This is my first non-theological post (though ultimately everything is theological!). We will call this a political post; I guess. I have been quite appalled at the Obama administration's efforts to marginalize Fox News. I think it is very unwise and actually petty.
First a couple of qualifiers. I am not anti-Obama. I never have been. I almost voted for him, but couldn't pull the trigger because of his pro-choice record. Still, when I voted for McCain, it was one of those 51/49 kind of decisions. In the end, I had to vote with my heart (instinct). Regardless, I have never bashed Obama and never cheered for him to fail. I hoped his policies would succeed in getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been directly impacted by this woeful economy. How could I not pray for the success of his economic stimulus?
I am also not all that upset about his health care reform. I despise health insurance companies and it is absurd that there are nearly fifty million Americans without health insurance. The Bush administration had eight years to do address this crippling issue, but apparently found it not politically expedient to lift a finger for reform. I believed that Obama's election victory granted him a mandate to try it his way.
Yet, all of the above demonstrates the foolishness of what Obama is doing in relation to Fox News. If you haven't followed the story, Obama's aides have been lambasting the Fox network to other media outlets, refusing to acknowledge it as new agency, admonishing other media outlets to ignore stories that break on Fox, and refusing interviews to the network while making the rounds with all the rest.
See, I watch Fox News. I don't like all of their commentary programs (Beck andHannity), but I enjoy O'Reilley and the news coverage in general. When the President marginalizes Fox News, they marginalize me (and other folks like me). Guess what Obama administration? I am not a rank and file Republican or right-wing nut-job who likes to get his ideology massaged by watching Fox News. I am an independent swing voter and there are millions out there similar to me.
Furthermore, the paranoia necessary to fuel a war on America's #1 watched cable news channel is downright disconcerting and beneath the dignity of the presidency. Are they so thin-skinned in the White House that they can't tolerate any dissenting voices? Are their egos stroked so frequently by MSNBC and other such media outlets that they are shocked beyond belief when they encounter criticism? Is it really in America's best interest to try to silence your opposition?
Here's hoping President Obama and staff get wise, because their current path concerns me. If they don't, then the swing voters they are alienating will having something to say in the ballot boxes soon enough.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Lie of Simplicity
I recently shared with an e-mail list that I have been on for over ten years that I had finished my Master's Degree in Theology and Ethics. As I expected most were happy for me and just took the opportunity to express congratulatory sentiments and then went right back to arguing the hot topic of the day. Yet one member in particular used the occasion to proclaim her tired old talking point of simplicity. She did this by questioning whether or not I had or would allow my education with its fancy degrees and titles to corrupt my understanding of the simplicity of the gospel and scriptures.
Those of us who hang out in Restoration Movement circles hear this sort of "reasoning" often. It is understandable, really. Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone believed that the unity of Christian church had been compromised by church councils and their creeds. What was needed--no what was required--was a return to the simplicity of the Scriptures. To whatever degree they were correct about councils and creeds muddying up the waters, so to speak, can you see the problem in their approach? They went to the scriptures assuming simplicity. You usually find what you are looking for. This had a lot to do with the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism, but that's a blog for another day. I just say it now, so you know I am not making this stuff up out of thin air.
A lot of the focus on simplicity was to blur or even erase the line between clergy and laity. You didn't need a degree in theology to understand the scriptures. Anyone could open the Bible, read it, and grasp its clear presentation of simple facts (the Bible as a collection of facts was distinctively a Campbell emphasis). In many ways they were right, of course. You didn't need a degree to understand the Bible, but it doesn't mean that you read it apart from any sophistication, nuance, or discipline. Yet, as with most well-meaning movements, out went the baby with the bathwater.
So, my list friend who used my recent academic achievement as her latest soap box to proclaim the gospel of simplicity got me to thinking. Is the word even in the Bible? Because if not, there is great irony in the simplicity advocates calling for a return to the simple reading of scripture, if simplicity itself is conspicuously absent from the Bible! I did a quick search on www.biblegateway.com with several versions and could not find even one form of the word simple (there might be synonyms or similar ideas, and I am not saying that the word doesn't exist in any modern English translation or that I know the Greek/Hebrew equivalents. I am just using this search for illustrative purposes).
Your level of education has little to do with your ability to read and comprehend scripture. However, the notion that the Bible is inherently simple is a myth not worthy of the God who inspired it. Discipline, training, practice, and reading in community with other believers are all aspects of successful Bible reading/study. One of the errors of Restoration Movement fathers was that in advocating the correct position that all could read scripture, they also unwittingly proliferated the rampant American individualism that survives today. We don't learn scripture best alone.
I suspect instead fear is part of what upholds this unbiblical notion of the simplicity of scriptures. We are afraid of what we don't understand. God doesn't fit into our box as well, if we can't simplify his revelation. We don't want the tensions produced by the doctrines of the incarnation, trinity, atonement, predestination/free will, etc. The very subject nature of the Bible precludes the very notion of simplicity. Yet, where mystery abounds, it should humble us and leave us in awe of God (cf. Rom. 11:33-36).
Those of us who hang out in Restoration Movement circles hear this sort of "reasoning" often. It is understandable, really. Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone believed that the unity of Christian church had been compromised by church councils and their creeds. What was needed--no what was required--was a return to the simplicity of the Scriptures. To whatever degree they were correct about councils and creeds muddying up the waters, so to speak, can you see the problem in their approach? They went to the scriptures assuming simplicity. You usually find what you are looking for. This had a lot to do with the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism, but that's a blog for another day. I just say it now, so you know I am not making this stuff up out of thin air.
A lot of the focus on simplicity was to blur or even erase the line between clergy and laity. You didn't need a degree in theology to understand the scriptures. Anyone could open the Bible, read it, and grasp its clear presentation of simple facts (the Bible as a collection of facts was distinctively a Campbell emphasis). In many ways they were right, of course. You didn't need a degree to understand the Bible, but it doesn't mean that you read it apart from any sophistication, nuance, or discipline. Yet, as with most well-meaning movements, out went the baby with the bathwater.
So, my list friend who used my recent academic achievement as her latest soap box to proclaim the gospel of simplicity got me to thinking. Is the word even in the Bible? Because if not, there is great irony in the simplicity advocates calling for a return to the simple reading of scripture, if simplicity itself is conspicuously absent from the Bible! I did a quick search on www.biblegateway.com with several versions and could not find even one form of the word simple (there might be synonyms or similar ideas, and I am not saying that the word doesn't exist in any modern English translation or that I know the Greek/Hebrew equivalents. I am just using this search for illustrative purposes).
Your level of education has little to do with your ability to read and comprehend scripture. However, the notion that the Bible is inherently simple is a myth not worthy of the God who inspired it. Discipline, training, practice, and reading in community with other believers are all aspects of successful Bible reading/study. One of the errors of Restoration Movement fathers was that in advocating the correct position that all could read scripture, they also unwittingly proliferated the rampant American individualism that survives today. We don't learn scripture best alone.
I suspect instead fear is part of what upholds this unbiblical notion of the simplicity of scriptures. We are afraid of what we don't understand. God doesn't fit into our box as well, if we can't simplify his revelation. We don't want the tensions produced by the doctrines of the incarnation, trinity, atonement, predestination/free will, etc. The very subject nature of the Bible precludes the very notion of simplicity. Yet, where mystery abounds, it should humble us and leave us in awe of God (cf. Rom. 11:33-36).
A pledge and update
I confess I've been a terrible blogger in terms of consistent posting. The result? No regular readers and a long uphill battle to build up any. But if you do stumble across this blog and find it interesting, then my pledge is to write more often and perhaps be less one dimensional in the variety of topics I cover. Still, expect most of my posts to be theological in nature.
As it turns out, I am currently unemployed and have more time to write. I need to keep myself sharp and this blog will hopefully be therapeutic, even if no one reads.
So, a preacher can get laid off too. No real surprise there, but this is a time where I am having to practice what I preach. I've told the congregation that God is always with them no matter what they go through. Now, do I really believe it for myself? Intellectually, the answer is, of course, yes. Yet, it is a whole other matter to live that intellectual belief out in our everyday lives.
So, perhaps (for my imaginary readership), I will try to keep you posted as we try to discern God's will for our future.
As it turns out, I am currently unemployed and have more time to write. I need to keep myself sharp and this blog will hopefully be therapeutic, even if no one reads.
So, a preacher can get laid off too. No real surprise there, but this is a time where I am having to practice what I preach. I've told the congregation that God is always with them no matter what they go through. Now, do I really believe it for myself? Intellectually, the answer is, of course, yes. Yet, it is a whole other matter to live that intellectual belief out in our everyday lives.
So, perhaps (for my imaginary readership), I will try to keep you posted as we try to discern God's will for our future.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Eschatological Church?
A professor recently remarked in class that true growing churches (i.e. those making conversions) are eschatological churches. If you don't know what that word means, it is a theological word that means end times or study of last things.
He did not mean that growing churches spend all their time reading the "Left Behind" series or obsessing about the antichrist. He meant that churches on the move are churches who really believe they are going somewhere. They are not just churches who offer the latest financial management or marriage enrichment seminar. They are not just sending a message that says,"Hey, we know life is miserable, so come and be a little less miserable with us!" He meant these churches have a sense of purpose and resolve which betrays an authentic belief that the people of God are moving towards a "new heaven and a new earth."
For the record, I am not premillenial, and nor do I believe that a specific antichrist (don't we have a lot of those in the world already?) has to come before the end of time. Jesus could bring time to an end before I finish writing this blog or before you finish reading it! But I do believe in the final consummation of the kingdom of God and the ushering in of the new heave an new earth. I believe every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord (cf. Phil. 2:5ff).
Yet, I was convicted by the professor's words. I am a preacher and I couldn't conclude that my preaching reflected this eschatological urgency he was addressing. Shouldn't every sermon and every lesson at least hint of this final conclusion of history and express confidence in the victory of the Lamb and the people of God?
What a powerful message in a world torn apart by war, poverty, disease, sin, and death! Are we just inviting people along on a journey to nowhere? Or are we offering something utterly transcendent to this world of sin and death? "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain..." (Rev. 21:1-4).
He did not mean that growing churches spend all their time reading the "Left Behind" series or obsessing about the antichrist. He meant that churches on the move are churches who really believe they are going somewhere. They are not just churches who offer the latest financial management or marriage enrichment seminar. They are not just sending a message that says,"Hey, we know life is miserable, so come and be a little less miserable with us!" He meant these churches have a sense of purpose and resolve which betrays an authentic belief that the people of God are moving towards a "new heaven and a new earth."
For the record, I am not premillenial, and nor do I believe that a specific antichrist (don't we have a lot of those in the world already?) has to come before the end of time. Jesus could bring time to an end before I finish writing this blog or before you finish reading it! But I do believe in the final consummation of the kingdom of God and the ushering in of the new heave an new earth. I believe every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord (cf. Phil. 2:5ff).
Yet, I was convicted by the professor's words. I am a preacher and I couldn't conclude that my preaching reflected this eschatological urgency he was addressing. Shouldn't every sermon and every lesson at least hint of this final conclusion of history and express confidence in the victory of the Lamb and the people of God?
What a powerful message in a world torn apart by war, poverty, disease, sin, and death! Are we just inviting people along on a journey to nowhere? Or are we offering something utterly transcendent to this world of sin and death? "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain..." (Rev. 21:1-4).
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Scholarship and Faith
A friend on "Facebook" had this interesting (and convicting?) quote under his favorite quotes. "The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole like will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament." Soren Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard was never one to mince words, but now he's gone to meddling. I love my theological education (ongoing). But I know the experience about which he writes. Many years ago, in preaching school, I nearly fell into a depression, because the more I studied the Bible the more I felt like a pitiful disciple of Jesus. That wasn't a healthy place to be.
Yet, I am sure at time I have strayed to the other extreme. The more I studied, the more the Bible became an academic exercise, meant to be analyzed, scrutinized, and theologically categorized. Living it? Obeying it? As soon as I get done studying it.
But this is not a problem just in academic settings. This is a problem that infects the Churches of Christ, the Restoration Movement, and other communities who emphasize the study of the Bible as the height of Christian activity. A few times I have tried to reduce the amount of time we spent in communal Bible study, so that we could do some ministry for others together. The result? Well, let's just say we are back to spending all of our time in Bible study.
It is clear to me that we have made Bible study as the height of Christian discipleship. One man in my congregation can hardly forgo a single class without quoting from 2 Tim. 2:15; "Study to show thyself approved..." Studying the Bible is great. It is empowering. But empowering to what? If it is just so I know more answers than the Baptist church down the road, then it is meaningless. It should empower us to live it, to obey it. Let's not be busy studying the Bible that we have no time to carry the cross.
Kierkegaard was never one to mince words, but now he's gone to meddling. I love my theological education (ongoing). But I know the experience about which he writes. Many years ago, in preaching school, I nearly fell into a depression, because the more I studied the Bible the more I felt like a pitiful disciple of Jesus. That wasn't a healthy place to be.
Yet, I am sure at time I have strayed to the other extreme. The more I studied, the more the Bible became an academic exercise, meant to be analyzed, scrutinized, and theologically categorized. Living it? Obeying it? As soon as I get done studying it.
But this is not a problem just in academic settings. This is a problem that infects the Churches of Christ, the Restoration Movement, and other communities who emphasize the study of the Bible as the height of Christian activity. A few times I have tried to reduce the amount of time we spent in communal Bible study, so that we could do some ministry for others together. The result? Well, let's just say we are back to spending all of our time in Bible study.
It is clear to me that we have made Bible study as the height of Christian discipleship. One man in my congregation can hardly forgo a single class without quoting from 2 Tim. 2:15; "Study to show thyself approved..." Studying the Bible is great. It is empowering. But empowering to what? If it is just so I know more answers than the Baptist church down the road, then it is meaningless. It should empower us to live it, to obey it. Let's not be busy studying the Bible that we have no time to carry the cross.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
What does God require of you?
Can there be a more important question? Once you determined you believe in God, then this is the next big question. How do I stay on his good side? How do I have a relationship with the Creator of the universe? I think it is interesting how we often define faithfulness and discipleship by what we do during an hour or so a week on Sunday. I am not diminishing that at all, but it is as if we believe if we sing right, do communion right, baptism, prayer, etc. that God will be pleased with us.
The ironic thing is that we love to heap scorn on the ancient Israelites. They thought that if they kept the sacrifices coming, then they were pleasing to God. When confronted with their covenant breaking they responded to Yahweh (and Micah) with this attitude: "With what shall we come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"
Are we so different than them? Do we not believe that if we offer up thousands of prayers, ten thousands of songs, and perfect ritualistic observation of baptism and communion that he will be pleased? Do we not believe that if we are confronted with unfaithfulness that we must immediately address one of these areas?
Yahweh's response: "He has showed you, O' man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
There is great grace in that simplicity of that statement. But don't be fooled; it is easier to simply believe correctly performed rituals is the key to pleasing God than to actually try to live the way he has called us. It is a lot easier to come to church than it is to pick up our cross and follow Jesus. Yet true freedom and life is walking humbly with our God.
Will you walk with me? I stumble often. Maybe we can help each other along the way. God, may you grant us the grace to humbly walk with you and honestly examine ourselves when we place confidence in ritual over you.
The ironic thing is that we love to heap scorn on the ancient Israelites. They thought that if they kept the sacrifices coming, then they were pleasing to God. When confronted with their covenant breaking they responded to Yahweh (and Micah) with this attitude: "With what shall we come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"
Are we so different than them? Do we not believe that if we offer up thousands of prayers, ten thousands of songs, and perfect ritualistic observation of baptism and communion that he will be pleased? Do we not believe that if we are confronted with unfaithfulness that we must immediately address one of these areas?
Yahweh's response: "He has showed you, O' man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
There is great grace in that simplicity of that statement. But don't be fooled; it is easier to simply believe correctly performed rituals is the key to pleasing God than to actually try to live the way he has called us. It is a lot easier to come to church than it is to pick up our cross and follow Jesus. Yet true freedom and life is walking humbly with our God.
Will you walk with me? I stumble often. Maybe we can help each other along the way. God, may you grant us the grace to humbly walk with you and honestly examine ourselves when we place confidence in ritual over you.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The nexus between faith and politics
I am sure this is a popular topic these days. We live in an age where a candidate is probably coached to reference God a certain amount of times per speech. Isn't that interesting, when the perception is that God isn't so popular in America any more? Well, most Americans want to believe that their candidate believes in God, but don't want them to allow their faith to influence their public policy. Such a thing is absurd, of course, if faith is real at all, it cannot be tucked away at home.
Still, sometimes the "God talk" unnerves me as well, if not for the same reasons. I get nervous, if a candidate is claiming for themselves or their party to be the voice for God. I get even more nervous when I see Christians believing that a particular party would be the party for Jesus. Both parties have good emphases and both parties have points that would certainly be pleasing to Jesus. However, both parties are defined by their ideologies and their constituents not Jesus of the Bible.
Jesus is abhorred at some of the practices and beliefs of our two major parties. I can never see Jesus going around talking about a woman's right to choose when that choice requires the sacrifice of the most innocent of lives. I cannot imagine Jesus would approve of a party filling their coffers with the likes of the NRA, Big Tobacco, or the ACLU.
Some might suggest that Jesus would just stay out of politics all together. I'm not suggesting that Jesus would run for office, but the teaching of Jesus and the kingdom of God shake the very foundation of all political structures. The question is what would Jesus have his people do in a society where they can literally influence the society at large with kingdom values. Would he have them set on the sidelines, if their involvement would mean more justice to the fringes of society, the very people that Jesus' kingdom message purports to include?
I say Jesus would have us be involved in the political process. It doesn't mean that every person has to be a political activist. We all have different callings. However, a totally passive response might be to neglect justice for those that desperately need it.
Jesus would have us care for the un-born, because they don't have a voice to protect themselves. Jesus would have us care for the poor, because they are always close to his heart. Jesus would have us stand against racism, for he has made a kingdom of all nations and tribes. Jesus has many concerns in this world. I believe our major role in politics is to give voice to the voiceless. I have been heavily influenced by Jim Wallis and John Yoder in this, even though I don't agree with them on all points. They do articulate an exclusive allegiance to Jesus over any party or political system. I couldn't agree more.
Still, sometimes the "God talk" unnerves me as well, if not for the same reasons. I get nervous, if a candidate is claiming for themselves or their party to be the voice for God. I get even more nervous when I see Christians believing that a particular party would be the party for Jesus. Both parties have good emphases and both parties have points that would certainly be pleasing to Jesus. However, both parties are defined by their ideologies and their constituents not Jesus of the Bible.
Jesus is abhorred at some of the practices and beliefs of our two major parties. I can never see Jesus going around talking about a woman's right to choose when that choice requires the sacrifice of the most innocent of lives. I cannot imagine Jesus would approve of a party filling their coffers with the likes of the NRA, Big Tobacco, or the ACLU.
Some might suggest that Jesus would just stay out of politics all together. I'm not suggesting that Jesus would run for office, but the teaching of Jesus and the kingdom of God shake the very foundation of all political structures. The question is what would Jesus have his people do in a society where they can literally influence the society at large with kingdom values. Would he have them set on the sidelines, if their involvement would mean more justice to the fringes of society, the very people that Jesus' kingdom message purports to include?
I say Jesus would have us be involved in the political process. It doesn't mean that every person has to be a political activist. We all have different callings. However, a totally passive response might be to neglect justice for those that desperately need it.
Jesus would have us care for the un-born, because they don't have a voice to protect themselves. Jesus would have us care for the poor, because they are always close to his heart. Jesus would have us stand against racism, for he has made a kingdom of all nations and tribes. Jesus has many concerns in this world. I believe our major role in politics is to give voice to the voiceless. I have been heavily influenced by Jim Wallis and John Yoder in this, even though I don't agree with them on all points. They do articulate an exclusive allegiance to Jesus over any party or political system. I couldn't agree more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)