What is With All this Gospel Talk?
Posted: November 6, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Christ, Christianity, Goldsworthy, Gospel, Jesus 1 Comment“Almost everyone uses the word “gospel” in both a religious and a secular way. In the religious world it is used often without any real consensus as to what is meant by the term. Even when the word “gospel” is proposed as a biblically based term, there are some significant differences among, say, a Christadelphian, an evangelical, and a liberal view of gospel. Among evangelicals there are also differences in the way he word is used. It is a matter for some concern that some books and study courses on evangelism seen to assume that every Christian is absolutely clear about what the gospel is, and that what is needed most is help in the techniques of explaining the gospel to unbelievers. Experience suggests that this assumption is poorly based and that there is a great deal of confusion among believers about what the gospel is. Preachers may have a theoretical gospel and an operative gospel. Theoretically we will get into a theological mode and produce, as far as possible, a biblically based notion focusing on the person and work of Christ. But in pastoral practice it is easy to be pragmatic. Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or a denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”
“The gospel is the message about Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection.”
Graeme Goldsworthy, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, pp. 81-83.
We are & We are Not
Posted: November 2, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: quotes Leave a comment“We are not to preach sociology, but salvation; not economics, but evangelism; not reform but redemption; not culture, but conversion; not progress, but pardon; not a social order, but a new birth; not revolution, but regeneration; not renovation, but revival; not resuscitation, but resurrection; not a new organization, but a new creation; not democracy, but the Gospel; not civilization, but Christ; we are ambassadors not diplomats”
Quote taken from Hugh Thomsen Kerr.
The Greater Jonah, God’s Great Sign
Posted: October 24, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Gospels, Jesus, Jonah, Matthew, Pharisees and Sadducees, Signs Leave a commentThe past three weeks I have continued to blog upon points from Matthew 16:1-4. This is the fourth and final post over the passage that I have to write. Taking speical notice this time to Jesus’ words in verse four and its ending, “Except the Sign of Jonah.” Matthew 16:1-4 reads;
“1 And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.”
Jesus says to the Pharisees “expect the sign of Jonah.” Where has one heard this saying before, better is the question, where have they the Pharisees heard such language before? Just weeks earlier Matthew records for us a similar account of Jesus Christ and the Pharisees. There the same language is used in Matthew 12:38-40, it reads,
“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it expect the sign of the prophet Jonah. He goes one to say, For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
But what does this mean and why would Jesus continue to respond with the same answer? Why does Christ say to the Pharisees and Sadducees that “no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” Christ reminds them of a pervious sign that had been given to before them. The Pharisees and Sadducees would have known this story well, but yet Christ sees fit to remind them of this particular sign given by God. The sign was a prophet named Jonah who would become swallowed up in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights and as the fish could not hold him he would then be spit out of its mouth onto the land to preach the salvation of God to the Ninevites. The Ninevites, one of the oldest and greatest cities in antiquity, an important religious center for worship of the pagan Assyrian Ishtar, the capital of the Neo-Assyrain Empire, and worse of all a Gentile nation? How offensive to the Jews, that God’s signs and salvation be offered to gentiles.
Christ refers them to the sign of Jonah, which should be obvious to us now, because like that of Jonah, there would be a similar sign, but a greater sign to come. A Sign sent by God, who was not only a Prophet like Jonah, but like that of all the old signs; a Priest like Aaron, a Mediator like Moses, and a King like David. This sign, the Prophet, like Jonah would as well be swallowed up, but not by the belly of a fish, but by the belly of Hell. There He would suffer departure not from just mankind like Jonah, but the departure, wrath, and separation from His very father God, but in three days and night He would rise again, and as hell could not hold Him, he would be spit form its mouth back to His Father’s Kingdom for the sake of you and I, compelling His disciples to preach salvation of God to who? All the Nations, both the Jews and Gentiles. Here Christ threatens, after he has risen from the dead, he will be a prophet like Jonah. He will be the Greater Jonah, for there need be no greater sign until His return, for God’s sign has been given in Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. The message today is the same as Jonah’s, repent, believer and follow Him, Christ is God’s Great Sign.
However, the text here ends sadly, and is broke off abruptly by Christ. Matthew records in this text, “he (Christ) left them and departed.” Like the Pharisees and Sadducees, Christ will not tarry long with those that tempt Him, but justly withdraws from those that are disposed to fight with Him. He simply let them alone the Scripture says. Jesus Christ let them be themselves, left them in their own counsels, and gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts. The meaning of this for us you ask? Thus He intended to serve as a sign to them, that He, Jesus Christ, when he had risen from the dead, would in every place cause the voice of His Gospel to be distinctly heard. Thus we see the Pharisees and Sadducees seeking after signs, but yet missing the Sign, The Greater Jonah, God’s Sign Jesus Christ.
Red Sky at Night, Sailor’s Delight . . .
Posted: October 3, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Gospel, Gospels, Jesus, Matthew, Pharisees and Sadducees Leave a commentTwo weeks ago I posted an article taking a look at a point within Matthew 16:1-4. Today I’d like to take a look at another point within the text. The passage reads,
“1 And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.” Thus is the reading of God’s Word.
Verse 3 says, “Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky.” We have all heard the saying “Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky in morning, sailor’s take warning.” The practical origins for this nursery rhyme are based on weather predictions and how a red sky at night would indicate fair weather on the following day. The rhyme itself came about in England that would refer to a shepherd who would say that a red sky in the morning was suggesting inclement weather to follow. In America here, the words relate to a sailor doing the same. It should be remembered that there were no weather forecasts, for one had to make his own weather predictions by the sings before them. Those with the most knowledge and experience, such as Sailors and Shepherds, whose lives were dependent on the weather and knew the changing weather patterns that were indicated by a “Red Sky at night”. This was true during Jesus’ time as well. Christ reminds them that His power has been made manifested to the naked eye that they can see themselves here on earth. Christ reminds the Pharisees and Sadducees that they on their own accord could not shut their eyes to the clearest of light. Christ reminds them that sometimes a storm unexpectedly arises, and sometimes fair weather springs up when it was not expected, yet the instructions of nature are enough for them to predict from signs whether the day will be fair or cloudy. Christ therefore asks the Pharisees and Sadducees why they do not recognize the kingdom of God, when it is made known by signs that are not less known. This shows that Pharisees and Sadducees were occupied with earthly things and cared very little about anything that related to the heavenly and spiritual life of Christ’s Kingdom, but what is most important in this section of the text is that Christ calls them “hypocrites.” Why does Christ use such strong language as this? Because they pretend to know as that if it were exhibited to them, they are not willing to see the truth right in front of them. The conclusion that we can see here in our text is that these ignorant Pharisees and Sadducees are not at liberty to predict the aspect of the sky whether they shall have fair or stormy weather. It is rather an argument which Christ places on the regular course of nature. That argument is this, that men deserve to perish for their ingratitude, who, while are sufficiently know the matters of this present day life, yet knowingly and willfully quench the heavenly light and truth by their own stupidity.
Does not the same reproof and rebuke of Christ to the Pharisees and Sadducees apply to us? The same reproof applies nearly to the whole world does it not? For mankind continues to direct their skill, imagination, and apply their senses, to their own immediate advantage in this world. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees, sailors and shepherds, we can easily tell the natural signs that are around us in this world like the weather, but how come we have no or little concern about the signs by which God invites us to himself? Is it not because every man gives himself up to willing indifference and smothers the light which is offered to him? There may be some of you here today that have the description of these men in our text called “hypocrites” who while seeking after signs to fulfill their own desires, miss the utmost desirable Sign in front of them, Jesus Christ. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees did not know they were hypocrites, the lost are pleading like them. They are pleading with God to suspend their judgment because they are waiting until they have a sign that is right for them, that then, only then they will follow Jesus Christ. There may be some of those that read this post that even try to avoid God’s Sign, and in your slothfulness you wait and neglect your own salvation of your soul with excuses like the Pharisees and Sadducees for gross and stupid ignorance of that which has already taken place, the greatest Sign of God to mankind, that is His son, Jesus Christ.
For these Pharisees and Sadducees had the signs of the Old Testament; the tree of life, the flood, the signs given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the signs of Moses and Aaron, from the plagues in Egypt to the parting of the Red Sea, the signs in the wilderness from the cloud that lead Israel, to the signs that provided water from a Rock and manna from Heaven, the signs within the Law from its offerings and atonement for sin, to that of the priesthood that carried out the duties of the Law, the signs of Elijah and Elisha during the kings and kingdoms, to the signs of the prophets, from that of Daniel and the lions to the specific sign in our text Jonah and the fish. They the Pharisees and Sadducees would what it seems have all of the signs they would have ever needed to know God, but they missed the Sign sitting in front of them. For those that do not know Christ, may you not miss Him. For those of you that do know Christ, may I friendly remind you that you have inherited salvation through the greatest Sign God has ever given to His people, Jesus Christ, and you need no more.
Looking for Signs or for the Sign?
Posted: September 18, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentMatthew 16:1-4 reads
“1 And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven. 2 But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times? 4 A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.” Thus is the reading of God’s Word.
Here in this account, once again, Matthew injects a note of hostility and confrontation in his gospel account. The more Jesus’ fame grows, and the more the crowds gather to him and experience his healing touch and his compassionate provision, the more the opposition grows. We know that Jesus Christ is the anointed one, the true, legitimate King of God’s own choosing. But there is another kingdom in the world, one which is in opposition to the kingdom of God. The sad thing is that it is often dressed up in religion, or often times today in the Church.
Verse 1 says, “And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test him,” How did they test him? The passage goes on to tell us “they asked him to show them a sign from heaven.”
Mark’s account of this story brings to light an additional feature or point that must be brought to our attention. In Mark 8:11, he records that the Pharisees and Sadducees “began to dispute,” from which we may conclude that they, the Pharisees and Sadducees had tired in argument against Jesus and this here was their last resource in their conversation. They as finite men, trying to avoid being compelled to the truth of the Gospel are accustomed to introduced something which is foreign to the subject at hand in their “dispute” they were having with Christ. While the nature of the debate or dispute is not made mention of in Mark’s account, I can only imagine that it is something similar to that debating the calling of Christ, who He was, and what He was doing claiming the Kingdom of God is at hand. Matthew and Mark both write that “The Pharisees, together with the Sadducees.” This deserves our attention, though the Sadducees and the Pharisees looked upon each other as enemies, they came together as a team in this particular dispute against Jesus Christ. It was their desire here to silence Jesus that had caused the two opposing religious parties to unite in one common effort. The Pharisees were the traditionalists of their day, while the Sadducees were quite liberal. Yet they seemed to have united to issue a challenge to Jesus saying in verse one “Show us a sign from heaven and we will believe You are the Christ.” How is it that these men came to Christ? Matthew records by their “tempting” or some translations write by their “testing.” Here Matthew means that is was not with honest intentions, nor was is a form of instruction. The Pharisees and Sadducees came by cunning and deceit, that they demanded what they thought that Christ would refuse, or at least what they had imagined was not in His power to do. John Calvin comments on this saying,
“Regarding him (Christ) as utterly mean and despicable, they had no other design than to expose his weakness, and to destroy all the applause which he had hitherto obtained among the people. In this manner unbelievers are said to tempt God, when they murmur at being denied what their fancy prompted them to ask, and charge God with want of power.”1
Did not the Pharisees and Sadducees have plenty of signs thus far? Why would they ask for another? Had not Christ healed the sick, cared for the sorrowful already in Matthews account? Every miracle Christ had completed was a sign, for no man could do what he had done thus far in the Scriptures unless God were with Him. However, this did not serve the Pharisees and Sadducees, they must have a sign of their own. They despised the signs that they had both seen and heard of before them in Christ’s ministry. As one Puritan (Matthew Henry) said,
“It is fit that the proofs of divine revelation should be chosen by the wisdom of God, not by the follies and fancies of men.”
And so one could easily ask themselves today, how often do you test or tempt God, asking Him that He may show himself according to your plans and for your sign. Do you not in our own hardships come to prayer, but often test God in doing so? Do you not often in need come to Him demanding that He answer you on your terms? Do you not in your own need come to Him with deceitful hearts seeking after your own desires and signs? Do you not in your own need come to Him seeking evidence that He is a part of what is going on in your life? How true at times believers of Christ often are like the Pharisees and Sadducees seeking after a sign for our own desires and not that of God’s. Believers like the Pharisees and Sadducees often find ourselves seeking after the signs of this kingdom, and not the Sign of the Kingdom.
Is it not interesting to see that the Pharisees and Sadducees sought after a sign and not the Sign. The same is true of us, often at times we tend to look for a sign within situations and forget to look towards the Sign of the situation. If you are seeking after help in a situation, a need in trouble, or a want within your family, God has given no greater sign than His Son for you to look upon. There is no reason for you to continue to seek after signs, wonders, wants, or desires of your own. Oh, but to be satisfied in God’s Great Sign, Jesus Christ, and in Christ alone no matter what the situation is that one may endure.
Horse-mane Shears & Amish Beards
Posted: August 31, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: amish, Beards, Religion, Religious Rights Leave a comment
Banded barbers sneaking in to houses at night to cut off beards because of spiritual differences. No matter what the disagreements may be, they are religious disagreements which the state of Ohio has now made hate crimes. I am not condoning the actions of the seven men that broke an entering of someone’s home and held down a 74 year old man to cut off his beard, but Religious rights are constantly being taken away in America, not only by the federal law, but now states too. You can read and watch more about this information over at Huffington Post.
Thoughts, comments, remarks, or concerns you may have? Please feel free to share them, I’d enjoy to hear some feedback.
For All Those Doubters
Posted: August 23, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: assurance, dutch, hyper calvinist, Luther, protestant reformed, Salvation Leave a comment“For Luther, as for the reformers in general, one could rest assured of one’s salvation. Salvation was grounded upon the faithfulness of God to his promises of mercy; to fail to have confidence in salvation was, in effect, to doubt the reliability and trustworthiness of God.”
***Quote taken from Alistair McGrath, Christian Theology, p. 391
Why Question Worship?
Posted: May 9, 2012 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Christianity, church, evangelical, God, worship Leave a commentI am often struck by the number of church congregation services that seem to have an evangelists approach rather than a pastor leading his congregation in true worship of God during their Lord’s Day morning worship. I think one of the largest issues with this problem in America is a question that is commonly asked among pastors, elders, small groups and within the church. It goes something like this, “what type of worship do you like?” or “what style of worship fo you favor?” or “how to you feel worship should be done?” Besides the problem of creating a dichotomy between singing and preaching on the Lord’s Day (as if only one of them are worshipping) lies the problem that Evangelicals continues to create, address, fix, create, address, fix again, crate, address with a different group, and are left to fix once again. The never ending cycle of programed worship, leading to only selective groups, leaving out others, left with continually fixing the worship style, pattern with man’s thoughts, feelings, and what they themselves enjoy during worship service. The problem, the church continues to ask the question “what do we want during worship service?” and not the question “What has God commanded of His people during worship service?” As long as Dispensational roots are sunk in deep to American Evangelicals, who really applies Deuteronomy 12:32, “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.” Dispensationalism or not, understanding the use of moral law would be of great help and discernment on what one does during worship,
You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”
This is just one of the many reasons why confessional protestantism helps again at truly understanding the Scriptures. Systematically looking at matters of importance throughout all of the Scriptures, identifying the Truths within Scripture and standing firm upon them within the Church. Recently chapter 22, section 1 of the London Baptist Confession has become a constant read for reminder in my family and personal life. It reads,
The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.
As Jeremiah has said, “Who would not fear You, O King of the nations? Indeed it is Your due! For among all the wise men of the nations And in all their kingdoms, There is none like You.”
American Icon
Posted: October 10, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentAt least that’s the title that Walter Isaacson gives in both his soon to be published biography, and in his shorter article published by Time magazine this week. There was ever one sentence that hit me reading this week’s Time magazine article. What Walter found as a way to end his article, I found yet rather disappointing, and another American example of a man failing at fatherhood. Walter ends his article by asking Steve Jobs why he had answered close to 50 interviews and conversations over the past two-years, after Jobs being so private in the public eye. Jobs response,
I wanted my kids to know me… I wasn’t always there for them to know why and to understand what I did.”
Words that are so sincere, and by measures of this world so meaningful, and most likely the honest truth of Mr. Jobs, are nothing of the sort by which I want my children to remember me by. Seriously, a biography, a book, I am to try to understand why my father did what he did through a book, let alone written by another man whom I hardly know myself? I do not have children of my own (yet Lord willing) but I can hardly imagine a point in life which occurs that I place my children aside for work, or other earthly means that I might not raise them without them knowing who their father really was.
Then again… maybe I am reading to far into this quote, maybe I am totally wrong, or maybe I am right on?
Natural spirituality
Posted: September 23, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentWhat does it mean to be spiritual? It’s a nebulous term that can be understood in a variety of different ways, but typically conjures up a kind of religious/mystical connection.
Ursula King writes:
Some authors feel uneasy with the word ‘spirituality’ or references to ‘the spiritual’ because they may be understood as dualistic notions in contrast to ‘matter’ or ‘the material’, the physical or the world. To some the concept seems a rather abstract and idealized one, too separate from other human concerns. Others prefer the notion of ‘the spiritual’ to that of ‘the religious’ because it is wider, less concrete and less institutionally bound than the latter. Others again consider ‘the spiritual and spirituality as the heart of religion, its very centre, encountered particularly through religious and mystical experience. [1]
I’m sure we’ve all met people who claim to be “spiritual” rather than religious. I fully agree with King’s perception, especially when it comes to wrestling with what a Christian spirituality looks like.
Sallie McFague cites a definition of spirituality by the 1977 Scottish Churches Council, which I think is completely on point, relevant to our current situation, and desperately needed in our churches.
It defines spirituality as ‘an exploration into what is involved in becoming human,’ and describes ‘becoming human’ as ‘an attempt to grow in sensitivity to self, to others, to the non-human creation, and to God who is within and beyond this totality. [2]
Christian spirituality generally implies becoming less human. It is unfortunate that the language of struggle and temptation and weakness employed by the Apostle Paul is that of the spirit in contention with the body. It has been the cause of much pain and confusion regarding our bodies, our human identity, and our attention to the physical creation.
I believe that most of our current Christian spirituality and discipleship is focused on becoming more Christlike.
What is wrong with that?
Well, it isn’t possible. Dominant Christianity fails to hold the humanity of Jesus in tension with his divinity in a way that makes Jesus far more divine than human. We operate in a default mode that believes it is safer to make a mistake about the humanity of Jesus than it is to make a mistake about the divinity of Jesus. In this light, our discipleship and obedience to the divine Christ is impeded by our brokenness and our human weakness. Jesus as the Christ cannot be followed because he is not human but divine. Jesus of Nazareth, the Human One, can be followed. What is the difference? Dependence upon the Spirit. The more divine Jesus is the less he is like us, and the less he is dependent upon the Spirit for obedience, love, and healing.
In the dualistic paradigm of spirit/flesh it makes perfect sense that we denigrate our humanity. However, becoming less human is not the answer. On the contrary, the very act of becoming human provided the necessary avenue to imitate, participate in, and relate to God through Jesus. St. Athanasius wrote of divinization that God became human so that humans may become divine. Our spirituality is intimately linked with our humanity.
Through the incarnation, God redefined the vertical relationship between Divine and human to be radically horizontal. We failed to reach God, so God reached out to us. The incarnation ends the competition between spiritual and material, God and humanity, divine and human by blending them together in perfect tension and balance and harmony. Becoming more fully human is becoming more spiritual. The way towards God is not shedding the flesh to make space for greater increase of the Spirit, but by the Spirit integrating with and participating with our flesh, thus transforming it.
Learning to become more fully human (and therefore, more spiritual) requires us to continually look towards Jesus, but also to talk about what and who we are as humans, and what Jesus became when he emptied himself and became one of us. We must wrestle with what it means to bear the image of God, and the identity and responsibility that comes along with that image.
_______________________________________
1. King, Ursula. “Spirituality, Society, and Culture.” http://www.theway.org.uk/Back/s073King.pdf
2. McFague, Sallie. Super, Natural Christians: How We Should Love Nature. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2000.
Why Is California So Broke? This is Why…
Posted: August 11, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentCALIFORNIA: The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks and kills the Governor’s dog, then bites the Governor.
1. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie “Bambi” and then realizes he should stop because the coyote is only doing what is natural.
2. He calls animal control. Animal Control captures the coyote and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it.
3. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases.
4. The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged.
5. The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is now free of dangerous animals.
6. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a “coyote awareness program” for residents of the area.
7. The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world.
8. The Governor’s security agent is fired for not stopping the attack. The State spends $150,000 to hire and train a new agent with additional special training in reference to the nature of coyotes.
9. PETA protests the coyote’s relocation and files a $5 million suit against the State.
TEXAS: The Governor of Texas is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks him and his dog.
1. The Governor shoots the coyote with his State-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent 50 cents on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge.
2. The buzzards eat the dead coyote.
And that, my friends, is why California is broke and Texas is not.
(HT: Chris Hanna)
Are my sisters so offensive?
Posted: July 29, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: CBMW, egalitarianism, inclusive language, NIV 8 CommentsI am a very even-tempered and mildly mannered person. I can get very excited about some things, but I am mostly reserved. I am very hopeful and idealistic. Something I have learned about my personality is that I have a very difficult time pointing out the negative things I see in people or situations. Associated with that difficulty is a repression of my negative emotions––sadness, frustration, anger. It takes a lot to get me worked up, and even then I’m still quite timorous. However, I did get quite worked up over a recent event in the Evangelical world.
Last month at their annual meeting, the Southern Baptist Convention resolutely criticized the 2011 New International Version Bible translation and has additionally petitioned that LifeWay stores not carry the translation. You can watch the video of this portion of the conference here (24:00 – 36:00). I don’t care about LifeWay, so that decision does not affect me at all. Neither am I naive to not understand that the NIV is the most popular English translation of the Bible and that the 2011 edition offers, according to Christians for Biblical Manhood & Womenhood (CBMW), a whopping 2,766 gender-related translation inaccuracies based on a revision of Grudem and Thacker’s study of the TNIV translation (read their statement here).
The protests made against the 2011 NIV are categorized as follows:
- Changes made from singular to plural (and a few related changes to avoid the use of “He/Him/His”
- Changes made to avoid the word “Father”
- Changes made to avoid the word “Brother,” or to add “Sister”
- Changes made to avoid the word “Man”
- Changes made to avoid the word “Son”
- Changes made to avoid the word “Women”
- Changes made to avoid the phrase “the Jews”
- Changes that lose the nuance of holiness in the term “saints”
- Other changes
The biggest lobby against the translation is that it caters to a feminist reading of particular passages regarding the roles of men and women in the church. That is no big surprise considering that CBMW is producing this critique. I fully expect CBMW to take issue with the renderings that leave female authority open to discussion rather than a conservative translation that closes the discussion. I fully disagree with their conclusions, but I expect nothing else from them (read this for an excellent defense of the egalitarian position). I do, however, take issue with the critique on passages that have rendered the text to be more inclusive, such as “brothers and sisters” or “you” and the replacement of non-gendered pronouns for general statements instead of “he” or “him.” You can read CMBW’s analysis for specific examples.
Taken from CBMW’s statement:
The real controversy is whether to water down or omit details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive.
These revisions in the 2011 NIV display an awareness to the androcentrism of the Bible and attempt to render the text to be inclusive and accessible, and acknowledge the personhood, holiness, and equality of women in the scope of the Gospel and the church. This does not sit well with biblical literalists, who accept the bias towards the male, patriarchal experience of the ancient worlds in which the Bible was constructed as an extension of the inerrancy of Scripture and the validity of such social values for all eternity.
I understand the spectrum of methods in Bible translations (can’t stand the NASB, prefer NRSV and NIV, shocking). Retaining the intent and meaning of a passage is absolutely crucial. I understand that. However, I don’t quite see the meaning of Luke 17:3 being lost by translating it to read, “If your brother or sister sins against you…” It’s a good thing, too, because until now women didn’t have to forgive anyone! Nor did they have to be held accountable for anything. That stuff is just for the brothers.
This type of fear-based rhetoric that sounds an alarm towards against the loss of the integrity of the Scriptures is rooted in a fierce embrace of deeply patriarchal values that are centerfold of Evangelicalism. At the root is the fear that gender-inclusive language will ultimately lead to the removal of patriarchal father-language for God, which will obviously be the unraveling of the entire Gospel and Christianity, in addition to putting Mark Driscoll out of a job. The 2011 NIV didn’t even go near that issue.
Does Every Spiritual Experience have the Same Result?
Posted: July 26, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentLet Jonathan Edwards explain… The importance that not everyone has the same Spiritual experience during conversion.
The sight of the beauty of divine things will cause true desires after the things of God. These desires are different from the longings of demons, which happen because the demons know their doom awaits them, and they wish it could somehow be otherwise. The desires that come from this sight of Christ’s beauty are natural free desires, like a baby desiring milk. Because these desires are so different from their counterfeits, they help to distinguish genuine experiences of God’s grace from the false.
False spiritual experiences have a tendency to cause pride, which is the devil’s special sin. “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.” (1 Tim 3:6) Pride is the inevitable result of false spiritual experiences, even though they are often covered with a disguise of great humility. False experience is enamored with self and grows on self. It lives by showing itself in one way or another. A person can have great love for God, and be proud of the greatness of his love. He can be very humble, and very proud indeed of his humility. But the emotions and experiences that come from God’s grace are exactly opposite. God’s true working in the heart causes humility. They do not cause any kind of showiness or self-exaltation. That sense of the awesome, holy, glorious beauty of Christ kills pride and humbles the soul. The light of God’s loveliness, and that alone, shows the soul its own ugliness. When a person really grasps this, he inevitably begins a process of making God bigger and bigger, and himself smaller and smaller.
Another result of God’s grace working in the heart is that the person will hate every evil and respond to God with a holy heart and life. False experiences may cause a certain amount of zeal, and even a great deal of what is commonly called religion. However it is not a zeal for good works. Their religion is not a service of God, but rather a service of self. This is how the apostle James puts it himself in this very context, “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless ?” (James 2:1920) In other words, deeds, or good works, are evidence of a genuine experience of God’s grace in the heart. “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:34) When the heart has been ravished by the beauty of Christ, how else can it respond?
How local is the local church?
Posted: July 25, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: bioregionalism, local church Leave a commentOver the past few years the word “local” has taken on a powerful identity in our increasingly global economic market, dominated by multinationals and ruled by trade organizations that benefit the rich while neglecting the poorest humans, and the also poor Earth. Independent producers of goods and retailers, farmers and regional financial institutions are transforming our concepts of consumerism and pushing us towards embracing and contributing to the local economy. This means supporting independent artisans, farmers, tradespeople, and businesses that are keeping their revenues and tax dollars within the town/city/region, and also supporting other local businesses for their own needs. This creates a cycle of interdependency and a sustainable regionalism that is extremely beneficial to the economy and the earth. This is contrasted with supporting large, national or multinational corporate chains that drain money from your city, are not invested in your region, and are not interested in sustainability and the long-term influences upon the economy and environment, nor with the quality of life their presence adds beyond creating a need and telling people they have the solution for the lowest price.
These concepts correspond quite well to the the categories of “universal church” and “local church.” The universal church being a global market, fairly nebulous, and you don’t like everyone involved but you graciously allow them a place beside you because competition is healthy. The local church is the regional expression (or accident) of the universal category of Church. How does that regional nature affect and influence the local church? Does it at all?
Is the local church a chain store that identifies itself with a larger entity/headquarters rather than identifying itself within its bioregion, its economy, and its community?[1] Is the church establishing local roots? Is the local church worthy of being called “local?” Is the money people give to the church put into local banks/credit unions? Does your church community know what watershed you live in? Does it have a sense of local history? Is there support for local agriculture? Is there resistance to multinationals and large corporations? Is your church supporting foreign missions more than neighborhood and community missions? Does your church offer its building/space for community events? Can the land your church building is on support community gardens to provide fresh vegetables for the poor? What resources can your church community provide to the greater public community?
This is no more than contextualization. However, this goes beyond contextualizing the gospel to philosophical shifts. This is the type of contextualization that embeds itself into a community and becomes a part of its sustainable future. Part of building the kingdom of God in your community is more than adding people to the church, but building healthy and positive futures for your communities, intertwining the peace and justice of the gospel into the every day life of your city. If the church is merely consumed with the bottom line of getting people saved, then it is operating like a national chain.
____________________________________________
1. I am not trying to argue against denominations, so this metaphor obviously has its limits. The Lutheran church is currently doing a lot of great work in this area.
Christ is Lovely in His Relations
Posted: July 21, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun 1 CommentWhy was John Flavel Charles Spurgeon’s favorite Puritan? Because of writings like this…
First, He is a lovely Redeemer, Isa. 61:1. He came to open the prison-doors to them that are bound. Needs must this Redeemer be a lovely one, if we consider the depth of misery from which he redeemed us, even “from the wrath to come,” 1 Thess. 1:10. Consider the numbers redeemed, and the means of their redemption. Rev. 5:9, “And they sang a new song, saying, ‘You are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood, out of every kindred and tongue, and people and nation.'” He redeemed us not with silver and gold, but with his own precious blood, by way of price, 1 Pet. 1:18,19. with his out-stretched and glorious arm, by way of power, Col. 1:13. he redeemed us freely, Eph. 1:7, fully Rom. 8:1, at the right time, Gal. 4:4, and out of special and particular love, John 17:9. In a word, he has redeemed us for ever, never more to come into bondage, 1 Pet. 1:5. John 10:28. O how lovely is Jesus Christ in the relation of a Redeemer to God’s elect!
Secondly, He is a lovely bridegroom to all that he betroths to himself. How does the church glory in him, in the words following my text; “this is my Beloved, and this is my Friend, O ye daughters of Jerusalem!” Heaven and earth cannot show anyone like him, which needs no fuller proof than the following particulars:
1. That he betroths to himself, in mercy and in loving kindness, such deformed, defiled, and altogether unworthy souls as we are. We have no beauty, no goodness to make us desirable in his eyes; all the origins of his love to us are in his own breast, Deut. 7:7. He chooses us, not because we were, but in order that he might make us lovely Eph. 5:27. He came to us when we lay in our blood, and said unto us, “Live”; and that was the time of love, Ezek. 16:5.
2. He expects no restitution from us, and yet gives himself, and all that he has, to us. Our poverty cannot enrich him, but he made himself poor to enrich us, 2 Cor. 8:9. 1 Cor. 3:22.
3. No husband loves the wife of his bosom, as much as Christ loved his people, Eph. 5:25. He loved the church and gave him self for it.
4. No one bears with weaknesses and provocations as Christ does; the church is called “the Lamb’s wife,” Rev. 19:9.
5. No husband is so undying and everlasting a husband as Christ is; death separates all other relations, but the soul’s union with Christ is not dissolved in the grave. Indeed, the day of a believer’s death is his marriage day, the day of his fullest enjoyment of Christ. No husband can say to his wife, what Christ says to the believer, “I will never leave you, nor forsake you,” Heb. 8:5.
6. No bridegroom enriches his bride with such honours by marriage, as Christ does; he makes them related to God as their father, and from that day the mighty and glorious angels think it no dishonour to be their servants, Heb. 1:14. The angels will admire the beauty and glory of the spouse of Christ, Rev. 21:9.
7. No marriage was ever consummated with such triumphal proceedings as the marriage of Christ and believers shall be in heaven, Psalm 14:14,15. “She shall be brought to the king in raiment of needle-work, the virgins, her companions that follow her, shall be brought unto thee; with gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought; they shall enter into the king’s palace.” Among the Jews, the marriage-house was called the house of praise; there was joy upon all hands, but nothing like the joy that will be in heaven when believers, the spouse of Christ, shall be brought there. God the Father will rejoice to behold the blessed accomplishment and confirmation of those glorious plans of his love. Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom will rejoice to see the travail of his soul, the blessed birth and product of all his bitter pains and agonies, Isa. 53:11. The Holy Spirit will rejoice to see the completion and perfection of that sanctifying design which was committed to his hand, 2 Cor. 5:5, to see those souls whom he once found as rough stones, now to shine as the bright, polished stones of the spiritual temple. Angels will rejoice: great was the joy when the foundation of this design was laid, in the incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:13. Great therefore must their joy be, when the top-stone is set up with shouting, crying, “Grace, grace.” The saints themselves shall rejoice unspeakably, when they shall enter into the King’s palace, and be forever with the Lord, 1 Thes. 4:17. Indeed there will be joy on all hands, except among the devils and damned, who shall gnash their teeth with envy at the everlasting advancement and glory of believers. Thus Christ is altogether lovely, in the relation of a Bridegroom.
Gender ender?
Posted: July 11, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun 1 CommentYesterday, NPR ran this article on what seems to be the passing importance of gender, citing both the recent NIV Bible translation, and Canadian infant “Storm” as part of the cultural shifts towards gender neutrality.
As many know, the latest iteration of te NIV bible has gone gender-neutral. In a powerful religious subculture so married to binary gender identification categories and heteronormativity, what does such a move mean for the future of gender within dominant Christianity? Mainline churches have already moved towards greater inclusion and acceptance, but distinctive gender roles and heteronormativity still rule the day within Evangelicalism.
So that we are clear here, sex and gender are two different categories. One’s sex is biological and determined by one’s reproductive organs, whereas gender is not as fixed as one’s biology, but rather an identification and class that one assimilates to (either passively or actively). For the most part, our culture and our systems are designed around binary classifications that include male/female and masculine/feminine. However, biology and identity are not as easy as they seem when they appear on an official form or drop down menu with these two choices.
When we bind ourselves to these binary categories we exclude the biological realities of intersex persons (those with biological characteristics of both sexes). While intersex persons do not make up a large percentage of births, their very existence challenges our cultural concepts of sex and gender as fixed binary categories. What is the church’s response to challenges against male/female classification? If the answer is “deviance,” then I think we need to go back to the drawing board. Because the Bible operates within a binary framework (I’m assuming the closest we see to anything challenging the norm is the Ethiopian eunuch), is there room for other realities in biblical communities? What are the repercussions of answering yes or no? What do our beliefs about gender and sex say about the character of God? What do they say about sexuality and sexual ethics? What role does gender have in the gospel?
Patrick Cheng writes in his recent book, Radical Love:
“For the earliest Christians, coming together as a community was an act of subversion. It was the creation of a radically new ‘family’ or ‘body’ that transcended biological relationships and the established social order. It was a rehearsal for the end times, when the human body, with its physical attributes, would be raised as a spiritual body, or pneumatikos soma. In other words, church was an external community of radical love. That is, the church was a new community that dissolved traditional boundaries that kept people apart such as biological relationships, social class, and physical attributes . . .
As Galatians reminds us, there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus. This gathering up of God’s people, regardless of sexuality, gender identity, and other differences, is the work of the Holy Spirit and is a way of returning us to the radical love that was sent by the first person of the Trinity, and the radical love that was recovered by the second person of the Trinity.” [1]
I’m not so sure that the NIV going gender-neutral is as much a signpost of the end of gender rather than the realization of the Bible’s androcentric tradition. However, there is still much room for inclusion, embrace, and wrestling with difficult parts of scripture and tradition in hopes of moving the gospel forward in love and grace, and growing into communities that reflect the justice, mercy, and peace of God.
___________________________________________
1. Cheng, Patrick S. Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology (Seabury Books, 2011), 106.
Historical gardeners
Posted: June 20, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun Leave a commentBetween my recent crash course in “Big History” in a seminary class and reading Wendell Berry’s Life is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition, I have been reflecting on two things: my own lack of knowledge in the realm of science (environmental science, earth science, and biology) and the general disregard for science within evangelicalism because of its bias against creationism. Interdisciplinary work is more common in biblical studies within the categories of sociology and rhetoric, etc., but the hard sciences are not common partners for theology or biblical studies.
Ahh, the spat between science and theology. However, this hits a bit more closely to home than does the earth revolving around the sun. Besides the hermeneutical issues surrounding scientific and literal readings of the early chapters of Genesis and the threat that the Bible might not be telling the truth about how things all got started (in addition to laying down some fine theological groundwork for keeping the Sabbath in light of Israel’s history of slavery and exodus), the trouble for many Christians arises when other writers reference Israel’s myths and even construct belief and practice around them.
Just what is riding on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 and faith in a historical first couple? I heard someone recently say that a good myth is not just true once, but true over and over again. Does losing a pair of historical gardeners and their slithering nemesis make sin, domination, and broken relationships any less real? Does it weaken Christology if there was not an actual Adam that sinned, or does Jesus still repair the brokenness of creation through his life, death, and resurrection? Does Christianity unravel if our understanding of humanity being made in the image of God does not mean what we think it means?
Christianity Today is actually addressing some of these topics in its latest installment. There are two pieces for further reading. Additionally, there is a great article on Religion Dispatches on the topic as well. What are your thoughts?
The Search for the Historical Adam
Creationism and Evolution are Competing ‘Myths’
Liberation and Creation
Posted: June 3, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun 1 CommentWhile reading yesterday I came across the same idea in two very different texts. Given that it was a new idea to me, it gave me pause and is pushing me to engage with the creation accounts of Genesis in a new way.
Jacques Ellul in Anarchy and Christianity:
Far from being the universal Commander, the biblical God is above all the Liberator. What is not generally known is that Genesis is not really the first book of the Bible. The Jews regard Exodus as the basic book. They primarily see in God not the universal Creator but their Liberator. The statement is impressive: “I have liberated you from Egypt, the house of bondage” (Ex 13:14; 20:2). In Hebrew, Egypt is called Mitsraim, and the meaning of this term is “twofold anguish,” which the rabbis explain as the anguish of living and the anguish of dying. The biblical God is above all the one who liberates us from all bondage, from the anguish of living and the anguish of dying. Each time that he intervenes it is to give us again the air of freedom. The cost is high. And it is through human beings that God discharges this mission, mostly human beings who at first are frightened and refuse, as we see from the many examples of God’s pedagogy. . . [38-39]
Dorothee Soelle in To Work and To Love:
“That God acted with liberating power on behalf of God’s chosen people in a specific historical time and space and under particular circumstances was the decisive factor in the Israelite understanding of God and humanity.” [8]
“It is in light of the Hebrews’ being freed from oppression by a foreign military superpower that we have to approach the conceptualization of creation in the biblical narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. The Exodus event precedes Jewish faith in creation and its exposition in narrative form.” [8]
“Biblical faith originated from a historical event of liberation, not from belief in creation.” [7]
“To return to the roots of the Jewish and Christian tradition means to understand the historical project of liberation carried out in the Exodus, before moving on to the ontological project that God inaugurated in the creation of the universe. Both projects, the historical and the ontological, are aimed at the freedom of the human being, and both projects need human agency . . . [7]
“The cosmic order as such, without a liberation tradition, does not reconcile slaves and other oppressed peoples, because it cannot empower them to free themselves.” [10]
“Creation faith is susceptible to the danger of “cheap reconciliation,” whereby we are asked to live as if we did not require freeing from present, unjust orders, as if the presumption of a universal transhistorical order were sufficient in itself for human life, and as if the God of nature had triumphed over the God of history. The oppressed have an epistemological advantage: They wait for a greater God. Creation is not yet finished. Both projects, the historical and the ontological, are aimed at the freedom of the human being, and it is one of the claims of this book that both projects need human agency. Participation in the ontological project of creation––human liberation––is possible only for the Exodus people, who have experienced at least once the liberating empowerment of the source of life. The universal source of life is not endlessly available to us, but, as the Jewish and Christian traditions claim, comes to us through particular historical events.” [10]
“When there is no memory of liberation, there can be no hope. Turning its back on liberation, creationism dehistoricizes what creation faith really is and reveals nothing of substantial relevance for people’s lives. For creationists, objectively speaking, the whole world has become the Egypt of the oppressor in which even the need for liberation is destroyed. The failure to reveal the truth of creation and its ontological project is matched, in creationism, by the attempt to control people’s lives and thoughts and to weaken their self-determination.” [11]
How might viewing Genesis 1 and 2 through the lens of the Exodus event and liberation influence your understanding of creation? Of humanity? Of the earth? Of hierarchy and relationships? What are your reactions to reading the creation myths through the lens of liberation?
The Trinity and inclusive love
Posted: May 27, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: creation, dualism, love, oppression, trinity 1 CommentMoving towards a theology that embraces both oppressed peoples and care for the earth requires the reclamation of trinitarian concepts and language that move us into communities rooted in radical love. Patrick Cheng writes,
The doctrine of the Trinity is a manifestation of God’s radical love because it is an internal community of radical love. That is, the Trinity breaks down a number of categories, including the self and the other. Because God is an internal community within God’s very being, this collapses the usual difference between the self and the other (that is, otherness as being “external” to one’s self). Thus, God consists of both the “self” and the “other.” Indeed, the love among the three persons of the Trinity has been described by the term perichoresis (or circumincessio in Latin), which means an ecstatic dance or interpenetration of the three persons.[1]
The Trinity teaches us that the ontology of God is paradoxically both oneness and relationship. Part of our bearing the image of God is our longing not only towards relationship and community, but towards love. That humanity bears the image of God means that all people experience the intimacy of God through embrace, inclusion, community, and love. John writes that although no one has ever seen God, if we love one another God becomes alive within us, tangible, and made visible (1 John 4:12). The love which we are to imitate is indeed a radical love that is demonstrated in the act of creation. Cheng continues,
I believe that creation can be understood as God’s outpouring of radical love . . .God’s own being is inherently relational. That is, because of God’s three-fold existence, God is already a self-contained community and does not need anything else that is external to Godself. However, God chooses to create the universe–including humanity–as an outpouring of radical love.[2]
Last week I wrote about history/nature dualism, which holds at its core that the natural world exists for the exclusive purpose of human use and enjoyment. This says something about our understanding of ourselves within the universe: we can use and dominate that which is “other” to us.
I am captivated and inspired by the concept of the Trinity containing both “self” and “other” in a radical love relationship.
Our spiraling human patterns of domination begin with the natural world and extend to our own species towards those whom we think are lesser than us, not as economically valuable, or simply “other” than ourselves. Our imitation of trinitarian love requires us to deconstruct hierarchical relationships that promote self over other, rich over poor, male over female, and human over non-human in an attempt to image the radical love of God and make it tangible, real, and present in a broken and hurting world.
________________________________
1. Cheng, Patrick S. Radical Love: An Introduction to Queer Theology (Seabury Books, 2011), 56.
2. Ibid., 62.
History/Nature dualism, imago Dei
Posted: May 20, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: dualism, History, imago dei, nature Leave a commentEssential to developing an ecologically sensitive theology is the necessity of devising a theology of nature. Richard Bauckham sheds some clarity on the concept of nature and how the word is commonly used. He lays out four common usages of the term ‘nature’: (1) essence, such as employed in Chalcedonian Christology, (2) the entirety of the created or observable world as separate from and distinctly different than God, (3) the world (including humanity) in a pre-fall state, and (4) the observable non-human world with a priority towards the natural environment and its relation to human life.[1]
Inherent within the last usage, Bauckham claims, is a presupposed “distinction between ‘nature’ and humanity, or rather, between nature and culture/human history.[2] Bauckham, as well as Rosemary Ruether, Joseph Sittler, Jurgen Moltmann, Stephen Bouma-Prediger, and Ian Barbour cite the nature/history dualism as ecologically unjust and unfaithful to the biblical witness. Bauckham claims that distinctions made between human culture and nature are false. Bouma-Prediger states simply that the dualism assumes that “history is defined as and limited to human history and thereby set over against nature.”[3] Because of that distinction, Bouma-Prediger asserts that traditional theology has allowed “redemption and grace” to “extend only as far as history, i.e., humanity.”[4] The cosmic scope of the work of Christ is diminished within the the history/nature dualism. Rather, Bouma-Prediger affirms with with Joseph Sittler that such an assumption represents a deep misunderstanding, and that “history must be redefined as inclusive of all being and nature must be reconceived as inclusive of human being.”[5] He continues,
These revisions are fully compatible with the claim that Christianity is a historical religion. Indeed they more accurately capture the comprehensive biblical vision of the redemption of bodies, of grace for a groaning creation, and of shalom for all of God’s creatures.[6]
An ecological perspective (for more on this, see my earlier post St. Basil, Ecology, and Fellowship: Part 3) implores us to reconsider the categories of history and nature that are typically mutually exclusive and posit humanity as both different from and over and above the natural world. Humanity must be conceived as a part of nature, thus drawing nature into the realm of history. From this point we can go proceed in either of two directions: the image of God or human dominion in Genesis 1:28. For our purposes here, I’d like to focus upon the imago Dei.
Bauckham states that the writer of Genesis 1 sees humanity as “one of the land animals, created on the sixth day,” yet makes a distinction between them in 1:28, while the writer of Genesis 2 envisions both Adam and the animals as “created out of the ground,” invoking images of God designing clay figures. He claims that in the second creation account nothing distinguishes Adam from the animals.[7] Bauckham alludes to a lack of clarity regarding the intention of Genesis 2:7 to imply that Adam directly received the breath of life from God.[8]
Even if this detail does indicate Adam’s special status in God’s sight, it indicates nothing about human nature which distinguishes it from the animals. However received, the same divine breath animates all things . . .the Old Testament seems to draw no hard line of distinction between human nature and the animals.[9]
Anna Case-Winters would agree with Bauckham, and states, “there is an unbroken continuity with the rest of nature; separation is a false report on reality . . .we are nature.”[10] Traditionally, human dominion is connected to being created in the image of God, based on a hierarchical pattern of creation. On the connection between dominion and creation in the image of God, Bauckham claims that it does not refer “to the dominion itself, but to whatever characteristics of human nature make human beings capable of this dominion.”[11] So instead of Genesis 1:26-28 being read as building dominion into the fabric of creation, with humans ontologically superior to the natural world, Bauckham insists that the writer of Genesis 1 is
starting from the empirical observation that human beings are the dominant species on earth, and providing a theological interpretation of this; that God in creation intended human beings to be the dominant species on earth and intended them to exercise their dominion as [God’s] viceregents, responsible to [God].[12]
Anna Case-Winters offers a critique on the common conceptualizing of the imago dei in regards to theological approaches that seek to firmly establish the imago dei as “what distinguishes the human being from nature,” and what sets humanity over and above nature.[13] When theology is performed in such a manner, she claims,
one suspects an agenda designed to establish human rights to rule and exploit the rest of nature. I think the whole approach to the imago dei needs to be reconsidered. Our present habits of thought have led to separatism and anthropocentrism, which have proven both untenable and dangerous.[14]
For Case-Winters, the preferred approach is rather to draw distinctions around the contributions which “human beings may make to the rest of creation.”[15]
Whether we think of the image of God in terms of intrinsic capacities such as reason/ rationality or the quality of our living in relationship, these admit of more and less and could be seen as placing the human being on a continuum rather than in absolute distinction.[16]
Employing distinctions between human history and nature and excluding nature from history and history from nature has practical/ethical implications as well as influences upon our theology. These two categories must be reimagined in order to create an ecological theology that contains an ethos of love, care, and equality among life. Stephen Bouma-Prediger has summarized five arguments from Rosemary Ruether that highlight the problems of the history/nature dualism and why it ought to be rejected:
1) this dualism is false because the natural world is historical in its own right; 2) this dualism is false because the natural world is indelibly affected by human agency and thus a part of human history; 3) this dualism is false because, as corporeal, humans are embedded in the natural order; 4) this dualism has led to disastrous consequences since it has sanctioned various forms of exploitation; 5) this dualism conflicts with the biblical emphasis on a single all-embracing covenant.[17]
How do the two different accounts of creation influence your understanding of humanity, non-human life, and ethic towards creation? How do you understand the imago dei in relation to the rest of creation?
___________________________
1.Bauckham, Richard. (1986). “First Steps to a Theology of Nature.” The Evangelical Quarterly, 58 no.3, 229.
2.Ibid.
3.Bouma-Prediger, Stephen. The Greening of Theology: The Ecological Models of Rosemary Radford Ruether, Joseph Sittler, and Jurgen Moltmann (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1995), 272.
4.Ibid.
5.Ibid.
6.Ibid.
7.Bauckham, 231.
8.Ibid.
9.Ibid., 232.
10.Case-Winters, Anna. “Rethinking the Image of God.” Zygon 39 no. 4 (December 2004), 815.
11.Bauckham, 233.
12.Ibid.
13.Case-Winters, 814.
14.Ibid.
15.Ibid., 825.
16.Ibid., 818.
17.Bouma-Prediger, 271.
Looking for Justice
Posted: May 9, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: dualism, incarnation, Justice, oppression Leave a commentI’m going to lay my cards on the table as I try to reflect on the momentous event that happened this week. I do not have a nationalistic or patriotic bone in my body. I did not personally lose any loved ones on September 11, 2001, nor did I lose any loved ones in the ensuing war. I am a pacifist. I am white, middle-class, well-educated, and I do not know suffering first hand. For these reasons, and probably others as well, I can find it difficult to construct deeply empathetic feelings when great tragedies occur. I can look upon an earthquake, or a tsunami, or hunger, or slavery, and feel saddened and upset, but because of my status and my residence within the locus imperium, I can take comfort in knowing that I can continue my life unaffected. Part of my own journey lies in dismantling my indifference and discovering ways in which my own status, wealth, and privilege can be used for goodness, equality, and justice, rather than for comfort.
I assume this indifference is true for the majority of Christians living in the United States. Our popular theology reveals this reality. The American narrative, deeply intertwined with Protestantism, reflects themes of election, exodus, and promise. God is on our side. Stir into the batter interpretations of Romans 13 that implore Christians to obey, support, and be subject to governing authorities, and we are left with a confidence that the directions that our nation takes are surely ordained by God at some macro level.
I’d like to posit two things, neither of which are new by any stretch of the imagination. The first is this: unless dominant Christianity adopts a theology that appropriately deals with suffering it will be bankrupt in its ability to deal with oppression and poverty, both asking the questions and searching for the answers as to why people are oppressed and poor, and what roles we knowingly or unknowingly play in perpetuating unjust systems. Wrapped up within a theology that appropriately deals with suffering is the notion of justice and exactly whose side God really is on. I feel quite confident in looking at our nation’s imperialism, military-industrial complex/disease (I’ll stop at those two) and say that God is not on our side. To be perfectly clear, this means that God is not responsible for, nor is God the cause of suffering in the world. Rather, when women, children, men, and the earth suffer, God suffers with them.
The second thing is this: God cares about this world. Much of Christianity theologically affirms a balance between the immanence and transcendence of God, but completely eliminates such a balance in worship and practice. Lurking behind the heavy emphasis on God’s transcendence is spirit/matter dualism and the subjugation of the lowly physical to the holy spiritual. There is so much to be said about the damage this has done, but for our purposes here, in removing God from within all of life we have desacralized creation and allowed ourselves to desacralize people who are different than us, destroying both. More than desacralizing our ‘enemies,’ we have made enemies out of our sisters and brothers. In light of this, we must allow the incarnation to teach us that God values all life, broadening our scope of both the incarnation and the atonement to include the breadth of creation.
Therefore, must affirm that God is on the side of life. When lives are taken it should grieve us. It should grieve me. As many other bloggers have expressed this week, rejoice is never the Christian response in the face of death. Justice is not served when life is taken. Rather, justice is served when life is redeemed, renewed, valued, and invigorated. Justice is served when schools and hospitals are rebuilt, when communities are restored, when gunfire ceases, and when weapons of mass destruction (ours) are dismantled. Justice and death are not related, but justice and life most certainly are. When we believe this, our theology changes and our actions then change.
Two particular responses to this week’s events are worth sharing. The first is from Miroslav Volf, and the second is from D.W. Horstkoetter writing for The Other Journal.
http://www.christiancentury.org/blogs/archive/2011-05/fear-and-relief
The words of the poet Andrea Gibson are gut-wrenchingly apt as we recognize that the death of one man will not eradicate violence, terrorism, death, oppression. We are far from peace, but I hope with all of my being that there is life and justice and peace in the way of Jesus.
Priests of Creation
Posted: April 28, 2011 Filed under: Just for Fun | Tags: Anthropocentrism, Eastern Orthodoxy, ecology, Sacrament 2 Comments(Posted by Peter Garcia)
For the past twenty years, Eastern Orthodoxy has been carving out a place for itself within the ecological movement. Its leaders and prominent theological voices are calling for great change within the way Christianity views humanity and the earth and the implications of the Created-creature divide.
Two themes show up a lot in modern Orthodox writings about the environment and humanity’s place within it. The first one is an understanding of the universe as a sacrament, and the second is an understanding of humanity as priests of creation.
Below is an excerpt from a paper I recently wrote in which I explored some of the theological themes of modern Eastern Orthodoxy that give it an ecological vision. This section addresses these two themes. What are your thoughts on the understanding of creation as a sacrament? What are its implications for daily life and for worship? Given that Evangelicalism contains zero to very little understanding of sacrament, are these themes helpful in propelling dominant Christianity into a more ecological theology?
If you are interested in what Eastern Orthodoxy has to say about these issues, look up the works of Elizabeth Theokritoff, John Zizioulas, John Chryssavgis, Kallistos Ware, and Patriarch Bartholomew I. I have been deeply impressed by these individuals. The love they have for God, humanity, and the creation is vibrant and expressed so poetically. We have much to learn from our Orthodox brothers and sisters.
Anthropocentrism: the problem or the solution?
One of the most central features of Christianity’s entrance into the ecological conversation is the examination of its anthropocentric cosmology. The anthropocentrism derived from Christian thought and tradition––a point of attack for Lynn White Jr.––is believed to drive a wedge between matter and spirit, support dualism, and embed a strongly hierarchical view of creation that situates humanity over and above all other life. This in turn instills a utilitarian approach towards the natural world, with little duty or responsibility to actively seek its benefit and sustenance.
However, Patriarch Bartholomew intentionally upholds and seeks to redeem anthropocentrism by appealing to humanity’s privileged relationship to God in creation. In a 2002 address, he told his listeners, “We believe that the human person constitutes the crown of creation,” and that, “We believe that the natural creation is a gift from God, entrusted to humanity as its governor, provider, steward, and priest,” appealing to the agrarian calling to work and preserve the creation.[1]
The metaphor of humanity as priest of creation, popular among Bartholomew, Chryssavgis, and Theokritoff, is prominently employed by John Zizioulas, who attempts to release the concept of ‘priesthood’ from the pejorative and instead infuse it with “the characteristic of ‘offering’ in the sense of opening up particular beings to a transcending relatedness with the ‘other’ – an idea more or less corresponding to that of love in its deepest sense.”[2] Here we are again drawn into the concept of creation as sacrament. In this framework, the created world and humanity are not in “opposition to each other, in antagonism, but in positive relatedness.”[3] Expanding on what it means for humanity to be priests of creation, Zizioulas offers that it begins with recognizing that “creation does not belong to us, but to God, who is its only ‘owner’. By so doing we believe that creation is brought into relation with God and not only is it treated with the reverence which befits what belongs to God, but it is also liberated from its natural limitations and transformed into a bearer of life.” [4]
Critiquing the assumption that God requires “human mediation in order to enjoy and love non-human creation, Crina Gschwandtner is “not as convinced as most other Orthodox writers that this notion of human priesthood of creation really relieves all the problems of anthropocentrism.” [5]
However, in spite of all the talk of anthropocentrism, Bartholomew does not feel that it is anthropocentrism which poses the greatest threat, but rather “anthropomonism, that is, the exclusive emphasis on and isolation of humanity at the expense and detriment of the natural environment,” precisely because “nature is related to people and people to nature.”[6] The deflection of pejorative connotations from anthropocentrism onto anthropomonism allows the preservation of anthropocentrism as a redemptive ideal to be upheld in the Orthodox tradition.[7] For Bartholomew, the inspiration for Christian earthkeeping is “human-centered, just as in fact all of creation is anthropocentric.”[8] He continues, appealing to Christian tradition, that “the world was created for the sake of humankind and that everything is regulated so as to contribute to our survival,” and where creation is out of step with humanity’s flourishing is evidence of “the consequence of our revolt against the harmony of God, which brought with it a partial revolt of nature against our rule over it.” [9]
Within Eastern Orthodoxy, however, regardless of one’s understanding of humanity’s status within the created order, it is crucial to hold the conviction that the entire world is a sacrament. This sacramental view of the material world leads one towards a life of asceticism, the praxis emerging from the embodiment of these perspectives. An “ascetic ethos” grounds Eastern Orthodoxy in its values, giving it the legs it needs to walk softly on the earth as it seeks to lead its faithful in the care of the earth.[10]
________________________________________
1. John Chryssavgis, ed. Cosmic Grace + Humble Prayer: The Ecological Vision of the Green Patriarch Bartholomew I (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans), 313.
2. John Zizioulas, “Priest of Creation,” in Environmental Stewardship, ed. R.J. Berry (New York: T&T Clark International), 274.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., 289.
5. Crina Gschwandtner, “Orthodox ecological theology: Bartholomew I and Orthodox contributions to the ecological debate,” International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 10, no. 2 (August 2010): 138.
6. Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace + Humble Prayer, 19.
7. Ibid., 314. In the same 2002 address, Bartholomew stated that humanity “preferred to pursue independence, resulting in the creation of a new order and different pattern within the natural environment – commonly referred to as anthropocentrism, but more properly identified as anthropomonism.”
8. Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace + Humble Prayer, 251.
9. Ibid.
10. Chryssavgis, Cosmic Grace + Humble Prayer, 45-47. Patriarch Bartholomew lists an ascetic ethos alongside a eucharistic ethos and a liturgical ethos as three pillars that uphold the ecological vision of Orthodox faith and practice.
Gospel-Centered Musings 