-11; 3:21-26; 1 John 4:8, 16).

----

Biblical theism is the cornerstone of Mennonite Christianitiy. Christianity is about being in relation to God, as part of a community of faith. Above all, God relates to us by His love--love which surpasses our comprehension and experience of human love, yet which is sufficiently analogous to our concept of love that the word--but more the experience of Jesus' life and actions--communicates God's nature to us.

As Rich Mullins wrote, "We didn't know what love was 'til He came, and He gave love a face, and He gave love a name".

Loving my neighbor as myself, one of two equally great commandments summing up the whole will of God for His people according to Jesus, means then to live as Christ lived with respect to all other human beings: clean or unclean, sinful or righteous, Jew or Gentile, Christian or non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or agnostic, friend or enemy.
------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Why might Christians affirm gay marriage?

I was asked in a comment on Jim Spiegel's blog (http://wisdomandfollyblog.com/2009/01/26/on-a-certain-irony-in-the-case-for-gay-rights/) to list some reasons that are given by Christians who view exclusive gay relationships as moral. I am responding here on my own blog because I feel I've already taken up too much space in Jim's comment section. :)

Below I try to answer Elliott's question. I try to faithfully represent some common argumentative moves among gay-affirming Christian writers (from my thus far limited reading experience).

Disclaimer: I am still learning on this issue, so please do not take the information here as authoritative.


1. It is pointed out that just as there are multiple expressions of heterosexual sexuality, there are multiple expressions of homosexual sexuality. Promiscuity, extra-marital affairs, and pornography are not exclusively found among gays and lesbians (nor, I might add, are certain sexual behaviors regarded by some as deviant and indeed harmful, including for example anal sex). Rather than condemning all sexual behavior as evil (while some respected figures in the historic Christian tradition have come very close to doing just that) Christians ought to recognize that some heterosexual behaviors are good, healthy, positive, productive, and beneficial while other heterosexual behaviors are destructive, harmful, immoral, and sinful. Sexually active gays and lesbians are often stereotyped as promiscuous and as people who routinely engage in harmful and deviant behaviors (anal sex, drug use). Gay men are often stereotyped as pedophiliacs. These stereotypes should be challenged. In considering the question: "Are all acts of sexual intimacy between same-sex partners immoral?" we should be aware of the diversity of such acts. It should not be concluded a priori that if some same-sex acts are immoral that therefore all same-sex acts are deserving of moral condemnation.

2. The burden of proof is placed upon those who would condemn all expressions of homosexuality to demonstrate that such acts are morally wrong and condemned by God in scripture in virtue of their being same-sex acts. It is often suggested that passages in the Old and New Testaments which explicitly speak against homosexuality speak against specific types of relationships (e.g., pedophilia), or against specific practices in specific cultural/religious contexts (e.g., idolatry and paganism), or against specific sex-acts (like anal intercourse in Leviticus).

3. Fellow Christians who are in long-term committed monogamous same-sex relationships are held up as evidence that such relationships are not obviously harmful and indeed may exemplify certain virtues which are praised and valued in heterosexual marriage relationships.


That's it for right now. I think I've answered Elliott's question. Elliott--and others--feel free to comment.

Let me point readers to two good resources on this topic:
1. One book I recently finished reading which I found quite helpful: Reasoning Together: A Conversation on Homosexuality by Mark Thiessen Nation and Ted Grimsrud (foreward by Tony and Peggy Campolo). Amazon. WorldCat. Ted Grimsrud's longer chapter in this book (his main argument for an inclusive stance) is available in full at his website, along with some shorter articles written for the Welcome Book series: http://peacetheology.net/homosexuality. (The Welcome Committee is an organization of "Mennonites Working to Increase Dialogue on Gay and Lesbian Inclusion": http://www.welcome-committee.info/). Thiessen Nation and Grimsrud are both teachers at Eastern Mennonite University (I believe Thiessen Nation teaches in the seminary and Grimsrud in the undergraduate program).


2. Articles by Justin and Ron at the Gay Christian Network website. Justin and Ron are both bible-believing Christians and gay men. Justin argues that God blesses same-sex marriages. Ron believes God calls gay Christians to lifelong celibacy.



------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.

Revolutionary Subordination in Paul's Theology

Link: "Against Empire, A Yoderian Reading of Romans", by Ted Grimsrud at peacetheology.net

Big Ideas:
1. Paul reinforces Jesus' anti-Constantinian stance. "For Yoder, Paul does not lead away from Jesus’ messianic ethic. Jesus and Paul are not stage one and stage two of the development of Christian ethics that leads inevitably to Constantinianism. Rather, what is central to Jesus’ message remains central for Paul."

2. Justification in Pauline thought is social; justification in Romans and Galatians it is the same thing as reconciliation in Ephesians. Yoder says: "Paul cares not so much about systematic theological speculation about how human beings are to made acceptable to God, but rather the very concrete Roman situation in which Jew and Gentile, legalistic Christian and pagan Christian, needed to accept one another."

3. The Christian's relationship to the Powers is one of "revolutionary subordination". Christian community witnesses to the nations the truth and power of the gospel of the kingdom of God to free us from idolatry to the powers.


This idea of "revolutionary subordination" is something I'm interested in unpacking further. Also, I want to ask how my own socio-political context (as a privileged and empowered white male educated U.S. citizen who is registered to vote in a nation that affirms separation of church and state) affects my own application of Jesus' message to my present context. Surely there will be differences from Paul's context in the 1st century Roman Empire in which the state "church" was pagan worship of the emperor.


(There is nothing further to this post.)


------

"Make me a channel of Your Peace."

-St. Francis

Read the full post.