Musings of Young Theologians

How should being a Christian inform our social/political lives?

2006-08-04T17:29:00.000-07:00

Recently a friend asked me, “How should being a Christian effect our role in society and politics?” Here are, if not an answers, then some thoughts on the matter.

A narrowly defined Christian ethic, especially among us evangelicals, is all too prevalent: religious interaction with society is reduced to a three-pronged ethic of anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, and pro-war. Is this what Christ meant when He commissioned us to go and make disciples of all nations? I propose that these hot button issues are not the bulk—or even the main thrust—of Jesus’ life and teaching. Christian ethics must grow out of a broader understanding of Jesus, His life and teaching: Jesus sets the agenda.

There’s another way for faith and politics to interact. Even now a there is a growing coalition of Evangelical Christians and justice-minded people are joining together to combat partisan rhetoric that locks up resources for doing of justice, to fight rampant consumerism/materialism, to critique the development philosophy of the Washington Consensus and globalization, and prevent the destruction of the environment. Groups like Sojourners and popular authors like David Korten and Brian McLaren, among others, see themselves as part of this movement that can contribute to positive, justice-oriented change to global systems and individuals.

Even Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, pastor at a Minnesota megachurch (hardly part of this movement), recently preached a sermon series condemning Christian both on the left and the right for who have turned “politics and patriotism into ‘idolatry’.” (Goodstein, Laurie, New York Times, “Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock”, July 30, 2006.)

One of the church’s goals must be to disentangle Evangelical Christianity from American nationalism, the Republican party, and war on terror in society. I, for one, want to participate in the task of the church to identify and challenge assumption about how we practice our Christian discipleship as individuals and communities.

Feeling Alone

2006-07-21T13:36:00.000-07:00

I find that in the last few days—week?—I’ve been felling alone. Not lonely. Lonely smacks of a romanticized nostalgia for others, it longs for a fiction, like remembered the paradise that Cuba, perhaps, never was. No I mean alone. Distant from others, as if a gulf separated me from other people. This alone feeling is accompanied by—paradoxically—by numbness, a lack of feeling. The feeling doesn’t last too long. It only occurs when my attention wanes from the task at hand—cycling down the road, running on a treadmill, reading a devotional, studying some Hebrew, watching a scene from a movie.

Why don’t I instead have a sense of Christ’s abiding presence? That’s as much a prayer as well as a question.

My evangelically-trained, harmotologically minded response:

E: sin is getting in the way. The state of brokenness which is my inheritance as a human being, combined with my own choices to walk in paths of injustice and unrighteousness, make it difficult to commune with God.

Ragamuffin Gospel response:

R: God is gracious and willing to forgive you. Right now you can clean out the vital lifeline that connects you with the Heavenly Father. Simply ask for his forgiveness and you can be sure that you have been washed by the Lamb.

Lord, forgive me for straying so easily from you, being led once again down paths that dead-end. Give me your peace Lord, but most of all give me an abiding sense of your presence.

On being a good neighbor

2006-05-17T11:07:00.000-07:00

I read this article by Carolyn Carney "What is a Neighbor Free to Do?" and thought it was worth sharing some excerpts:

Freedom. It is the great Western ideal. Unabashedly, it is what we have gone to war for. It is what is behind our claim on our “rights.” Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Freedom to bear arms. Freedom of choice for everything from a woman’s body to what kind of hamburger we choose to eat. But freedom did not start with the American Revolution. It is not an American thing—it is a God thing.

The Triune God, all-powerful, everlasting God is absolutely free. There are no bounds placed on God, no restrictions, no limits. God can not be confined to time and space.

But in his freedom, God chooses for the other. In God’s freedom, he chooses to create—for the other. He gives light to the darkness, plants and animals for the earth, birds for the sky, fish and creatures for the sea. A perfectly free Father-Son-and-Spirit God chooses for the other when man is formed from the ground. In God’s freedom, he breathes air and life into Adam’s lungs. God chooses for the other. A covenant is initiated with Abram. No one made God do this; Abraham wasn’t even asking for it. God freely chose. And so also, the Father--in his freedom—sent Jesus to the world and in turn, Jesus, freely gave his life for the other—for all the others.

And so, if we name ourselves as followers of Christ, freedom’s purpose is not for me, it is for the other. (Don’t keep reading unless this truth sinks in.)

And this brings us to the question of our freedom to consume wantonly. Am I free to drive whatever I can afford? Sure. But does what I choose in freedom eliminate the freedoms of another? If so, then it is not true freedom I have exercised, not as it is illustrated by the One who made us.

In a recent study (“Impact of Regional Climate Change on Human Health”, undertaken by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the World Health Organization, the leading author, Dr. Jonathan Patz declared, “Those least able to cope and least responsible for the greenhouse gases that cause global warming are most affected.” The WHO estimates that at least 150,000 deaths are directly related to the effects of climate changes every year. And of course, as global warming continues its rise, the WHO estimates this figure could double by 2030.

The major effects of global warming contributing to mortality are heat waves, droughts (that bring crop failure) and infectious diseases. When we think of heat waves, we usually think of the scorching heat found in deserts or the shirt-wringing damp humidity of the tropics. But in August 2003, TIME reports that twenty thousand Europeans succumbed to the heat. (See the April 3, 2006 issue for a special report on global warming that details the destructive cycle of greenhouse gasses.)

TIME reports that a “predicted consequence of global warming is heavier downpours, leading to more flooding” which leads to a “larger issue of water quality.” Flooding and unclean water affects the spread of malaria, diarrhea, cholera and dengue fever—all diseases we rarely hear about in the U.S., but are killers in the developing world.

Since they are considered so environmentally friendly, some might opt (in their freedom!) for a hybrid or even a new hybrid SUV. However, you may want to consider the words of Jamie Lincoln Kitman, a professional car-tester and columnist who recently wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (“Life in the Green Lane,” April 16, 2006). A recent Lexus hybrid SUV was rated at 21 MPG, not particularly “brilliant efficiency-wise—hybrid or not.” The Toyota Prius, according to Kitman’s and Automobile Magazine’s tests, whose miles is around 40 per gallon around town, plummets on the Interstate. “In fact, the car’s computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted,” writes Kitman. He concludes that a Corolla, costing thousands less, would have been much more conservative on gasoline. (And think what could have been done with the saved money?!)

So what are we left to—walking, bicycling? Well, a little more of that wouldn’t hurt. As individuals, we are not called to change the entire world ourselves. But what is our part? Can I do my small part, whatever that may be. Not because it makes me feel good, but because I love my neighbor.

Our choices affect others. They are never merely “personal (read: private) choices.” In the end, we are free to choose. But let us consider choosing for the other—for our neighbors.

Click here to read more of Carolyn's column on "Who is my neighbor?"

"Worthy" Poor

2006-05-01T18:57:00.000-07:00

Today millions of people took a break from work, school, and consumption to take part in "A Day without Immigrants" in an effort to show what a large part immigrants, legal and illegal, play in the U.S. economy and society. RJ and I went to work (out of practical considerations that it would be very hard to reschedule our appointments with the students we tutor--and also because we couldn't afford financially to take the day off), but we decided to support the protest and boycott in our own way. We wore bottons "God's Love has no borders" and made stickers to offer to our colleagues with the same message as well as "Remember our past: USA is a nation of immigrants."

I offered the stickers to one colleague that I greatly respect. I was surprised when she declined the stickers, saying that she does not support the current protest. Her parents were immigrants, but they came in legally even though they had to wait a long time. (To be sure, my colleague recognizes the complexity of the situation and part of the reason she does not support the protest is because she feels that legalization would not solve the problem.) The distinction she makes between legal and illegal immigration and her sentiment that the laws of the land ought to be respected is one that has been voiced often in the recent debate.

I was meditating on Luke 4-6 the other day and it struck me that one of big questions that Jesus raises in both the episode in the synagoge (Luke 4) and in the Sermon on the Plain is "Who is worthy of God's generosity?" Jesus made the answer crystal clear: God's good news is not just for the worthy poor. In fact, his answer was so clear that his Jewish listeners wanted to throw him off the cliff for suggesting that God's news was for unworthy Gentiles, even those who participated in the oppression of Israel. In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus exhorts us to love our enemies and bless those that persecute us, because our Father in heaven is kind to the wicked and ungrateful. (I would even argue that the rest of the Sermon on the Plain make it clear to anyone who is honest with themselves that the wicked and ungrateful are not "those people" but also ourselves.)

Jude Tiersma Watson, a professor at Fuller, writes about at-risk youths what I feel about illegal immigrants:
"Compassion comes easily when we think of innocent children on their own in a cold, harsh world, victims of poverty and war, or victims of the bad choices of their families, or victims of bad choices by society. But what if that at-risk youth [is]... covered in tatoos, packing a gun, recruiting younger kids into the gang? Everyone [wants] to help the "worthy" poor, the "worthy" child-at-risk, the hardworking and chaste widow... But who of us is truly worthy? Since when has the gospel been for the worthy?"

My family and I are legal immigrants. My father could obtain student and then work visas because he was highly educated and possessed skills that the U.S. economy needed. Are we more worthy to be American citizens (which we are now) than the unskilled workers who could not obtain legal entry because they did not have economic and educational opportunities?

No one leaves their country for the heck of it. Immigration, even legal immigration, is a hard road that people take counting the great cost. In the past this country has opened doors for legal immigration for those fleeing oppressive government regimes such as Cuba and China post Tiananmen Square. But other people have not been so fortunate--the US has participated in supporting, perpetuating, even installing oppressive regimes and economic environments in their country, yet they did not get asylum. The best option available to them was to cross the border illegally; many died in this attempt and even those who were successful live under abuse and fear. These illegal immigrants may be the unworthy poor, but God's good news is also for them.

More food for thought:
Read about one family's story of immigration.
Learn more about various issues involved in immigration.
Read articles by Doug Massey, professor of sociology and public policy at Princeton:
--- "Backfire at the Border": Why Enforcement without Legalization cannot stop Illegal immigration.
--- Longer article on U.S. immigration policy after NAFTA, the logic of immigration, and his analysis of the Mexican immigration situation.

"Bothered by the Cross"

2006-04-30T15:43:00.000-07:00

I just read a reflection article "Bothered by the Cross" by Deana Murshed that seems both appropriate to consider given the discussions on atonement/redemption on this blog as well as its timely implications for the current debate on immigration. Here are some excerpts:

I remember that as a child, the idea that Christ died on the cross and rose again for me - though it was repeated over and over again and I so desperately wanted to believe it made sense - seemed odd. But I think it was repeated often enough, that eventually, I just came to accept it. After all, the answer to almost any question in Sunday school was easy: "because Jesus died on the cross!"

So, somewhere along the road, I took it for granted that Christ lived, died, and rose again. Somewhere, maybe after I had responded to the sixth altar call - just to make sure God had duly noted my belief - I had heard it enough times to think I had this mystery of mysteries settled.

But every now and then, I come back to that place. Really, what in the world does this mean? Christ died on the cross. It is so easy to hear now that the absolute foolishness of it - and I mean that in the best possible way - simply ceases to amaze me.

But liturgical cycles are good for that - making you not forget any part of the story and asking you to revisit each station, as it were. One passage has been coming to mind (from John's gospel):

"Jesus replied, 'The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life'" (12:23-25).

The version of the Bible called The Message states the last verse this way: "In the same way, anyone who holds on to life just as it is destroys that life. But if you let it go, reckless in your love, you'll have it forever, real and eternal."

The part that really struck me recently (though I've surely heard it read a hundred times) is that the dying of the grain is not for the resurrection of the seed itself. No, the grain dies so that it can produce and reproduce life. The passage says, unless a seed falls to the ground and dies it is no more than a single grain.

The answer as to why the grain needs to die is for it not to remain alone. In other words, Christ died so that he could bear more Christs and grow his reign!

Though this way of living for others seems like such a radical (re)orientation, all of creation seems to be screaming this message. Every part of the wheat is living for the spread of life, wants there to be more wheat. The most basic cycle of nature reflects the divine order.

It is simply astounding, when I think about it, that the God of creation does not live for direct self-satisfaction! The God of creation who has all power and all might is in constant submission to another purpose. And God is inviting us to follow.

[This] goes against every grain of my self-preserving being. And it looks nothing whatsoever like our capitalist culture, which encourages us to think the opposite - both economically and morally. The world says that if each individual seeks out his or her own personal fulfillment, we will all ultimately benefit. But the gospel compels us to seek the benefit of others with no guarantee of anything in return.

This is a terrifying invitation that should bother us.

Click here for the full article of "Bothered by the Cross."

Christianty as Transformation

2006-04-28T15:50:00.000-07:00

"I do believe in God, but how do we know Jesus is God?"

Reading and responding to several posts on this blog, particularly "The Way, the Truth, and the Life" and "If I saw you in Heaven," as well as two papers I wrote for class and numerous conversations I've had recently, got me thinking about something—that ultimately, no one is convinced of the truth of Christianity, or that Jesus is God, by logical arguments or even scientific/historical evidence; rather, we become Christians because we experience the power of Jesus as God in some way or we hear a story of transformation through Jesus in another and desire the same for ourselves.

Franciscan father Richard Rohr came to speak at Fuller last week. He commented that Western Christianity—both Catholicism and Protestantism—has for the most part turned Christianity into a belonging system from the transformational, experiential system that it actually is.

If Rohr is right, then we cannot only explore the question "Is Jesus God?" through intellectual bantering. I propose an experiential experiment: that we read Scripture assuming that it is truthful, we respond to what the Scripture says by practicing it in the events of our day as the opportunities arise, and see what happens—perhaps we ourselves will experience transformation beyond our expectations. Any adventurous takers?

Origins of Mankind

2006-04-27T08:54:00.000-07:00

I didn't come from monkeys!-
Squeamish high school children all across the country

The question of where human beings came from is one that people have been trying to answer for as long as there have been people. Civilizations from around the world have all attempted to answer through mythology and superstition. The Akkadians believed that humans came from the droplets of blood of the slain Tiamat during the war between the Gods. The Greeks believed the Gods had created them for toil and misery, as playthings for themselves. The Hebrews believed that God had created them out of the dirt to inhabit paradise, from which they were later expelled for disobedience.

Putting these myths aside, where can we say that humanity truly comes from? I've asked myself that very question and could only come up with three possible answers.

1) Over a process of billions of years, our sun was born out of stardust, after which its gravitational pull and the gravitional pull of the universe in general allowed for the creation of planets which began circling around said sun. after several more billion years, one of these planets developed an environment which allowed for the creation of the most basic elements of life, and little by little, step by step, eventually the cell was born. After this, it was only a matter of time before the cell began to live in clusters and eventually formed multicelled organisms. Then, long story short, we came from monkeys.

2) This second scenario is very much like the first. Excepts you have to move it far into the future and assume technology has allowed for space travel. So, extraterrestrials find earth, and the decide to either, a) form a colony, or b) interbreed with the lifeforms they find, or c) do genetic experiments to create a new more intelligent species on the earth, which are us. So, long story short, we came from space monkeys.

3) Or, we were created spontaneously overnight by some supernatural force in another dimension (God). But, it has to have been more than two, like in the Genesis story, because we know what inbreeding can do (look at the royal house of spain in the 17th and 18th centuries). Sorry folks, no monkeys.

I wish I could come up with another explanation. Edgar Cayce said that we all existed as spiritual being first, after which out of curiosity we chose to inhabit physical bodies that already existed here on this plane. But the joke was on us, because after awhile, we got stuck! and the only way to leave again was through death. This however tells us nothing about the actual origin of the physical bodies.

Ancient Writings

2006-04-11T17:31:00.000-07:00

This is an ancient Sumerian poem recently translated from a cuneiform tablet

"Remember those days of greatness and
wisdom, when a man could speak about his thoughts without
covering himself with the darkest of curtains?
Since the sun faded away I no longer see a place of rest,
even fresh water seems to whisper violence in its own language.
I will never trust a God who doesn't like to be questioned.
Remember those days of healthiness when a man could smile and have a smile back for his joy.
They put the sky inside a vessel and the smiles fades with the last sunset above this land.
I lost my faith in the morinig of my childhood, I lost my fear when I saw the end coming, tonight there is only me and the thought of you.

Tonight there is only me and the vision of two green jewels, those emerald eyes.
Tonight there is only me and the silver moon, that moonlight skin.
Tonight there is only me and the soft lotus breeze, your smell of queen.

Heat that burns the earth dries the rivers of blood, like an incense of death.
The blind and the foolish will live for their emptiness, ah, those hollow spirits.
So strong I am, Ah, My strength stands for the thieves of my world, the fool and the blind, they leave no place fro me on this earth.
Songs of peace to the new end that just begins.

I am coming home, oh, I am coming.
The home that was never there.
I am coming home, the home that never was.
The hime that never knew my name, I am coming.
To the place that was never there, home.
Through the door that is never open.
Open sky, my home, guide to the house where my name was forgotten.

You forgot my name, I forgot my heart.

I am coming home, in search of my heart.
The heart calls for me, beats for me, lost among the dead.
I am looking for my heart, the one I cannot feel to find.
I lost my heart, the one who is afraid to find me.
I lost myself, the soul of me, the one I do not remember.
Was it my heart, was it my fear?

I do not fear, I do not feel.

Tonight there is only me and the vision of twe green jewels, those emerald eyes.
Tonight there is only me and the silver moon, that moonlight skin.
Tonight there is only me and the soft lotus breeze, your smell of queen.

Tonight there is only me and the promise that my name will not be spoken.
Tonight there is only me and the promise that your eyes will never wish to find me.
Tonight there is only me and the promise that I will never touch your skin.
Tonight there is only me and the promise that I will never return home.

Sleep oh Goddess sleep.
You, who will never wonder where I am.

Sleep oh Goddess sleep.
I pray for you,
For you never to remember.

Sleep oh Goddess; I sleep.
Lost in the vision of the twe green jewels, those emerald eyes.
Upon the silver moon, that moonlight skin.
Following the soft lotus breeze, you smell of queen."

The Way, the Truth, and the Life

2006-03-07T11:12:00.000-08:00

"'My father, who has given them [sheep] to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them [sheep] out of my father's hand. I and the father are one.'" (John 10: 29-30)

"'Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, tht you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.'" (John 10: 37-38)

Jesus claims to be God. He even uses the scriptures to support his claim, "'Is it not written in your law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came.... what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?" (John 10: 34-36)

The Pharisees want to stone him for this blasphemy. But, like in so many other places in the text, they do not understand what he is trying to say.

The passage that Jesus quotes to justify his saying that he is God is Psalm 82. In this psalm, presumably the author is writing about human judges who give poor judgment because they "defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked" Behind their bench, as it were, they sit as if they were gods, but in the end, they will "die like mere men, you will fall like every other ruler." Why would Jesus choose a passage that shows disdain for men such as these to describe himself? Is it because even those that think of themselves as God die in the end? Or is it because his view of himself as judge of the world?

In another passage Jesus again speaks of himself as God "Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" (John 14: 8-11) In this passage, Jesus does not specifically say that he is God, but that anyone who has seen him has seen God. This makes sense in light of his analogy of the sheep and the shepard. Jesus says "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep." If God is the sheep pen, can it not be said that someone who has stood at the gate has seen the pen? Let us take a different approach to this. At least twice Jesus says that the way we know that God is in him is because of the miracles he performs. So, one who has witnessed his miracles has also witnessed God?

Does Jesus ever literally say that he is God, and that we should take that to mean exactly that, that he IS God? In John 15: 5, Jesus says "I am the vine, and you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit." These are the same words that Jesus uses to describe his relationship with the Father. "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." So is he trying to say that I am Jesus, because he is in me? I am 100% Jesus, and 100% myself in some kind of incomprehensible and inexplicable duality? Can I now say "If you know me, then you know Jesus"? I believe that this is a ridiculous notion, but if it can be said that Jesus is God because God is in him, then I am also Jesus, because he is in me.

Jesus' own words make another point for the argument that Jesus does not mean for us to take him literally when he says that he is God. "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my father." (John 16:25) this quote comes from near the end of the Gospel. Can we assume that everything before it is figurative?

In none of the other Gospels does Jesus claim to be the Father. He often speaks of himself as the Son, the Son of God, the Son of Man, or as a representative of the will of the Father. Only in John does the issue of him actually being the father is brought up, but Jesus is always speaking figuratively about it. Why should we take these few passages of Jesus, the man who always spoke in parables and metaphors, and take them literally when we don't for any other passage? Jesus never really claimed to be God.

If I saw you in Heaven

2006-03-06T04:05:00.000-08:00

What is heaven like? The portrayal of heaven in accordance with the Christian bible is presented beautifully in the book Travel Guide to Heaven by Anthony DeStefano. Heaven is not some place in another dimension, nor is it up in the clouds somewhere. Heaven is right here where we are now. Also, heaven is not some hazy dreamlike place, of impossibly bright whites everywhere, where we reside in spirit only, but an actual physical place, with all the colors; green and blue, etc. The body we are born in and die in is the same body we will reside in in heaven. However, God will make it better. This is how it works. On the day of the last judgment when Jesus returns, that's when we get the eternal life that had been promised us, with all the joy and feasting. But not everybody will get it. Those who did not live "in Jesus" will be thrown into the fire. But everybody else will get their physical ressurection as promised. What about the time in between our deaths and the coming of Jesus? As you know, the spirit and the flesh were created as one, and cannot be separated one from the other. Will he then let us linger in a state of nothingness for however long it takes him to return? No, because in our death, it is like sleep, where we dream peacefully until the time comes, which regardless won't be long, because for God "One second is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like one second."

This is the view of death promulgated by the New Testament, and thankfully, most people today, including Christians, have adopted a completely different view of the afterlife and heaven. However, I argue that even the standard view which we derive from the text is wrong, not only because perhaps we can get a different interpretation, but also because modern messengers of God and other miraculous signs have shown it to be wrong.

In his ministry, Jesus raised several from the dead. In one particular episonde (Luke 8:40-56) Jesus raises a twelve year old girl who had died while Jesus was on his way to heal her. Her family is in tears, but then Jesus says "she is not dead, but asleep." As the passage reads, "he took her by the hand and said 'My child, get up!' Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up." This passage implies that the spirit had left the girl's body. And if it left, where did it go? It might be said that she had already entered her dreamlike state, but that theory never says the spirit has to leave the body.

Jesus himself dies at the end of all four gospels, and in all four gospels, his body disappears from the tomb. Later on, in Matthew, Luke, and John, he appears again before his apostles and other witnesses. In John, he even eats a meal of fish and is touched by all of his apostles. This proves that he had a physical ressurection, and was not just a ghost. Then at the end of Luke, "whle he was blessing them, he left then and was taken up into heaven." (Luke 24:51) What!? This poses a little bit of a problem. The part of the trinity that is man, Jesus, would also need a body for the ressurection. He's the son of God though, so he gets special treatment. He gets to rise early, before his second coming (heh heh). So, we have his phiysical resurrection.. But how can he ascend into heaven, if heaven is right here? God must have his own home, separate from humanity, while they bide their time in preparation of the second coming. For the sake of being able to refer to this place, let us call it Mt. Olympus. So, Mt. Olympus, where God resides, and where Jesus is with him, (or in him) is someplace else altogether. So, while Jesus is on Mt. Olympus eating Manna and drinking wine, the rest of us sleep in our dark damp graves, (or as ashes somewhere for those of us who were cremated, or as fish poop somewhere for those of us who drowned, or as nothing really for those of us who exploded) dreaming away, until he decides to return.

In the book 90 minutes in Heaven Don Piper tells us about his horrific death in a car accident, and his miraculous resurrection and recovery in the following months. Piper's car had been crushed by an out of control 18 wheeler. and he had been pronounced dead on impact. Both his legs were crushed (they never found part of his femur), his arms were at impossible angles, the steering wheel crushed down upon his chest, and he had suffered some head injuries. About an hour later, because traffic had been blocked up on the small two lane highway for miles, a minister, Dick Onewrecker, who had been in his car down the road walked up to the scene of the accident, and he said, "Officer, I am a minister. Are there any wounded I can pray for?" The Police told him two others involved in the accident were find, but the man in that vehicle was dead. While knowing that his religion told him to pray for the living and not the dead, still something inside of him told him to pray for the dead man. The police officer gave him permission, so he climbed into the back of the wrecked vehicle, put his hand on the man's shoulder, and began to pray, harder than he had ever prayed. He prayed and he sang for the stranger in the car. God was telling him to pray. And then, all of a sudden, the man, the dead man, began to sing along with him. The minister bolted out of the car, screaming "He's alive, he's alive!" but no one would believe him. Finally, he convinced one of the ambulance driver's to take a second look at the man, and sure enough, he had come back to life. The rest of the book tells us about his lond and arduous recovery, the visitations he had had with long dead loved ones while he was away, his glimpse of heaven and the never ending praise of God there, and how his experience brought light into the lives of so many people afterwards.

To me, the experience of this one man has done more for my spiritual beliefs and knowledge of God than reading the Bible ever can. The vision of Heaven and God rings so true, that I can feel it in my heart. In my opinion, the archaic imagery of the bible drives one further from God rather than nearer. Does Christianity still have a place in the world? Of course it does. If it didn't, then who would have prayed for Don Piper's soul?

Economic ethics: America on poverty

2006-02-01T18:33:00.000-08:00

Compassion International, a Christian child development organization, just released the results of their recent poll of Americans on poverty.

Among other things, the survey reveals that nearly 50 percent of church-goers have not heard a sermon on poverty in the past year. And 30 percent of people did not have an opportunity to serve the poor through their church.

"Caring for the poor is not optional, according to the Bible. Now is the time for churches to come alongside their congregations, share God's mandate for the poor and provide opportunities for people to put their faith in action and serve the poor," said David Dahlin, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Compassion International.

According to the poll, however, Americans are most likely to say that poor children overseas should be helped by their parents or their government, rather than by individuals in the U.S. Seventy-two percent of the respondents said governments of developing countries should take responsibility for the poor, while 64 percent said parents should be held accountable.

"Many Americans don't realize the dire poverty that families face in developing countries," Dahlin said. "Parents who do everything they can for their children find that, in many cases, it just isn't enough."

I am reminded of a phrase from the Martin Luther King, Jr. sermon that we just reenacted on the Fuller campus yesterday: "It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is a cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps."

Spirituality: "Adoration"

2006-02-01T11:26:00.000-08:00

I’ve been reading Henri Nouwen’s “The Road to Daybreak,” which is his journal leading up to his decision to join Daybreak, a community serving severely handicapped people. One of the themes that have come up a few times recently in both the entries I’ve been reading and in my own reflections is this: moving ourselves out of the center and let Jesus be the center.

In one entry, Nouwen describes a conversation with another priest, Father George Strohmeyer, in whom Nouwen recognized “a way of praying, being with people, caring, eating, drinking, sleeping, reading, and writing in which Jesus is truly the center.” Nouwen muses, “this would seem obvious for a priest, but such is not always the case. George has come to know Jesus in a way few priests have. When he pronounces the name of Jesus you know that he speaks from a deep, intimate encounter.” Moreover, this kind of life was not limited to priests, but also seen in many assistants (that care for the handicapped) in the community. Nouwen comments, “I know from [them] that this way exists and that I have not fully found it yet.”

Father Strohmeyer’s advice to Nouwen was “Be faithful in your adoration.” Nouwen reflects, “He did not say ‘prayer’ or ‘meditation’ or ‘contemplation.’ He kept using the word ‘adoration.’ This word makes it clear that all the attention must be on Jesus and not on me. To adore is to be drawn away from my own preoccupations into the presence of Jesus.”

Of late, as we’ve been reflecting upon the nature of worship, RJ has said (coming out of meditating on the psalms) that “we worship God for who God is”—the implicit statement is “not for what God does for us.” Yet as I was praying this morning I was wondering—what does it mean to worship God for who God is? How do we worship God for who God is? A traditional answer might be “we worship God because God is majestic and holy”, etc., and some people do make a differentiation between “praise” and “thanksgiving.” But if it is the case, as Dr. Anderson argues, that God reveals God’s self in actions and that is how we come to know God, then the two are hardly separable. Moreover, I have no conception what it means that “God is majestic”, etc.

Perhaps the distinction that we’re trying to make is not “worship God for who God is, not for what God does for us”; rather, it is “worship God for who God has revealed God’s self to be through what God has done, for all of us, not just for what God can do for me.” I think that we honor God when we recognize what God has done for us, but we make a parody of worship when we only focus on how I feel and what we desire God to do for me, myself and I.

Atonement: God Takes Responsibility

2006-01-31T12:03:00.000-08:00

(this is a continuation of the thread started by the earlier post,
Is Jesus' Death on the Cross Necessary?)

Here’s another piece to add to the atonement discussion, inspired by the lecture I just listened to on “the problem of evil”.

Typically “the problem of evil” goes something like this: “if God is good and powerful, how come there is evil in the world?”

Some (e.g. Billy Graham) would say that we should not blame God for the evil in this world, and the evil we experience post-Fall is the result of sin having entered the world through the Fall. Although this answer would satisfy some, others may then ask, “Isn't God ultimately still responsible for human sin since God created humans with the capacity to sin?”

First it is important to note that there is no answer to the philosophical question that is the problem of evil in the Bible. The Bible takes evil as a fact and God deals with it.

Dr. Ray Anderson suggests that God created a world with randomness, that even before the fall Adam and Eve could have slipped and fallen physically. And yes, God created humans with the capacity to turn their backs on God (sin).

The connection to the atonement question is this: If we are right to hold God responsible for the existence of evil in this world as the creator of this world and humans, what doe it mean that God takes responsibility for evil?

Dr. Anderson’s answer is that God takes responsibility for evil by taking evil upon God's self in Christ, so as to deliver, once and for all, humans from the power of evil.

So yes, God created humans with the possibility of evil, just as God created the world with randomness. But God has not abandoned us to neither evil (whether of our own choosing or that of others) nor the randomness of this world. God has taken responsibility for it 1) by suffering the evil with us 2) having victory over it in Jesus’ death and resurrection so that 3) we can trust that God can work for good in the midst of the evil we experience, in the psalmist’s words, to “turn our mourning into dancing.”

From the pulpit: Sunday worship service

2006-01-29T17:08:00.000-08:00

Amazing, but true: Sunday worship services in local congregations constitute the primary (and often sole) source of theological formation of the community of God. The formation of God’s people happens through congregational worship in the prayers modeled, lyrics sung, music played, and words preached. The various elements of the worship service need to be taken seriously. Ministers must take great care in their words and actions because everything that is said or done in the context of the worship service speaks to the nature and character of God.

The urgent need to consider the content of the worship service partly explains why this morning I was upset by the sermon this morning.

The text was 1 John 3. The preacher had two main points: 1) honor your faith and 2) love your brother and sister. Yet the meandering, stream-of-consciousness style of preaching, with illustrations that did not connect in any clear way to the message and superfluous comments, distracted the hearer to that message. Worse, the hearer (I, for one) could not help but be confused, even baffled, by the parade of unrelated elements.

Given the importance of the opportunity to form the people of God each Sunday morning, I find it difficult to imagine a more insidious act that to confuse (even mislead) the people of God from the pulpit.

The preacher, along with the rest of the ministers of the church, have two central purposes: one, to facilitate bringing the people into the presence of God (a matter of the heart), and two, to teach the people of God to develop their perception of heavenly realities (a matter of the mind). While the preacher in this case was very successful at facilitating the presence of the Lord, judging by the weeping and intense display of emotion of the congregation, I submit that the teaching component disastrously worked at cross-purposes with the text.

1 John 3 is not an easy text. It isn’t always clear how it is the word of God to us today. The task of the preacher is to communicate the text to us in a relevant way. In this case, the preacher insisted, again and again, that we are to follow “John’s” method of confronting those who are in the wrong, in sin, with a strong declaration of the truth. Rather than submitting, in the name of tolerance, to the prevailing ideas of the day, whether they be 1st century gnosticism or 21st century astrology, we are to declare forcefully the truth, without regard for how it will be heard because sometimes “you just need to tell it like it is.”

Is this what the text is saying? Where is the gospel in condemning others? Is confronting people with truth without being sensitive to their capacity to hear the truth, really what it means to “lay down our lives” for others (v. 16)?

It should be said that the Lord, in the Lord’s graciousness, often chooses to minister to the His people despite what is said or done during the Sunday worship service. I believe that this is what happened this morning. The people were touched by the Spirit of God, regardless of what was preached.

In this, I thank God for this mercy. And it reminds me that it is God who is doing the formation, the transformation of people into the likeness of His son. And God doesn’t just work during Sunday worship services.

Surprise me: By Fire or by Ice

2006-01-29T14:34:00.000-08:00

Man will never reach the moon, for such a quantity of gunpowder would be needed as to greatly injure the crew- children's book, 1926

Astronomer Nikolai Kardashev developed a system to describe the level of advancement of civilizations. Using his method, each civilization is categorized as type 0-3. A type 0 civilization is one much like earth, divided politically and still relying on fossil fuels for much of its energy. A type one civilization would be a people who have learned to maximize there planet's resources as a whole, can predict with great accuracy all naturally occuring weather patterns, and have learned to control major events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and green house gases. A type 2 civilization is one that has explored the far reaches of their own solar system, perhaps colonized or even terraformed other planets, learned to harness the power of the sun, and even sent exploratory missions out of their planetary system. A type 3 civilization is a master of its galaxy. It has explored and colonized hundreds of planets through interstellar travel, and is capable of things we cannot yet even fathom.

These are the categories that physicists use when thinking about alien civilizations. The world's to most celebrated physicists are Michio Kaku and Lawrence M. Krauss. When asked whether or not they felt that an alien civilization had visited our planet, they had different answers. To paraphrase Kaku, what would a type three civilization want with us? They could learn nothing from us. Any resource our planet may have they could probably find on an uninhabited planet and avoid the trouble of dealing with us. They have gotten to a point where we have nothing to teach them, and the only thing that might catch their interest is if we were on the verge of leaving the confines of our planet and colonizing a neighboring moon or planet. Kaku believes that the signal for this is the advent of the nuclear age. When a civilization discovers nuclear energy, one of two things happen. They either destroy themselves, of the advance to type 1 status. Which road the earth will travel down is as of yet undetermined.

Krauss, a science fiction buff, is a little more sympathetic to the idea of alien visitation, but is quick to point out the immensity of space as a barrier. In his book, Beyong Star Trek: Physics fr0m Alien Invasion til the end of Time, he discusses possible methods of acceleration that could be used in interstellar travel within our solar system, but the distance between solar sytems is far greater than we would imagine. However, he feels confident that any alien visitations to our planet would be friendly. "Given the kind of resources required to make that kind of interstellar voyage are so much greater than whatever one might immediately gain by plundering our planet, I doubt that anyone making the trip would initially be bent on conquering us."

Kaku and Krauss don't always agree on their theory's, but both would tell you that arriving here from some far distant planet would be a daunting task. However the reason for the visit might be so simple that the complex thinking mind of a physicist could never understand.

I recently read an article about scientists having discovered 27 new species of life in a cave in California. Taxonomists from all over the world eagerly anticipated studying them to determine how closely related they were to their surface dwelling cousins and to view what adaptations they had evolved from living in that cave. Why would human beings care about rare species of insect life found only in one cave in california? Curiosity is the answer. Why would aliens care to study humans? Because even if they had studied thousands of other sentient being in a thousand other planets, every one is different! We may even be like a time bubble. By studying us, they could see what their own civilization may have been thousands of years before. It's as if we humans had a chance to go back to the time when the great pyramids were built, and be able to study it firsthand. But, the difference between us and cave dwelling insect speicies, is that those insects will never come out of that cave, build their own cities, and rival us. They will always be just insects. We however, may one day rise up and explore the stars and encouter these aliens civilizations, not as specimens to be studied under a microscope, but as equals.

Atonement: Is Jesus’ Death on the Cross Necessary?

2006-01-21T16:04:00.000-08:00

What’s the point of the cross anyway? Saturday before last my church had a one-day retreat, to stress the need for unity, to discuss the options/opportunities the congregation has the freedom to pursue in the Lord, and to call the people to prayer and fasting.

Our time began in meditation and in prayer and the sharing of the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper encourages us to think of the significance of Jesus by using the language of the shed blood and broken body of Christ. We are to drink his blood and eat his flesh.

So I am to drink human blood and eat human flesh? Yuk. And somehow this is good news? I realized I felt uncomfortable, to say the least, with the idea consuming another human being.

I was puzzled too by the whole concept of crucifixion. How is it that the horrible, grizzly death of a man who lived two thousand years ago has any effect on my life today? Why is his crucifixion even necessary?

These are two distinct, but interrelated questions: how does the whole salvation/Christ died on the cross for my sins thing (what theologians call “atonement”) work and why is the atonement necessary?

Well, I began reasoning with myself (and a friend), how does the Bible talk about atonement? What answers has the church come up with to these questions?

It turns out that Scripture doesn’t have one way of talking about atonement, but uses several images or rather clusters of images: reconciliation/restoration and worship/cultic (blood) sacrifice are two, but there are others. The church has combined or ignored theses in trying to explain the why and how of Christ’s crucifixion.

Perhaps the earliest theory of atonement is ransom theory, which appeared in various forms in the early centuries of the church and was held most notably by Origen. It basically holds Satan holds us captive and demands a ransom for our release. Satan has been given authority over us because of our sin. God the Father bargains with Devil and gives Christ as a ransom payment to get out of Satan’s grubby hands. This view of the why and how of Christ death on the cross worked especially well in the context of early persecutions of the church and pervasive slavery. So according to ransom theory, the why and how are:

Why (is the crucifixion necessary?): Satan has taken us captive because of our sin
How (does Christ save us?): by serving as a ransom for our freedom

In the Middle Ages, in the aftermath of the adoption of empire of Christianity as the state religion through the Edict of Milan and the rise of feudalism, a new model emerged: satisfaction theory. Anselm (11th century) explained that the God’s honor had been stained by humanity’s rebellion and had to be satisfied. The medieval serf had insulted the feudal lord. Because of the extent of the offense, we are incapable of rectifying the situation. Only one who as never offended God (has never sinned) can satisfy God’s honor. Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection were necessary for the satisfaction of God and the forgiveness of sin.

Why: God has been dishonored by our sin
How: by satisfying God’s honor

Abelard, born only a generation after Anselm, rejected Anselm’s position, arguing that if God’s forgiveness is an act of grace, it must be freely given without demand for compensation. His idea became known as the moral influence theory. Abelard proposed that God freely chose to assume humankind’s sin and suffering of the cross, without the need to make satisfaction for sin. This sacrificial acts releases the springs of love inside of human beings and inspire right conduct. In this way the sinner becomes a new self.

Why: because of humankind’s sin and suffering
How: by awakening in us gratitude and love for God through Christ’s sacrifice

From the reformation to the present another view, penal substitution, has gained prominence. This view understands God to be the righteous moral judge who demands justice. We stand before the righteous judge having disobeyed his moral law. Though He would like to, God cannot pardon us without payment: that would not be just. Someone must pay the penalty. Christ is substituted and pays the penalty on our behalf. Thereby justice is done and God is free to forgive us without having to violate justice. Contemporary Western society, with its litigious bent, finds this forensic view very appealing.

Why: because God is just and demands punishment
How: through the substitution of Christ as penalty

Each of these theories provides an answer to the why and how of the crucifixion in ways that speak particularly well to their cultural context. They all elaborate on a shared conviction: that whatever humanity’s problem, the answer is Jesus Christ.

But if Jesus Christ is the answer, what is the question?

The variety of images in these historical theories give us permission to express the meaning of the cross in new terms, using language that touches us deeply, rather than one that disgusts and disturbs us, like drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a human-sized lamb.

What is the question? Undoubtedly it has to do with the state of human affairs. Some possibilities:

· How is it that the evil prosper and the righteous suffer? How can corporations who steal wages from their workers and lie to their stockholders continue to turn a profit?
· How is it that the political parties who have vowed to destroy the state win decisive victories in major elections?
· How can it be that I have committed myself to doing good and devoted my life to my family, yet I do not have enough to provide for them and myself?
· How come even when I know the right thing to do, I cannot find the strength to do it (Ro 7:18-19)?
· How can it be that that at a time when so many technical marvels free us from mundane chores, we feel that we have less time than ever and are unable to cope?
· Why can’t I enjoy life, even when the objective evidence suggests I should?
· Why am I so afraid all the time?

We sense that things are not as they should be. How can things go on the way they are? Who has the power to change of things for the better? The answer is Jesus Christ. Jesus dies on the cross to make things right again, to undo all the social evils and to heal our wounds. God in Jesus promises us that things will not always be this way. One day, the one with power and authority will also act justly, no one will be hungry or thirsty, we will be free to trust in God’s goodness totally, free to praise and to rejoice, without our fears and anxieties.

I’m still not sure how it works, but that’s OK. It’s a mystery. But at least it makes some intuitive sense: Jesus’ crucifixion somehow changes the created order to something new, something different, something better. This actually sounds like good news, unlike drinking blood and eating flesh. Armed with more communicative ways of understanding the cross of Christ I feel much more free to worship and praise Him.

Life and death: MY DESCENT INTO DEATH

2006-01-15T13:35:00.000-08:00

Howard Storm writes yet another personal account of a near death experience. Storm was an atheist who believed in oblivion after death, the cessation of being. His account differs slightly from the norm in that he describes his journey into a place of darkness, where unseen tormentors mocked and tortured him. In this state, he describes how an inner voice called on him to pray, even though he fought this notion, as he was an unbeliever most of his life. Finally in desperation he called out "Jesus save me!" with all his heart and how Jesus enveloped him in the light of God and brought him to Heaven. After reflecting upon his life and talking to beings of light, he was returned to earth where he had lain dying in a hospital bed in France, but was resurrected by a last minute operation.

Storm, who was an athest for most of his life, after several months of recovery from a perforated stomach and several other maladies, found himself coming closer and closer to God. Today, 20 years after his experience, he is an ordained minister and pastor at a church in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Although the 150 pages or so of his account are spiritually enlightening, at times Storm can come off as rather preachy. It is a good reminder that although God is perfect, his messengers are not, and his message often gets adulterated in its transmission. Storm tries so hard to corroborate his newfound religion, Christianity, to the experience he underwent, that he often fails to see the contradicitions in his own words. Also, his overemphasis on love/hate to describe the world is oversimplified and misses the mark. A better way to describe it would be selfless vs. selfish. When someone steals from you, or coerces you to do something wrong, it is usually not because the hate you, but because they are only thinking about themselves.

Storm covers the topic of the creation of the soul. He seems to imply that the soul is created in the womb, but if the "soul fails in the physical, it will go back to the source." Then he says "It may come back into this physical world or another." So, when it comes back, then the soul is not created in the womb? Or only the first time? He complicates things further when he talks about God and the creation of the universe. For God, there is not past, present, or future. He created everything at once, and he knows everything there ever was and ever will be. If he created everything at once, then couldn't we say that our immortal souls have been around since the beginning of creation as well?

In his time on the other side, the author also has an encounter with Jesus. In the Christian tradition, we are taught that Jesus is part of the trinity, son of God, and God incarnate. Storm asks him "Are you the son of God?" and Jesus says "Yes". In another chapter he talks about how the spirit of God entered the world through Jesus. This to me seems mildly deceptive. In what sense is Jesus the son of God? Was God married and his wife gave birth to Jesus? The truth is, we are all sons and daughters of God, because he created all of us. Also, a little bit of God is in all of us, so his spirit is present in all of us. Storm ran with the little bit of information that was given to him, and jumps to conclusions to help support the claims of the scriptures. I believe it's a matter of interpretation of the words. Is Jesus the son of God? Yes. Is the spirit of God fill Jesus? Yes, but not in the way we think.

Storm also is a bit preachy. It as if he's saying "you better start loving God or your not going to heaven!" (not a direct quote) Does he forget that he was saved from the depths of the abyss by Jesus himself? Does he also forget that if we are to love God, we should do it for the sake of loving God and not out of fear of being banished from his presence? Storm does make a good point though when he says "God love atheists, agnostics, murderers, prostitutes, thieves, drunks, drug addicts, homeless people, and liars. God abhors behavior that demeans and destroys Godliness."

Storm's account of his near death experience is not the first to describe the tormentors that he found in the darkness. Betty J Eadie, in her book "Embraced by the light", also describes these dark entities trying to keep her from fulfilling God's mission for her. But this place should not be mistaken for hell. We can call it hell, but without the connotations of the demons, Satan, fire and brimstone. This "Hell" is a place for the souls who have chosen to turn their backs on God. Their torment is having to live with eachother away from the light and goodness of God. A place for people who lived their lives so egocentrically and without compassion for their fellow man that even in death they reject God. But even here these people still have a chance to repent and accept God. However, some of them will never do so and there souls will disappear into oblivion.

The most touching part of the book was when several months after his surgery, Storm went to church for the first time. He was still weak and needed help getting from place to place, but he says when he was at the church, it filled him with such joy that he threw himself to the ground in tears in and act of submission to God. He saw angels dancing to the music of the choir (A gift he had since his NDE) and felt truly alive.

Economic ethics: Corporations are NOT people!

2005-11-09T10:02:00.000-08:00

During my break at work yesterday I was working on flyers for the Wal-Mart:The High Cost of Low Price movie screening that's coming up on campus. (Find a screening near you.) Someone we work with walked by and this was the conversation that followed:

C: "Shopping at Wal-Mart?"
Me: "No, we're showing an anti-Wal-Mart movie."
C: "Oh, poor Wal-Mart."
Me: (with incredulousness in my voice) "No, I don't feel sorry for Wal-Mart at all."
C: "They employ a lot of people."
Me: "Yeah, but they don't treat them very well." I went on to tell C how Wal-Mart works people off-the-clock (Wal-Mart has class-action suits against it by former and current employees for working people off-the-clock and through breaks in 30 states), how employees don't get health benefits, aren't allowed to unionize, and don't get paid the living wage (and in fact much less than the industry standard--Costco pays its workers 60% more than Wal-Mart does).
C: "Well, they don't have to work there. It's Wal-Mart's perogative to pay them whatever as long as it meets minimum wage."

"They don't have to work there"--the classic response. I could feel heat rising to my face before my brain could even register how upset I was. This is what got me, thinking about it this morning--WHY DO WE DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF CORPORATIONS (OVER AND AGAINST THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THEM) AS IF THE CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE?!?! Where did we get this idea? Corporations are NOT people! They don't have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Especially not when they are infringing upon the inalienalble rights of PEOPLE!

"They don't have to work there"--Wal-Mart is only the largest employer in the country! So we're going to deny the 1.6 million workers (just in the U.S.--nevermind the millions of workers in the Wal-Mart supply chain in the Majority world) a job that can meet the basic needs of their family SO THAT A CORPORATION CAN HAVE THE PEROGATIVE TO DO WHATEVER IT WANTS?!?! Who do you think needs defense more in this case? If Wal-Mart were a country, it would be China's eighth largest trading partner!

"We are not the technology. It should be our ... slave, the technology. But it's rapidly becoming our master in many areas, I think," Prince Charles said recently in an interview with ABC. The free market is suppose to serve PEOPLE--instead, it's become our master.

Economic ethics: Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price

2005-11-08T12:47:00.000-08:00

We (Rachel and RJ) are helping the Peace and Justice Committee at Fuller to host a screening of the new Wal-Mart documentary.

Unbelievably great review in Salon: "What makes the movie so powerful is the totality of the portrait, both in its details and its sweep. Most of these people are entirely unexceptional Americans from the working class or lower-middle class, believers in flag and country and God and capitalism, not left-wing activists or academics with some theoretical critique. Most of them believed in Wal-Mart, too, and were genuinely horrified to learn that its low prices depended on enforced poverty, whether theirs or somebody else's."

Trailer for Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
Interview with director Robert Greenwald and Ron Galloway, the director of "Why Wal-Mart Works and Why It Drives Some People Crazy."
Article: "How one Wal-Mart true believer was excommunicated for his faith in doing what he thought the company expected of him: crying foul."

Public theology: Christians in the American Revolution

2005-10-25T11:52:00.000-07:00

For my American Church History class reading report this week, I chose to read Mark A. Noll's Christians in the American Revolution, which seeks “to explain the internal nature and external consequences of four widespread and contrasting Christian response [the Patriotic Response, the Reforming Response, the Loyalist Response, and the Pacifist Response] to the crises.” Noll’s unstated thesis seems to contain these following arguments: 1) Christian response was by no means uniformly Patriotic; 2) Each of these four responses was as motivated by Christian conviction as any of the others; 3) The interaction of religious and political thought during the Revolutionary Period have lasting consequence on American political and religious landscape up to the present day.

Noll lays the groundwork by discussing Puritanism and the Great Awakening. Particularly helpful is his discussion of the Puritan synthesis of personal religion and a comprehensive view of the world: “[The Puritans] were convinced that a vital personal religion was the wellspring of all earthly good. They were equally convinced that all aspects of life, whether political, social, cultural, economic, or ecclesiastical, needed to be brought into subjection to God.” The Great Awakening “focused attention on the nature of virtue, both public and private. Social and political problems were not just idle curiosities but opportunities to apply truth to life.”

So far, this sounds to me very similar to the worldview of the Christian Right. What is fascinating, though, is that the heirs of the Puritans had two contrasting responses in the Revolutionary Period, that of the Patriotic Response and the Reforming Response. Noll characterizes the Patriotic Response as one which recognized the similarities between Whig and Puritan ideology, and the resulting merge was so complete that these Patriotic Christians saw the history of Israel being reenacted in the colonies. “The end result of this identification of Israel and the colonies was that the war against Britain could be fought for country and for God at one and the same time. The relative character of the conflict, or doubts about its rectitude or necessity, could be set aside if it were perceived as an ultimate struggle between the people of God and the hosts of darkness.” This comment struck me as particularly applicable to the recent Patriotic surge in the Church in the United States that has also conflated Christian values with pro-American values.

In contrast, the Reforming Response made the distinction between God’s righteousness and the righteousness of the American cause. Noll summarizes the reformers' message to the colonists: “If God favored the colonies because of the injustice of their complaint against Britain, then it must be equally true that God would chastise the colonies if they did not on their part repent of their offenses against God,” such as stifling of religious freedom of those outside the predominant state-established church and the evil of slavery. Having drawn the distinction between God's righteousness and the righteousness of the American cause, Reforming ministers were "free to call upon Americans to repent of their own evil even while acknowledging the seriousness of the grievances against Great Britain. Holly [a Reforming minister]’s religion did not take the place of his Patriotism, nor did it merge indistinguishably with that Patriotism. Rather, it transcended the Patriotic impulse in such a way that it participated in Patriotism without being captured by it.”

We have much to learn from these Reforming ministers in the Revolutionary period about how to stand up against injustice without being blind to the log in our own eyes. As Bible-believing Christians, we do indeed share many beliefs in common with our brothers and sisters in the Christian Right; they do want the world to be brought under God's reign of peace and justice. Knowing our solidarity, let us remind one another that God's righteousness stands in higher judgment over pro-American or our own political ideology.

Life and death: The Denial of Death

2005-10-21T00:50:00.000-07:00

In Denial of Death, the Pulitzer Prize winning work, Ernest Becker argues that the central and universal human neurosis is a denial of our own mortality, the dread of our own death. Since we cannot continue to function in our daily lives if we were to continously be conscious of our own mortality, we create an illusion, either positive or negative, to cope with our dread. In these illusions, we transfer our sense of self to the illusion. In positive transferance, the person views the world as a theater for “heroic” acts. The terror of death then acts as an impetus for this heroism.

I believe that Becker has rightly diagnosed the core human sickness—preoccupation with the self. We only need honestly examine our own thought-life to ascertain how wound up we are with our agenda. Pride, it has often been said, is the root of all other sorts of sin. Yet I would differ from Becker in terms of the motivation behind our egocentricity. I would place the accent not on the fear of death but the desire to become self-actualized apart from relationship with God.

When our ancestral parents ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they asserted that they felt they could attain greater satisfaction apart from God than in relationship with God. This is probably not how they interpreted their actions. Nevertheless, the effect of their decision—and each of us make this choice in a variety of ways—was a separation from God. The quest for the recovery of the connection with God characterizes the human condition.

Spirituality: Teach us the way that we should go

2005-10-15T22:02:00.000-07:00

How can we approach others and describe to them the benefits of a relationship with God if we ourselves are not experiencing these benefits? When I was in living in DC, involved in CareerCorps, a ministry to young, urban 20-something professionals, I experienced some ecstasies of the Lord’s presence. Since I’ve been in seminary, the experiences have been toned down. Yet, I have not ceased to experience God in my life. Only the ways and means that I experience God have changed.

This is to be expected. God is a person. We do not expect the people in our lives to always interact with us the same way. If we are healthy, we expect to grow, to become more adult, to mature in our character and our thinking, with each passing year. Why would we expect God to be stagnant, like an object?

Clearly, I have been influenced by Pinnock and the scholars of the openness of God perspective. They hold that the idea of “omni” God—omnipotent, omniscient, etc—is neither Biblical nor helpful. Instead, it is a view of God infiltrated by Platonic concept of the world of forms.

The practical question for me here is how do I minister to someone who does not feel God’s grace, mercy ,and forgiveness, even though they accept these things as ontological (actual) realities? What do we do when a redeemed people feels the burden of guilt weighing them down? Rachel Lei, my fellow blogger and student at Fuller Theological Seminary, suggests writing a list of all things you're thankful for in your life. “This has helped me immensely when I felt that God was no longer part of my life. I was amazed when I realized how much God’s presence in my life has to do with those around me.” This seems like an excellent place to start.

From the pulpit: Gay Pastors and Priests

2005-10-07T11:14:00.000-07:00

The Vatican is set to release documents that would ban gays from entering the priesthood, even if they are celibate. The Roman Catholic Church is but one of the many segments of the church are clamoring for the acceptance of homosexuals to the ministry of word and sacrament—that is, to be members of the clergy: Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and the free churches are all involved in this discussion. At stake for conservatives on this issue is morality; for liberals the debate centers on individual freedom. How should we think about homosexual ministers? What’s wrong with being gay and lover of God and wanting to serve as pastors and preachers?

The argument against homosexuals in ministry often stems from a genuine desire to remain faithful to the Bible. And the Bible defines homosexuality as a sin, they argue. The case seems to be a strong one. Several biblical verses condemn homosexuality directly (Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10). Moreover, the homosexual lifestyle stands in contrast to the sexual pairing between man and woman set down as a model in Genesis 1-2.

These exegetical arguments, however, fail to recognize the cultural meaning of “homosexuality”. The homosexuality condemned in Scripture is not the type of homosexuality found in our society. The word translated “homosexuality” never denotes a monogamous, life-long homosexual pairing. These arguments also fail to reconcile the meaning of these few verses with the broad sweep of the Biblical narrative: the story of God extending grace and mercy to whoever calls on his name, forgiving them for their wrongs, and wooing them into a love relationship with Godself.

Opponents of gay ministers stress that ministers must be “above reproach” (1 Tim 3), pointing out that homosexuality is a grave sin, a cancerous sore that must not be allowed to inflect the rest of the congregation. In truth, all sin is “cancerous”. The distinctions made between severities of sin (venial sins, moral sins) are not Biblical distinctions. “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men [and women], because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). Sin is sin. In insisting that the homosexual feeling be a disqualifier for entering the ministry, we are effectively elevating sexual sin above other sins.

Why should this one type of sin bar someone from entering the ministry? The answer probably lies in our culture's out-of-proportion sense of sexuality coupled with an underdeveloped sexual ethic within the church. Whatever its origin, this inordinate amount of attention devoted to sexuality has squeezed out the center of Jesus’ ministry, the in-breaking of the kingdom of God. Somehow caring for the poor, the weak, the helpless, the continuing work of Holy Spirit in our world, has fallen by the wayside. We have decided that the sexual orientation of a person has more weight than a heart for the kingdom in choosing our ministers.

How then should we deal with those who are openly gay and want to enter into ministry? A young, anonymous priest interviewed on Fresh Air with Terry Gross provided a helpful suggestion. “Assign a spiritual guide or director to each man entering into seminary. The director would be charged with the holistic spiritual care of the seminarian, helping them not only in their sexual struggles but with all aspects of the spiritual life.”

Would anyone choose to have sexual desires for someone of the same sex, especially in our radically judgmental society? I don’t think so. I believe our brothers who have a strong sense of God’s calling into ministry should not be excluded from pursuing that calling because of their struggle with sexual desire. I am acutely aware of my own sinful thought life. Yet, through faith I can see that my acceptance into God’s community is through God’s grace, which covers over a multitude of sin. It is not my own holiness that qualifies me for ministry, but the transforming experience of God’s grace and the calling within a community of faith to serve the people of god. How then can I ban others from ministry because of their struggles with sin? Those who would ban gays from becoming pastors and priests would do well to first consider if they should like their own holiness, rather than God’s mercy and love, to be the basis for acceptance into ministry.

Personal: Laundry Day

2005-09-30T16:19:00.000-07:00

It’s Friday. Desperately needing to do laundry I, of course, neglect it all morning. And part of the afternoon.

It’s amazing how tasks that you’ve been putting off for days or longer suddenly take priority when faced with undesirable choir. Though we haven’t had salt or pepper in my apartment for two weeks now, I just had to go get some. “Target” I thought (or targhetto or tarjay, if you prefer either). “But shouldn’t I be using my time to email potential profs I’d like to work with next year? Or practice my sermon on Jephthah for this Sunday one more time? Or expand my admission essay to include Antonio Gonzalez’s discussion, as I’ve been meaning to do for six months now?

“No, I think I’ll go to Target instead.” I actually said out loud, though I am quite sure I was alone. After looking around the apartment, plastered with the incongruent paintings of a couple alone in a badly light room and some red umbrellas planted on a sandy peach, I confirmed that I was alone. I was officially talking to myself.

Though I could have walked to Target I, of course, drove. Welcome to California. I zoomed off to Target and then returned, pulling into the apartment complex’s umpteen car garage.

The garage stank of spilt lime and milk that had turned. The door to the lobby was propped open. I went inside and caught a glimpse of the row of mailboxes. I dreaded checking the mail, since I mostly get bills. The elevator was a the 2nd floor and would take a couple of minutes to arrive, so reluctantly I opened the mailbox, reached in, and fished out a package in a manila envelope address to moi.

I looked at the return address: Logan, UT. I don’t think I know anyone from Utah. Perhaps I ordered something over the internet that I’ve forgotten about. By then the elevator had arrived. Three short, pudgy dudes with vacuuming equipment stepped out speaking Spanish. I greeted them with a Cuban-accented “buenas tardes”. They looked at me as if I spoken ancient Greek.

No matter. I bounded into the elevator and seeing a fellow neighbor coming in from the garage, I held the door. She was a tallish blonde, middle-aged, with a grill in tow. “Good day for grilling,” I offered. “I just got this on sale for 40 bucks!” she exclaimed enthusiastically. “A great deal,” she confirmed to herself. Indeed. Finding not much else to say we mutually ignored each other as the remaining seconds crawled on. “Have a good evening,” she said over her shoulder as she got off on the second floor. “You do the same,” I replied.

I jogged to my door, pulled the door in as hard as I could while I turned the key (its finicky: unless you do that, it feels like the key will break as you turn it) and was inside. I wondered if someone was trying to send me anthrax through the mail, but shook the thought out of my head, thinking “that’s so 2001”, and opened the package. Inside was a book entitled Life After Life by Raymond A. Moody, Jr. It took me a moment to realize I had not ordered the book: someone must have sent it. The most likely candidate: my brother.

So, lah, I leave this message to you, and all else who care to read it, to let you know that I have received your book. My laundry, however, remains unfinished.

Economic ethics: Katrina abroad

2005-09-21T22:48:00.000-07:00

The U.S. has faced public ridicule from other countries, both enemies and allies, for our mishandling of the aftermath of disaster. A U.S. official (NPR piece), when asked about how this effects view of U.S. as a superpower abroad, responded that the two cornerstones of American power—a solid economy and by far the greatest military in the world—remain intact.

The comment strikes me as a refuge of an unrepentant person, a reassurance of a position of arrogance. The U.S. has an opportunity to learn a powerful lesson—that no amount of economic or military might can provide safety and security of a people. Instead of placing her trust in nuclear weapons or more growth, the nation must turn to God, the sustainer of all things.

David ordered that the number of military-service ready men be counted, Yahweh condemned this assessment of Israel’s military strength (2 Sam 24). When Gideon gathered to himself 40,000 men to lead into battle against the Moabites, God reduced the number of soliders, by the way the drank water, until only 300 men were left. Initially Gideon had too many men for the Lord to deliver Israel (Judges 7?). Time and again, it was not Israel’s military might that saved her, but the work of the Lord. The Lord wants to wean Israel from her dependence on the outward signs of strength: Yahweh wants Israel to rely on Yahweh alone.

Could it be that the Lord is calling the U.S. to stop relying on the outwards signs of strength? Could Katrina be a wake up call for the nation to be reconciled to the God and walk humbly with God?

Surprise me: At What Point Have we Paid for our Sins?

2005-08-19T00:03:00.000-07:00

A sin is a crime against God. In our society, when someone violates the laws of the land, they are punished for such transgressions. Does God too punish, for our transgressions against him?

Hell is a place for the wicked. Hell is the correctional facility of God. Hell is the jailhouse for those criminals who have violated God's law. In our legal system, the punishment is contingent upon the severity of the crime. An illegal parking will cost you about $25.00. Driving without a license will cost you one night of confinement. Possesion of certain narcotics in small amounts might get you 30 days, and so on. But in Hell, all crimes have the same punishment. When the guy down the street buys himself a new mustang, and you say "I wish I had that car"; eternity in Hell. When a kid leaves his bike outside the store, and you throw it on the back of your pick up and take off; eternity in hell. When you see your neighbor's wife, and you think to yourself, "what a fine piece of ass, I'd like to stick it in her"; eternity in hell. When you tell your wife your going to work, but instead you go to her friends house and have your way with her; eternity in Hell. Living under this law will make you pray you were alive during Hammurapi's time.

But what is the point of Hell, and what is it's nature? If we go to hell, is it meant to reform us. Is it somewhere where we are sent to realize our mistakes, repent, and get put on the right track? Or once we are there, are we stuck there for good? Also, what is the nature of our punishment? Does the nature of what we endure there fit the sin we have committed, or is it just random torture, fire and brimstone, pain and suffering? If we were thieves, will we ourselves be robbed of all our possessions, if indeed we are entitled to any? If we committed murder, will we ourselves be mauled, mutilated, and strangled for all eternity? But the most important question, in what way does this satisfy God?

But in reality, Hell is not a place for sinners. All we have to do to gain our place in Heaven is believe in God, and accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Heaven is full of Good people who have accepted Jesus, and horrible sinners who have asked for forgiveness for all of their misdeeds. Hell is also full of good people, who never accepted Jesus, and and sinners who refused to ask for forgiveness.

So what it boils down to is this. It has absolutely nothing to do with sin. It does not matter how many people you have hurt. It does not matter how many people you have killed. It does not matter how much havok you have caused. Nor does it matter if you helped people, if you lived your life for others, if you sacrificed everything you had so that others around you may prosper. Because Hell is not a place for sinners. Hell is a place where they put away the insuboridinate ones. A place to keep the disobedient. Christianity is just a thinly veiled form of communism. If you are with us, you go to heaven, and if you are not, we will confine you to hell for all of eternity. We will imprison you, take your dignity, beat you down, and remove any trace of you from existence. That is what hell is, a political prison, like the one that Castro has, or Stalin, or Mao

Life and death: Have we lived Before?

2005-07-25T05:55:00.000-07:00

Dr Ian Stevenson set out to research this very topic. He travelled around the world who held belief in reincarnation and specific cases. His findings were published in the book Twenty cases suggestive of Reincarnation. One example from his work is that of a tribe of Inuits living in Alaska. In this culture, some of the elders would tell the Grandchildren of their future incarnations as their children. They would say to their grandchildren, "When I die and am reborn as your child, you will know me by this and that birthmark here and here." They would pass, and then years later when the grandchildren would have children of their own, they would be born with birthmarks in the exact places as foretold.

Although Dr. Stevenson spent many years researching and writing his book, he himself never committed to the idea of reincarnation. He was never fully convinced, thus the word "suggestive" in the title of his work. Even though many of the cases he came across might indicate reincarnation, he would not jump to that conclusion. What other explanations are there for this reincarnation phenomenon?

Reincarnation is the belief that each person has a spirit being. That spirit being continues to exist after we die, and either immediately after death, or after an uncertain amount of time, that spirit comes to inhabit a new body as an infant. However, in most cases, all memory of the previous life is kept hidden from the conscious mind of the new body, but the spirit mind retains the memories of all our lives.

As research by Dr. Stevenson and others shows, there is evidence that this might be the case. Certain religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism accept reincarnations as part of their belief system. Other theories however have been presented as explanation to what may be happening.

In her book Past lives, Future healing, renowned psychic and spiritual healer Sylvia Browne documents dozens of hypnotherapy sessions where a regression to an unresolved issue in a past life has led to healing of ailments that often doctors and therapists have given up on. Many of the doctors she works with are skeptical of the explanation given for the healing. They believe that during these hypnosis sessions, the subconscious minds of the clients make up stories to explain away certain aches and or pains, which allows them to cope with it. During the regression, Brown asks the patient to release all those negative memories into the white light of the holy spirit, so that all the excess baggage from previous lives won't affect us. One example is of a man who has suffered from chronic neck pain for years whom the doctors had said had no explanation. During his regression, he found he had been guillotined in a past life, and after saying that prayer, his lifelong neckpain disappeared, never to return. . To Sylvia, it doesn't matter if these are just stories the mind invents or if they truly are past lives, what's important is that the regressions heal.

Another possible explanation for this is similar to the cell memory of the previous example. I like to call it "genetic memory" cause it follows a similar idea. This theory says that when we are born, hidden inside our genes is the memories of all the ancestors in our family line. When we experience moments of deja vu, or the visions we get during a hypnotic regression, they are not past lives of our own, but those of our earlier descendants. My problem with this explanations, is that some people may have regressions to past lives where they were a black man living in alabama one hundred years ago, when his family tree says his whole family came from Spain that far back.

A third theory may be that we tap into the collective unconsiousness that Carl Jung spoke of. Somewhere out there is a source of all knowledge, one may even call it the living memory of God, that human beings sometimes tap into. In this fountain of course is inscribed the experiences of every life that has ever been lived. When encountering such an unfamilar thing, one might believe that the knowledge comes from a past life we ourselves have lived, instead of this source.

One last explanation may result from psychic impressions left behind from our lives. You might call it a residue, and like the humidity in the air, perhaps sometimes it sticks to us. However, if this were the case, then any past life impressions we would have would all necessarily have to occur in the same area where we felt them, which is rarely the case.

These are some of the explanations people have come up with to try to explain the idea of Reincarnation and where it may have come from. If you can think of something not mentioned here, I would love if you would share it.

Life and death: Life after death

2005-07-21T00:10:00.000-07:00

The idea of monism (a final union with the universe) and reincarnation have become increasingly popular views to what happens after death in a culture that thirsts for spirituality but excludes the church as a possible source of thirst-quenching, living water. How do these popular ideas of life after death compare to the Christian idea?

Monism understands the culmination of life to be union with the divine reality. The monist view of God is quite impersonal: union with the “Absolute” entails a loss of personal distinctiveness. This differs from the Christian hope which envisions the consummation of life as a community among persons. A cosmic merging with the “a great collective personhood” (Stanley J. Grenz) destroys both personhood and community.

In reincarnation, the culmination of life is seen as a chain of rebirths. Reincarnation has some interesting commonalities with the Roman Catholic idea of purgatory: both deal with the continuation of perfection beyond death. The basic difference between reincarnation and Christian hope is that the ultimate end of the cycles of reincarnation depends on human effort. The “efficacious power for salvation rests with the individual” (Hans Shwarz). Reincarnation also fails to take bodily existence seriously: reincarnation treats the body as merely a vessel.

The resurrection in Scripture is always an embodied resurrection. The immortality of the soul holds that life culminates at death when the immortal soul discards the body and attains eternal blessedness. In contrast to the Christian hope of the resurrection, this suggest that immortality is “intrinsic to the soul, rather than being God’s gift” (Grenz). It also implies that the seat of sin is the body and that the body is irredeemable. The dualistic anthropology offered in this view is also contradictory to biblical understanding of the human person.

The essence of the Christian hope for life after death is the corporate resurrection of the righteousness who then live together in eternal community. As Schwarz emphasizes, since we are not endowed with a “natural” immortality, the Christian hope beyond death is the resurrection from the dead based on the “certitude” of Christ’s resurrection.

* This post originated from my own study of eschatology and conversations with lah this past June in Miami about the nature of the afterlife.

Providence: Theodicy, or the problem of evil

2005-07-20T19:35:00.000-07:00

The question of theodicy, or the problem of evil ("Why does God allow evil in the world?") has come up a lot this year. First, I took a class "Job and Human Suffering" (which began right after the tsunami); then, I had some fruitful explorations with my roommate Damaris about the role of suffering in Henri Nouwen's life; and now, I am in a class entitled "African American Spirituality", and given the history of oppression, the question of how to make sense of suffering naturally arises; (incidentally, we are exploring Job in this class as our Biblical backdrop).

As my Job instructor Professor Butler points out, theodicy is the triangle that connects three things simultaneously: God's power, goodness, and knowledge. Harold Kushner, the author of Why Bad Things Happen to Good People, answered the question by postulating that God is not all powerful--God is simply doing the best God can. Kushner calls the power vertex of the theodicy triangle into question. Recently some theologians have explored "open theism," which proposes, among other things, that God does not know everything. Other people have answered this question by rejecting God altogether because they question God's goodness if God allows evil in the world.

Two important theodicies are "free will theodicy" and "soul making theodicy". Augustine put forth "free will theodicy," which argues that God had to allow for the possiblity of evil if God wanted to give freewill to humans and angels. "Soul making theodicy", put forth by Iranaeus, argues that God allows evil to make it possible for humans to develop certain virtues. Both of these theodicies are fundamentally about the power vertex of the theodicy triangle. "Free will theodicy" paints a picture of a self-limiting God for the sake of free will, and "soul making theodicy" limits God by asserting that God cannot create good without evil. And frankly, both of these seem inadequate in the face of evils such as the Middle Passage or the Holocaust.

"Redemptive suffering" is an African American theodicy that is related to "soul making theodicy"; redemptive suffering asserts that suffering is itself evil, but God is able to bring a secondary good, a redemptive quality, out of such suffering. In my "African American Spirituality" class, we read Anthony Pinn's book Why, Lord? Pinn examines theodicy in African American theology as evident in spirituals and other forms of Christian religious expression. Pinn is troubled by the strand of "redemptive suffering theodicy" he sees in the African American church tradition. In Pinn's opinion, redemptive suffering gives value to suffering, and thereby undercuts the struggle for liberation. The following excerpt sheds light on why Pinn rejects redemptive suffering:

...the passion of Christ taught slaves that suffering has the power to transform situations when handled properly. Suffering can be redemptive, and suffering's redemptive nature is the slave's final response to [the question of] "theodicy." This line of reasoning, resulting from an identification with Christ's passion, suggests that suffering is a necessary prerequsite for redemption.... (p. 36)

In other words, Pinn is troubled by redemptive suffering as an idea because he believes it to imply that redemption requires suffering. Because Pinn believes that human liberation is more important than any religious system or symbol, he argues that anything that undercuts the project of liberation must be discarded, including the redemptive suffering of Christ.

Pinn's concern regarding redemptive suffering as a theodicy is thought-provoking and requires careful consideration. Pinn reminds us that we must not let any secondary good that comes out of suffering make us lazy in working for liberation. Yet, I do not believe Pinn's answer of Black humanism, a questioning/rejection of God's existence, is the only logical way to address the problem of evil.

Real life experience shows us that suffering can indeed build character. At the same time, we recognize that not all people who suffer become virtuous, and not all who are virtuous have suffered. To see the problem with Pinn's assumption that redemptive suffering theodicy makes suffering a prerequsite for redemption, one merely has to listen to stories of how people become Christians. Some people indeed come into a relationship with Christ because of suffering, because they've hit rock bottom. However, not all who hit rock bottom come into a relationship with Christ. Furthermore, not all who are Christians come into that relationship through suffering. Some, like myself, come into that relationship with very minimal hardship.

In addition, Pinn makes liberation his end-all-be-all. But what is the goal of liberation? As Dr. J. Alfred Smith pointed out in class, philosophers and theologians often concentrate on what we're liberated from, and neglect the question of what we're liberated into. In the New Testament, Paul says that Christians are liberated from sin, but that is not the end of the story--we have been liberated from the bondage of sin to become slaves of Christ. Liberation, as Dr. John Goldingay points out regarding the Exodus, is a way of God revealing Godself and forming a relationship with people--not an end in itself.

In our Job class, we saw that various answers to suffering, such as suffering is a result of sin, or it's to teach us something, are not invalid--they are indeed attested to in Scripture, but they are inadequate as a universal answer to suffering. Free will theodicy and soul making theodicy may have some support in our daily experience and in Scripture, but they are ultimately inadequate. It seems to me that a prepositional methodology falls short in answering the theodicy question, that only a narrative, such as the Christ event or God's salvation history, can hold the two simultaneous truths "God brings good out of suffering" and "God is the God who liberates" in tension without requiring God to have caused to the suffering in the first place.

There is an alternative to addressing the problem of evil. "Theodicies are often distinguished from defenses, which argue that it is reasonable to believe that God has reasons for allowing evil even if we do not know what those reasons are" (p.114, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion, IVP 2002). In our Job class, we concluded that this is the route the narrative of Job takes (it must be acknowledged here that not all agree that this is what God means in ch. 40:6-14--Kushner read the same passage and decided that God is saying "I'm doing my best, this is all I can do"). The theodicies offered by Job's friends, although valid in some situations, are inadequate and rejected by God for this situation. Rather, God shows Job that Job's knowledge is limited (ch. 38-39), and because of that, Job is not in a place to conclude that God is in the wrong for allowing him to suffer. God does not say what God's reasons are for allowing unmerited suffering, but God makes clear that God has reasons.

Perhaps, just as a previous post exhorted us to stick to our job of love rather than judging others, we may be encouraged to concentrate on our response to suffering rather than the uncertainties of why God allows suffering. This we do know, that God in Christ is the God of the oppressed, who suffered with the downtrodden and who actively works to bring good news to the poor and freedom to the captives. May that be true of us who call ourselves Christians.

Spirituality: The Responsibility of a Christian

2005-07-18T21:04:00.000-07:00

Once you have chosen to take up the mantle of Christianity, you can no longer live as if your decisions and your actions affect only you, because now you are a role model for the world. There are many who are of the faith, but few who live by the faith. As a Christian, you are a soldier of Christ, and people all around are watching you, waiting for you to fail. There are two types of actions in life, those that lead people towards the faith, and those that lead people away. If you call yourself a Christian, but through your actions you lead people away from the faith, then it is better for you to cast that title away, for you are not doing the work of the lord. It is better for you to be a mute in Christ than a boisterous proponent if your deeds are contrary to your words.

In the wave of newfound spirituality that has been spreading across America, atheists face harassment, loss of jobs, and rejection by their families and friends for openly denying their belief in the Christian God. (Atheism is defined by the current popular religion. For example, Socrates considered an atheist in his time, rejected the Greek pantheon, but did believe in God.) Of the 14% of people who classify themselves as having no religion, only about 4% are true atheists who have no beliefs. Many Christians have a false concept of how to deal with this. Many believe that God has ordered them to preach and spread the word so that all may be converted at all costs. Such is not the word of God. Once you have taught about your religion and how it works, that is all you can do. People must arrive upon their spiritual beliefs on their own.

I used to be an atheist. There were always that group of Christians who wouldn't talk with me. Some the would call me monkeyman or somesuch idiodicy. There were those whose church ordered them to not associate with me. In college, two Christians who lived in my dorm would constantly harass me, trying to get me to believe. When you see this kind of behavior, it makes you think, "Is that what it means to be a Christian? To torment other people's lives , to be so insecure in your own beliefs that EVERYONE around you must be converted? I do not want to be a Christian."

Do not let Christianity become a synonym for intolerance. Do not let Christianity become a synonym for gay bashing. Do not let Christianity become a synonym for hypocrisy. I have been in the shoes of the atheist, and although my beliefs have changed, (not because of constant haranguing by Christians, but because of my own personal spiritual journey) I will still defend to the death the right of the atheist not to believe. When you become a Christian, you have the ultimate responsibility to be a role model, not just with your words, but through your actions! Let your actions speak louder than your words.

Spirituality: Careful, Christian

2005-07-16T10:17:00.000-07:00

If I had to sum up the teachings of the Christ in one word, that word would be: Love. As a matter of fact, all of Christianity, in theory, can be summed up in that one word. How can one be a "good" christian you ask? Vety simple; Love thy neighbor, love thy brother, love thy enemy, love thy fellow man. Yet living up to this is harder than it sounds.

It is very easy to slip from this in daily practice. When somebody cuts you off in traffic, your immediate reaction might be "damn that mother@#$$%^&!" And then there are the more serious offences, like rape, violence and murder. Every sin under the sun stems from the same cause; Selfishness. The putting of you wants and needs above everybody else. The rapist puts his desire for sexual gratification above the respect of the sanctity of another's body. The one who commits acts of violence is under the false belief that taking out anger on another will make one feel better. Or worse yet, you are standing in the way of something that person desires, whether it be money, or a woman, or territorial gain. These things to this person become more valuable than your life, and they will think nothing of hurting you to get what they want. The murderer commits the most heinous of crimes against God. He believes himself greater than God, and that which God has created, he seeks to destroy.

It is hard to live by God's commandment to love considering such things. There is a lot of selfishness in the world. But remember, how many times should I forgive my brother? Seven times? No, not seven, yet seventy seven times. Living under the dogma that only some of God's children will see heaven while others are condemned can easily lead us to be too judgemental. It creates a caste system of saved, and not saved. And how much more difficult is it for us to love someone when we have a belief that they are going to a hell that we've created for them? But if God expects you to forgive your fellow man, then how many times will God forgive him? Seven times? Nay, not seven I tell you, but seventy seven! Leave the judging up to God, you just learn to love. When the wicked find themselves face to face with God, God's wrath will not make them repent, God's love will do that

Personal: On my own spiritual journey

2005-07-13T12:30:00.000-07:00

Lately I am realizing that my strong analytical tendencies have led to something of an imbalance in my own spiritual journey. M. Robert Mulholland Jr. brought this to my attention in his Invitation to a Journey. Mulholland applies insights from Jugian psychology in developing a model of spiritual wholeness and healing.

Mulhollnad's approach is strongly based on the four pairs of preference on how to interact with the world, extroversion (E) introversion (I), sensing (S) and intuition (N), thinking (T) and feeling (F), judgment (J) and perception (P). These are the same preferences used by the Myers-Briggs personality test. His thesis is that spiritual wholeness and well-being require spiritual practices that nurture our less preferred side. For me, a strong NT (regardless of results below), that means letting go during communal worship, raising up my hand and dancing and entering into a worshipful mood, though my tendency is half-heartedly sing as I wait for the sermon, the real “meat” of any service, to begin.

Mulholland’s basic insight is that there is a potential for disintegration if we developing a spiritual activities that are conducive to our preference patterns and neglect our “shadow” side (62). RL believes that the term “shadow” is a borrowed term from psychology. While we may seem to be advancing on our spiritual journey through a one-sided spirituality, ultimately this will begin to disintegrate from pressures from the shadow side (62). Mulholland wonders if this may explain why some Christian leaders have fallen into sexual misconduct: strong intuitive types who neglected their sensing-feeling side.

What’s your Myers-Briggs personality type? Take a test.

Jung Test Results

Extroverted (E) 51.61% Introverted (I) 48.39%
Intuitive (N) 60% Sensing (S) 40%
Feeling (F) 51.43% Thinking (T) 48.57%
Judging (J) 56.76% Perceiving (P) 43.24%

ENFJ

- "Persuader". Outstanding leader of groups. Can be aggressive at helping others to be the best that they can be. 2.5% of total population.

Free Jung Personality Test (similar to Myers-Briggs/MBTI)

Surprise me: I guess grammar isn't so bad

2005-05-26T11:28:00.000-07:00

I’ve been reading Steven Pinker’s The Language Instinct lately. He points out that the mind creates an internal, generative grammar—distinct from the grammar learned in textbooks and school. Generative grammar is an internal code that that correctly translates the order of words into thoughts (pp. 84-88). One consequence of this internal code is that grammar is autonomous from cognition, that is, we sense when a string of words that we can understand even though we sense the are out of sink with this internal code. Here as some goofy examples:

This sentence no verb.
This sentence has contains two verbs.
This sentence has cabbage six words.
This is not a complete. This either.

These sentences are “ungrammatical” in that they don’t conform to our internal grammatical code.

The idea of a generative grammar underscores that “stylistic” or formal grammar is only an attempt to explain the structure that already exists in the language. When we try to learn a foreign language, we lack this internal code, and can either learn it through concentrated diligent study or haphazardly through total immersion in a setting of the target language. Formal grammar study is a short-cut to obtaining this internal code.

Reel world: Why does Star Wars: Episodes III: Revenge of the Sith satisfy?

2005-05-20T21:46:00.000-07:00

Ah, symbolism.

Why does Revenge satisfy when the two other films in the prequels so often failed to please? This is part of broader perennial question: what makes a film great?

In Revenge, a large part of the answer deals with the emotional impact of the light-saber duels at the end of each Star Wars film. In Episode I, Darth Maul, an underdeveloped character, and Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan fight. Before we see him in the “dual of fates” we’ve only heard him grunt and deliver the line “at last we shall reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last, we shall have our revenge.” It is difficult to feel any real connection to this character, since we know essentially nothing about his origins, his motivations besides "revenge." The audience feels more of a connection with the fatherly Qui-Gon. He is a protector, partner, and caretaker of Obi-Wan, Padmé, and Skywalker in turn. So, when in the final sequence Qui-Gon is isolated from Obi-Wan, the we feel emotionally connected to the character. The emotional energy escalates considerably when Qui-Gon dies. There is an urgency to the battle between Maul and Obi-Wan that was missing from the Qui-Gon/Maul fight.

The point is that the more interconnections between characters in a deal, the more we understand about the motivations for fighting, and the greater consequences of winning or losing, the more connected we feel with the story. The terrible beauty to the martial technique of the duels, accentuated by the deadliness of the weapons they use, alone cannot account for their impact. The waving around of a light-saber, no matter how artistically, is just a performance unless it is attached to an emotional backdrop.

There are compelling, multiple emotional layers that form the backdrop of the each of the four main light-saber duals of Revenge (Obi-Wan and Anakin v Dooku, Mace Windu v Darth Sidious, Yoda v Darth Sidious, Obi-Wan v Darth Vader). This contributes to making the film satisfy.

This is especially evident in the final battle between Obi-Wan and Anakin. A profound sadness, as well as spectacular tension, pervades the entire fight. The tension begins to build even before the fighting begins. When, still at the Jedi temple, it becomes clear that Yoda and Obi-Wan will have to take out Sidious and Anakin, Obi-Wan pleads with Yoda “send me to deal with Sidious. I cannot kill Anakin. He is like a brother.” Yoda retorts that Obi-Wan is not powerful enough to deal with Sidious, and reminds him that Skywalker is no more; only Vader remains.

During the battle, Lucas gives a few moments to catch our breath and to emphasis the significance and meaning of the fighting. While hovering just about the lava river, during a pause in the fighting, Obi-Want confessed “I have failed you, Anakin.” Presumably Obi-Wan is apologizing for having failed to guide Anakin properly, so that he could resist turning to the dark side. “You were the chosen one!” Obi-Wan shouts as Anakin, his body broken, lies on the ground before him, “you were suppose to bring balance to the force by eradicating the Sith, not by becoming one of them.” There is a sense of betrayal on both sides: Anakin has not fulfilled the prophecy as Obi-Wan has expected, and Obi-Wan has “turned Padmé against” Anakin.

It is this emotional layer that the adds the texture and richness to the light-saber duels ultimately contribute to explaining why Revenge satisfies.

Providence: Does God heal? Should we ask for healing?

2005-05-04T23:47:00.000-07:00

In chapel this week we had a healing service, a somewhat unusual occurrence at Fuller, at least at the seminary-wide level.

Dr. Goldingay opened the time with some reflections. He began by saying that God has an inscrutable sense of humor: here for 39 years his wife Ann has struggled with MS, and a few weeks ago spoke 3 words, for the first time in 5 years. Then she contracted pneumonia and landed in the hospital. And this is the guy that is supposed to lead the healing service.

And he went on to discuss what he thinks is the scariest verse in the Bible: "You have not because you asked not." Why ask for healing? Because the Bible says to. Does God always heal? No. Does God sometimes heal? Yes. But we cannot expect healing unless we ask.

He also said probably the most helpful thing I've heard about healing. "Some people are puzzled that God sometimes heals, and sometimes does not heal. Personally, I'm puzzled that these people are puzzled. God sometimes heals to give a foretaste of the fully consummated kingdom of God. God doesn't always heal, because if every disease was healed, this would be the end, and not the time before the end. But should the fact that God doesn't always heal stop us from praying for healing? Why should it? God hears our prayers. If God doesn't heal the illness we ask for, God works in some other way to give strength or bring good out of the hard situation."

(This is helpful for me to understand conceptually how God works in healing. I am sometimes afraid to tell people that I am praying for them to be healed because what if God doesn't heal them and they have a faith crisis, asking "why doesn't God want to heal me?")

Then the time was opened for people to receive prayer at various stations around chapel. Dr. Goldingay said, "it's the preacher's privilege to be prayed for first" and led by example. I am so appreciative when our profs aren't afraid to be human around us. I will remember moments like these much more than anything they say in lectures.

I look forward to hearing stories of healing and stories of non-healing redemption from this time of prayer.

Love and justice: Faithful Discipleship, Not Creedal Rigidity

2005-04-28T00:32:00.000-07:00

This article was so good I thought it was worth posting an excerpt:

Incarnating Ethics
We're called to faithful discipleship, not creedal rigidity.

By Glen Stassen

I once took a count of what sort of things Jesus thought important enough to confront people about in the gospel of Luke. Nine times Jesus confronted people for not showing love in their actions. Nine times he confronted folks for their greed and hoarding, which get in the way of single-minded service toward God and loving action toward the needy. Nine times Jesus confronted people for having divided loyalties, rather than serving God alone. Eight times he confronted people for showing by their actions that they did not recognize his authority. Eight times he confronted people who were seeking places of honor and reputation, and urged instead the way of servant-like humility.

Seven times he emphasized that the crucial question is whether we actually do what he teaches, versus the hypocrisy of claiming to be on the side of righteousness while not doing God's will. Seven times he called people explicitly to repent, to take the log out of our own eye, to stop being self-righteously critical of others and insisting on our own way, and instead to be more humble and loving toward him and toward others.

It is dramatically striking how Jesus' confrontations, and his pronouncing woe, all had to do with ethics. By contrast, he never confronted people about their doctrines. How far some of us have drifted from the way of Jesus!

[full article]

Surprise me: In Defence of Benedict XVI

2005-04-21T02:47:00.000-07:00

For as long as I've been alive, John Paul II has been Pope. I have known no other Pope in my lifetime. As a result. to me he has become the schema of what a Pope should be. He held on in the service of God for 27 years and accomplished a great deal. John Paul II survived an attempt on his life. He met with other figures of religious authority such as mother Theresa and the daughter of the prophecies of Fatima. He was accredited in speeding up the downfall fo communism in Eastern Europe and the lifting of religious oppression on the island of Cuba. John Paul, although holding no power, was a man of great authority. He left his successor a lot to live up to.

Pope Benedict XVI has been accussed of many things. People have pinned him as an ultra-conservative that threatens to bring disunity to the church. It has been said that he was a member of the Nazi party and hates Jews. It has been said that he believes women don't belong in the church, and his rampant hatred of homosexuals has been noted. But all these charges have been falsely made by people who do not know any better.

Benedict XVI, at the age of 12, was enrolled in the Hitler youth program, mandatory for all youths during the time period. At the age of 16 when he was drafted into the German army, he was in the opinion that Hitler would bring about the downfall of Germany and was not a supporter of the war, which led him to desert later. This period of his youth is what discreditiors have falsely used to taint his name with the stain of Naziism. It is an echo of the McCarthy era all over again. At the time of his ordination in the 50's, he was actually seen as a liberal, and only later did he lean towards the conservative side after the tumultuous decade of the 60's.

The claim that he hates Jews is absolutely false. Instead, Benedict XVI admits that the Jews as the chosen people have always had a special place in God's plan , and that the creation of Israel serves a greater purpose than any of us recognize. Only in the future, he hopes, will the nation of Israel rise up and embrace Christ.

As for his position on homosexuality, I give you a quote

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendendcy ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder... It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice and speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs."

The implication of this is that the pastor's of the church, when using the pulpit to condemn or maliciously barrage the issue of homosexuals commit as grievious a sin as the homosexual himself.

The most important thing to remember is that Benedict XVI finds himself the leader of the Catholic Church. To find fault with him because of his position on birth control, let's say, is to throw a red herring. That reflects the position of the Catholic church, not a new position that he came to power with. The Pope is not a politician. He does not take the position that allows him to win the most votes, he takes the position of what the tradition of the church has said is God's position. Do I agree with everything the Pope says? No, of course not. Is he a good leader of the church? Yes, I think so.

Scriptures: A capable wife, who can find? The use of Proverbs 31

2005-04-20T13:04:00.000-07:00

How are we to use the description of the capable/good wife in Proverbs 31? What are the implications of the poem for our lives? First, it’s important to note the form critically, that this is an acrostic poem, the description of the ideal wife from A to Z (in a contemporary English idiom). An acrostic poem is one that begins each line with a letter of the alphabet, in this case the Hebrew alphabet. It is designed to sound pleasing to the ear, a point that is usually missed by the literalistic reader of the English translation (Gordon Fee, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth). The form of the poem suggests it is a code, a parable describing the ideal wife.

Second, the placement of the poem clues us into its possible use. It is found together with the “Words of Lemuel” in chapter 31. Together they are the male and female vision of the working out of wisdom. The two together constitutes a fitting end for the book of wisdom. This is not unprecedented. Ben Sirach closes with an alphabetic acrostic. OT Professor Leslie Allen suggests the woman is a picture of wisdom at work. “Rather than a model for the performing everyday tasks of a wife, she is a symbol for wisdom” (Murphy, The Tree of Life, 27). The poem describes the gamut of quality and accomplishments of a woman who lives out the book of proverbs.

Third, it may be that the poem is a subtle riddle. The poet asks “A capable wife, who can find?” (31:10). McCreesh muses “could the poet of Prov 32:10a be suggesting that the woman is not only incomparable, but a riddle whose identity is to be solved, discovered?” If this is so, then the nature/identity of wisdom is a riddle to be solved, a mystery to be discovered not in the created order, but God alone (cf. Job 28).

Just who is the woman in Proverbs 31? Is she wisdom personified? She speaks wisdom in v. 26 so that excludes the possible that she is only wisdom. So is the poem describing an actual woman? She’s a seamstress, a real estate agent, a social activist, prepared for the most unlikely of disasters (like snow in the Negev, v. 21), runs the family businesses, raises her children all at the same time. Where is this woman? But she is also described as “more precious than jewels,” the same way that wisdom is other parts of proverbs (cf. 3:15, 8:11). It seems that woman is more of a blend of the personification of wisdom and a good wife.

The wife of the acrostic poem is an ideal, a symbol, “a form of wisdom” (A. Barucq), a blending of wisdom personified with a good wife. The poem is not a standard with which to beat down faithful women who cannot possibly live up to it. Rather, it is like Jesus’ teaching on the sermon of the Mount describing the ideal “if you are angry with your brother or sister, you are liable to judgment.” Jesus then tells us how to live this ideal: “go and be reconciled to your brother or sister.” Proverbs tells us how to live out the ideal of chapter 31 in the proceeding 30 chapters of wisdom teaching. In the blending of the personification of wisdom and human beings we have a picture of the working out of wisdom that finds its source in God.

Surprise me: Habemus papam! What should we expect from Ratzinger’s pontificate?

2005-04-19T11:20:00.000-07:00

Viva El Papa.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI just a few hours ago. What are the implications of Ratzinger’s election as the head of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for progressive minded Catholics, and brother and sister observers from within other Christian traditions?

Ratzinger was John Paul’s doctrinal policy chief. That suggests that we can expect more of the same reactionary (ultra-conservative) stances on doctrine. Under John Paul, the reformist spirit of the Vatican II documents were interpreted narrowly; the ordination of women became an official “non-issue;” the use of condoms for the containment of AIDS was opposed; and Catholic scholars who deviated from the papal prerogatives were silenced or deprived of their teaching positions (like, for e.g., Hans Kuhn, one of the architects of Vatican II). The New York Times today (Monday) reported that at a Mass before the conclave convened, Ratzinger delivered a warning against any deviation from traditional Catholic teaching.

Despite all appearances the progressive elements in and outside the RCC will continue to wait, hope, and pray that Benedict XVI will turn out to be more progressive that Joseph Ratzinger.

Surprise me: Quick! Staring contest . . .

2005-04-17T15:53:00.000-07:00

Goulet lives.

Surprise me: Satanas

2005-04-15T03:22:00.000-07:00

Who is the most central figure in Christian theology? Some would argue that it is Jesus Christ, the God incarnate who was the Son and came to die for our sins, and to bring about the new law. Others would argue that it must be Paul, the persecutor turned preacher who, although never having met the living Jesus, was hands down the most important figure in spreading the word to the gentiles. One could even say Peter, part of the inner circle of Jesus' apostles, upon whose "rock" the church would be founded. I believe however, that the most central figure in Christian theology is Satan. In fact, without Satan, Christianity itself would be compromised.

The most famous New Testament passage concerning Satan comes in the temptation of Jesus in the desert. Three times Jesus is tested, and three times Jesus uses the word of God to dispel the devil away. The only other time we see Satan testing someone in the Bible is in the book of Job, where God the Father allows Satan to test this most blameless and upright man. Could Satan this time also have been sent by God to test his one and only son? The serpent in the Garden of Eden, whom later writers attribute to be Satan in disguise, is blamed for deceiving Eve and bringing about the original sin. Had this event not occurred, there would be no reason for Jesus to have come down and died for our sins. In the book "Through the Ages", a retelling of the story of Jesus to help believers better understand the text, the author tells us about the tomb where Jesus was placed after the crucifixtion. The "evil angels" were there. They wanted to hide the ressurection. They wanted to claim that the body was stolen, that the son of God did not rise after three days as he said he would. But then God sent his legions, his angel army, and dispeled these demons away.

And so the role of Satan started. He was around before God's son walked the earth, he was wrapped up in the whole story of the gospel from beginning to end, and he is still around in our modern thinking even today. Satan has been blamed for so many things throughout history, that one begins to wonder who has had more influence in the thoughts of man; Satan, who started out playing such a minor role but who blew up into "THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS", or God, the creator, the big mover and shaker of the Old Testament days, who is the main man of almost every major religion.

During the early years of Christianity, when orthodoxy had not yet been set in stone, the bishops of the day blamed every new heresay, every differing opinion, every new sect, on Satan.

Through their agency, Satan even now...has been seen to speak against God, that God who has prepared eternal fire for every kind of apostasy.
-Irenaeus, 1st century bishop

Irenaeus - Bishop of Lyon

During the middle ages, holy men living the monastic life spent more time talking about Satan than they did about God. Every time they wanted a little extra food through their fasting, every time they were led astray from their prayers through "idle thoughts", every time they felt a little cold and wanted an extra blanket, they blamed satan. Satan was making them want, Satan was leading them astray. Free will played no role, it was always Satan.

Today not much has changed. A married man, when tempted to cheat on his wife, might blame Satan. A tax attorney, tempted to cheat the government, might blame Satan. But unfortunately this bias goes beyond these things and in some ways is harmful to the development of humanity. An enlightened man, who tries to teach harmony among religions, may be seen as leading people away from the true faith, and risks souls an eternity in hell. A psychic healer, teaching about reincarnation or auras, although helping a great many people, may be called Satan for his departure from strict orthodox teachings. A common saying is "Satan has many faces", sometimes what seems good is really evil. Attributing evil to these do-gooders is absurd. If someone is trying to lead you towards God, if someone is preaching the most basic tenet of Christianity, "Love thy neighbor as thyself", must it not stand to reason that that person is from God, regardless of whether or not they believe in the secong coming, or in bodily ressurection, or in the eucharist, or countless other issues of dogma?

I say to you, the reign of Satan must come to an end NOW! Cast aside your notions of Satan, and of demons out to get you. Men are your greatest enemy, those who have turned away from God. Earth is the worst hell you will ever go, for no all loving God would EVER condemn anyone to and eternity of suffering and torture. Put aside your differences, for you are all children of God, regardless of what religion you profess. You do not need bishops and priests to mediate between you and God, for none is any more holy than another in the eyes of God.

Public theology: An Evangelical responds to TIME's portrayal of Evangelicals

2005-04-01T16:14:00.000-08:00

TIME cover on Evangelicals in America

A few of you have asked me about this an article I wrote for the SEMI, Fuller's weekly publication. I thought I would post it since the pdf contains some errors.

-----------------------------------------------------

The February 7, 2005 issue of Time asks the question
“What Does Bush Owe the Religious Right?” and profiles “The
Twenty-Five Most Influential Evangelicals in America.” To the
casual reader, the first article has the unfortunate effect of equating
evangelicals with the religious right, i.e., dogmatic Bush loyalists,
supporters the constitutional marriage amendment, whose
“highest ambition” is overturning Roe v. Wade. While this may
accurately describe some evangelicals, many faculty and students,
including me, at Fuller, North America’s largest evangelical
seminary, would cringe at this description.

Time’s portrayal of the twenty-five evangelicals is a mixed
bag. Time correctly observes that evangelicals defy a single definition. Let’s do the numbers (people described by this characteristic).
They are described alternatively as strong-armed conservatives
and Bush loyalists (13 out of 25) or bi-partisan bridgebuilders
(2); interested primarily in the two-issue moral agenda
of gay-marriage and abortion (9) or broader issues social justice,
such as human rights, tackling poverty and AIDS (4). Several are
media moguls, masters of marketing, owners or founders of vast
communication empires—radio, television, books, magazines
(8). They are also portrayed as sophisticated intellectuals, capable
of participating at the highest levels of thought (3) and on a
legitimate global mission to the majority world (3).

Despite this diversity, Time‘s selection emphasizes evangelicals’
support of the right. Conspicuously missing from the list
are those who have been more critical of Bush’s policies and the
religious right: Ron Sider, president and founder of Evangelicals
for Social Action and author of Rich Christians in An Age of
Hunger; Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourner’s magazine and author
of God’s Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left
Doesn’t Get It; Tony Campolo, radio preacher and Christian
urban sociologist and advocate for same-sex civil union; and our
own Richard Mouw, the only evangelical seminary president
who spoke up against the war in Iraq. The placement of the individuals is also revealing: the ones with the clearest connections
with the administration are profiled first. Brian McLaren, who
most closely approximates my approach to public theology, is
safely tucked away on the tenth and last page of the article,
where only the most dedicated reader will encounter him.

What does this list communicate to the public about what it
means to be evangelical? Are we content with this portrayal? If
not, how are we communicating a different picture?

When a secular magazine profiles the twenty-five most
influential evangelicals in America, we should not be surprised
that it chooses people who have the ear of the current administration.
It was be a mistake, however, to conclude that these
twenty-five represent the wider evangelical movement.

Surprise me: What about theology?

2005-03-31T23:27:00.000-08:00

What is theology and what is the use of theology? What value is there in theological training? For me these questions have an existential element since I have devoted more than a year and half to formal theological training. I suspect others too have questions about the value of theology.

The most obvious definition of theology is derived from its two stem words: theo, God, and logy, the word, the study of. Formally, then, theology is the study of God. More broadly, theology is “faith seeking understanding.” Not everyone who does theology is conscious of engaging in the task. Some in and outside of the church distance themselves from theology, believing it to be an obscure discipline to be left to German (or other) scholars. On the contrary, theology is practical and everyday; quotidian, embedded into our daily lives. We engage in theology when we pray, worship, discuss the sermon on a Sunday afternoon, teach in the church, or participate in a baptism or funeral.

In a more limited sense, theology also describes the deliberate, ordered approach to gaining this understanding. Theology in this sense refers to all the theological sub-disciplines: biblical studies, church history, Christian ethics, philosophy, and systematic and practical theology. I attend Fuller Theological Seminary in the School of Theology. I am candidate for a Masters of Arts in Theology. In all these cases, the term “theology” is used in this limited sense, the deliberative, systematic study of God.

Broadly, then, all who pray or worship or think about their experiences/ideas as they relate to matters of faith are embedded theologians. And those who engage in a more structured, ordered theological task are deliberative theologians.

The goal of theology is to acquire the skills to think through life theologically, that is through the eyes of faith, as it relates to God. How should we respond to the Tsunami disaster? Should we support war or work for peace? How do we think through the complicated Schiavo case, and more generally, about euthanasia? Every topic can be subjected to theological reflection since “the Earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” and “all things came into being in Him and through Him.”

VM Karkkainen

VM Karkkainen describes the theological task more precisely. He suggests that there are at least three tasks. First, interpreting the meaning of things and experiences from the perspective of faith. Mark Lau Branson would hardily agree. Second, correlating the faith with everything else in life, science, arts, politics, culture, and economics. Third, assessing what is true, intelligible and morally sound.

The value of theological training stems from its development of critical functions like interpreting meanings, correlating the faith with the world, and assessing what is true. Understood this way, the task of theology is of primary importance to living out our lives as God intends.

From the pulpit: Authentic Ministry

2005-03-27T23:57:00.000-08:00

This is the manuscript of a sermon I gave a few weeks ago.

--------------

"But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession and through us spreads in every place the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not peddlers of God's word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God."
-2 Cor 2:14-16 (NRSV)

Let us pray. Our Lord, speak to us through your word preached. Enable us to follow in your triumphal procession. Release through us the fragrance of Christ to the world.

We begin with a perplexing spiritual problem. We know that Christ is victorious, yet we experience defeat. We know that Christ love us, lives in us and wants to do through us the work of reconciling the world to Himself, yet we often do not perceive the fruit of His work. Our lives are not as we would wish. Our ministries are sometimes frustrated; this makes us feel incompetent or even depressed.

That’s how my friend Chris felt after his first few years as a missionary in France—incompetent, even mildly depressed. Chris knew how to share the gospel: he was well trained by the Navigators, an experienced missionary organization. He knew the right techniques for leading someone to Christ, he knew the right words, had memorized the right verses. He often met with two or three others in small group setting, but he experienced little success. Though he had befriended many students and neighbors, and had many serious personal discussions with them, only a handful had made a decision for Christ.

Paul too experienced defeats in his ministry: he was driven away from Ephesius by worshippers of Artemis (Acts 19) and only narrowly escaped from Damascus in a basket through a window in the city wall (2 Cor 11). Because of this, some Corinthians didn’t think much of Paul’s apostleship. They criticized Paul’s constant suffering and affliction, his personal appearance (10:10), and commitment to preach the gospel at his own expense (12:14-15). They took these things to be signs of Paul’s inferiority as an apostle.

“But thanks be to God who always lead us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him.” What kind of triumph does Paul have in mind? One commenter takes the procession to refer to triumphant march of a victorious general, manifesting his power throughout the world through his apostles. However, it would be a mistake to picture Paul marching around the Mediterranean as a “kind of glorious hero-figure.” The triumphal procession has to do with what Paul has been talking about: consolation in suffering. In the previous section (2:12-13), Paul has just described his anxiety over the Corinthians as he waited news from Titus. Later, he reminds the Corinthians that this was one of his greatest times of suffering (2 Cor 11). Paul considers his suffering to be participation in the “death” of Christ, for the sake of spreading the gospel. According to Paul, the very things his opponents took to be a sign of his inferiority, his suffering and his weakness, are the things that mark and authenticate his apostleship.

The image of a triumphal procession highlights the paradoxical nature of Paul’s ministry and our own: it is in suffering that the triumphant power of Christ is made manifest. This paradox echoes Christ’s own triumphal procession into Jerusalem. The spirit of the triumphal entry is festive, joyful. As Jesus enters the city, the people are cheering wildly, shouting, “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!” and they spread their cloaks and leafy branches on the road (Mt 21:8; Mk 11:8). Yet Christ’s triumphal procession was no glorious march but a march to the cross. It is through Christ’s display of weakness on the cross that the power of God is revealed in the resurrection.

It is through this procession that the aroma of Christ is being spread to every place. The aroma of Christ through us is not something we conjure up or put on artificially like a fake smile. Rather, the aroma of Christ is like the smell of garlic or cilantro or onion, released when it is crushed or minced. In the same way, our experience of being crushed by our suffering is part of what releases the aroma of Christ to those we encounter.

So we know that we are suffering and this is spreading the aroma of Christ. How do we respond? We look for what God is doing through us, to draw people to himself.

What are we to look for? Two groups are described in the passage. The aroma of Christ is being spread among “the ones being saved,” and “the ones perishing.” The tense of the verbs “being saved” and “perishing” highlight salvation as a continuous, on-going process. These two types of people are “on the road to salvation”—and “on the road to ruin.” As Christ leads us in triumphal procession unto death, our lives have the same dual effect that the cross of Christ has on the world. The aroma of Christ is recognized as a sweet fragrance by those on the way to salvation, but as a putrid stench to those on the way to perdition.

This understanding of the process of salvation relieves us of the need to shove truth down people’s throats. “We are not peddlers of God’s word”—we are not God’s Madison Ave executives, trying to convince people to buy Jesus in our attractive, marketable package. We don’t need an aggressive marketing plan that, like credit card advertisements, doesn’t inform people about the hidden fees, the small print. We don’t need to be overbearing or to manipulate people with guilt. God is already moving, right where we are. All around us he is drawing people to Himself. We are merely His vessels for spreading the aroma of Christ. If those we meet are being saved, they will recognize the aroma of Christ in us.

Chris, in evangelistic Bible studies, would sit, smiling politely, waiting for everyone to chime in so that he could enlighten them with his impressive, ready-made answers. After a while, Chris realized that they weren’t coming to hear advice from the Bible answer-man. Those who were being saved were attracted to Chris, a stout, middle aged American, who spoke broken French, a member of the clergy, who are largely distrusted in secular France, not because of his appearance or his linguistic excellence, but because there was the smell of life around him.

Later, reflecting on the experience, Chris confessed to me: “I realized much of what I had done to that point had hindered more than helped the spreading of the Gospel. I had not been attuned to what God was already doing. Here were these people who were willing to sacrifice their time, risk ridicule, to come and read the Bible.”

Chris began to listen for signs of God in the lives of the people to whom he was ministering, for evidence that they were being saved. To his delight he found them describing, in their own words, how God was already moving to bring them into his presence.

The Good News is that we don’t have to sell Jesus to people. Paul tells us that as we follow Jesus, people who are being saved will be attracted to the fragrance of Christ in us. This is Paul’s picture of authentic ministry: to follow Jesus in suffering and speak as persons of sincerity. Paul often felt crushed like garlic in a garlic press; in his ministry, he was not always aware that he was releasing the aroma of Christ to those around him. But Paul has come to realize that we are the embodiment of Christ to the world. When people are in the presence of Christians they are in the presence of God. Our role is to be the presence of Christ and acknowledge what God is already doing in the midst of our apparent failure.

Christ leads us in triumphal procession: not a triumphalistic procession, not a military conquest over others, but a triumph through suffering. Like Paul, our own weaknesses authenticate us as God’s ministers. Christ is leading us through defeat and suffering, through the valley of the shadow of death, and through us releasing in every place a sweet aroma that draws those who are being saved to himself.

Spirituality: Blue Like Jazz

2005-03-06T22:29:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Blue Like Jazz, by Donald Miller. Blue shot up on my list of “books to read” after my friend and aspiring writer Abby highly recommended it. I understand now her gleeful approval. Miller is a poet/philosopher of and for Generation X, expressing ideas from sources like Lewis (good and evil as a clue to the nature of the universe) and Chesterton (“I am the problem”) in everyday language. Miller promises to talk about Christian spirituality in nonreligious language, and, generally speaking, he delivers. He is something of a Whitman (whom he admires): a renegade observer of American life. Unlike Whitman, who wallows in his own high view of himself, Miller is humorously self-deprecating and explores the tension between his self-love and self-hate. I recommend the book for insight into authentic Christianity.

Click here to read Dick Staub interview with Don Miller.

From the pulpit: "Hearts to Forgive"

2005-03-02T17:23:00.000-08:00

Today we heard in chapel a message from Katharine Meese, Assistant Professor at Fuller's School of Psychology. She reflected on Matthew 6:5-15, particularly on the last two verses at the end of the Lord's Prayer on forgiveness, from her experiences of solidarity with civil war victims in Guatemala. How do we forgive those who have participated in great injustice? What does it mean that "if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins"?

Read Katharine's message, Hearts to Forgive. May it encourage you as much as it encouraged me.

From the pulpit: "Seeing is Believing?" A sermon on John 3:1-15

2005-02-26T22:08:00.000-08:00

What is the relationship between seeing and believing when it comes to spiritual things? Here's "Seeing is Believing?", the sermon I gave for our preaching class on John 3:1-15.

Surprise me: Purpose of Prophecy

2005-02-25T03:54:00.000-08:00

After hearing in the last few months the predictions of several psychics, reading several books relating to the subject of prophecy and psychic phenomenon, and hearing the opinions of several experts of different metaphysical fields, it begs the question, what is really the purpose of prophecy?

Prophets/Psychics fall into two general categories: Gloom and doom, and visions of utopia. Gloom and doom prophets are those like Amos and 1st Isaiah predicting the downfall of Israel and Judah, and moderns who predict worldwide natural disasters and nuclear holocaust. Visions of utopia prophets are those like 2nd Isaiah, who predict the coming of the messiah and a return to the promised land, and moderns whe predict a future world as that one depicted in Star Trek: The Next Generation where the human race has unified, and grown much wiser and more enlightened. Both of these types of prophecies however, serve the same purpose.

After delving into Sylvia Browne's book Prophecy, I noticed a pattern begining to emerge as I got further and further into it. As she went on talking about different subjects such as the rain forests, politics, the economy, future technology, etc., there was a basic theme regardless of what she was talking about. If I could summarize the book down to one phrase it would be "we realized how stupid we are, and we made it better." Generally it was a positive book that gives hope for the spiritual progress of humankind.

Regardless of what a prophecy says, it always has the same purpose, to better humankind. If a prophet talks about a horrible future, it causes us humans to self evaluate, and to realize that we are headed in the wrong direction, and so try to change our ways to avoid a horrible fate. If a prophet talks about a grand vision of the future, it inspires us to try to emulate it, and to try to reach a place where that vision becomes reality.

It's important to understand this. Prophecy is really not always to be taken literally. What good does it do us to know the future. It is said that Nostradamus predicted the coming of Napoleon, and the rise of Hitler in his quatrains, but this did not help us avert the tragedy and suffering brought upon by the wars these men led. The purpose of prophecy is not to know the future, but to work towards a better future of love and peace

Providence: A Theology of Divine Providence

2005-02-23T14:39:00.000-08:00

Dr. Thee Smith, Associate Professor of Religion at Emory, is on campus this week to give the annual School of Theology Payton lecture series. His lectures are on a theology of divine providence.

Thee uses the left and right hand-ness of God as discussion points of divine action. Traditionally speaking, the left hand of God has been primarily associated with the "negation of life" God deals/is capable of, and the right hand of God with his benign provision.

In his first lecture dealing with the left hand of God, Thee talked about Mamie Bradley (mother of Emmett Till, the young Black youth from Chicago that was brutally murdered while visiting relatives in Mississippi in 1955) as someone who encountered the negation of life. In the face of personal and ethnic tragedy, she cooperated with the left hand of God by insisting on an open-casket viewing of her son's mutilated body; the outrage generated by the graphic pictures of his body in the national media and the subsequent acquittal of his murderers by an all-white jury became a mobilizing force for the Civil Rights Movement.

Robin D. G. Kelley, professor of History and Africana Studies at New York University, comments on the legacies of Emmett Till's murder: "...the level of violence that was commonplace in a place like Mississippi became known to the world, and that violence generated anger and outrage--and in some ways courage--for those fighting in Mississippi and those willing to come South to fight that fight... andJim Crow racism, as it used to exist from the age of slavery, could no longer exist. Now something has to change. And black people in Mississippi itself were the ones who were going to make that change. And the great thing is that the change that they made, the extension of citizenship to all people, is a change that affected all of America, not just black people, but whites, Latinos, Asian Americans. It extended democracy to the country when democracy had never been extended to everyone before."

In the second lecture, Thee talked about the right hand of God that has inspired visions of utopia, where justice reigns and bloodshed is no more. It is this vision and this God that compels us to work for justice and peace. Thee presented for consideration two presidents' assessment of divine providence: that of George W. Bush and Woodrow Wilson.

Bush's re-election was lauded by many of the Religious Right as "God's hand on America." Southern Baptist minister (and one of the Religious Right leaders Bush conferences with on a weekly basis) Richard Land commented that Bush's successful re-election showed God's blessing on America by giving America a chance to "restore moral sanity," but if Kerry had been elected instead, it would still have been the will of God but indicative of "God's judgement on America."

Woodrow Wilson had a great vision for The League of Nations, an international body that would resolve conflicts without the horrors of war, a vision in line with God's heart for justice and peace. Wilson viewed this program as his life's work, and when his own country rejected the proposal, he was devastated: he felt that those who fell in the war had died for nothing and America had entered into the conflict for nought. Although he had won the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts, his sense of failure over not achieving his dream of bringing the League of Nations into existence with America at its head overshadowed the Nobel recognition. When, towards the end of his life, the American people began to recognize the value in Wilson's grand vision, Wilson came to a realization about divine providence: "If my program had passed, it would have been only a personal triumph. God knew better than I did--the people were not ready. If we do it now, it will be because the people want it."

Thee quoted "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat--for he grants sleep to those he loves." (Psalm 121:1-2), a passage Wilson had read at his funeral, and "...those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them." (1 Cor. 7:29-31) as Biblical pictures of cooperating with divine providence and not "competing with God."

At first I resisted the message, feeling that this could promote or excuse a fatalism or inaction in the face of injustice or legitimate human need (an unfortunate sometime effect of Calvinism). But as I considered particularly the 1 Cor. verse in light of Thee's comments, I came to realize that he was not calling for a stop to working for utopia, but a stop to insisting on our own timeline and vision of utopia. Part of what he's saying is that our hope can become so focused on our vision of utopia rather than on God and what God may be doing that it becomes idolatry. To state it positively, cooperating with the hand of God--working for justice and peace, but putting our trust not in our visions or plans, but in the God of justice and peace--brings a tremendous freedom--our sense of identity is no longer wrapped up in the success or failure of our efforts, and we are able to cooperate with divine providence in the face of both negation of life and plentiful provision. In this paradigm we do not assume in a wholesale fashion that God is legitimizing our vision when things are going well, nor that God is judging us when things are contrary to our wish. Rather, as Abraham Lincoln summarized so well, we ask humbly (and listen for God's response) whether we are on God's side, and if things do not go the way we wish, keep working and trusting that God has more than one way to bring about his kingdom.

Public theology: Should we support Bush because he's a Christian?

2005-02-22T01:24:00.000-08:00

25 Most Influential Evangelicals

Time magazine’s article “What Does Bush Owe the Religious Right?” illustrates the great need to combat the prevalent idea that politicians should be granted carte blanche in their policies and decisions by the church on the basis of their Christian faith. In Latin America, the rise of Christian politicians to high office has led to disappointing results (like the Christian Democratic Party in Chile or Vicente Fox in Mexico). Though these leaders profess their Christian faith, they have had little impact on ameliorating the effects of poverty, political injustice, and racial marginalization in their countries. Africa is 50% Christian according to some figures, but about 80% of the continent is under dictatorial rule and extreme poverty. Whether the authorities are “one of us” or not the task of the church is the same: to criticize injustices in our society, especially those conducted in the name of Jesus. The role of the church is to spring up government and authorities closer to the way of Jesus, even as the church is being sprung up by the Lord.

Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourner’s magazine and author of God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It, who spoke recently at the First Congregational Church here in Pasadena, citing Martin King, put it this way: the church is called not to be slaves of the government, bowing to its every whim; nor its master, dictating the structure of society; but its conscience, involved in its moral formation.

The article makes clear is that whatever Bush may owe his constituents, he will bow to political realities. In a pre-Inaugural interview with the Washington Post, Bush indicated that he would not press the Senate to pass a ban on gay marriage, much to the chagrin of activists on the religious right. In the wake of angry responses, the White House dispatched an e-mail asserting the anti-gay-marriage amendment remains a priority, but the message is clear enough. Bush will spend most of his political capital reinventing social security and the Middle East, and other principles will get “ground up into compromises.” This demonstrates the folly of giving the loyalty that we owe to the Lord Jesus Christ to our national leaders. We must place our trust in Jesus, who is actively involved in bringing about justice between people and between groups, and not in powers and authorities that must bend to political realities.

From the pulpit: "Follow me"

2005-02-13T19:04:00.000-08:00

Its been a few weeks since I gave my sermon for Homiletics. For those of you interested in sermons, I have posted my own (sermon) on Mt 9:9-13, the calling of Matthew. You can also check out the exegetical work that prepared the way for the sermon.

Spirituality: Ash Wednesday

2005-02-11T23:06:00.000-08:00

Wednesday morning, I attended an especially moving chapel service for Ash Wednesday. My OT prof, Dr. John, served as one of the ministers, imposed the ashes on the foreheads of student, faculty, and staff, each shuffling up to the front in two long lines. I felt proud and glad that our brother, who had devoted several years to parish ministry in England before going on to graduate school and then teaching, was ministering to the rest of us. I was sitting near the front and Dr. John’ rhythmic repetition “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you will return” moved me into deeper meditation and reflection on God’s mercy. When the line had died down, Dr. John jogged up the steps. I followed him with my eyes to the top of the auditorium, where he gently imposed the ashes on his wife, who suffers from late stage MS and shows only the slightest response to outside events. I was deeply moved. Dr. John was not only caring for his wife, but modeled God’s love for us. Though we offer nothing to Our Lord, he receives us tenderly.

The theme of the sermon was repentance. Wayne, a professor who gave the sermon, reminded us that Lent is the seven weeks that the church has chosen to recognize as a time repentance leading up to the death, crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. I felt a nearly overwhelming sense of solidarity with the all the saints that have come before us. Imagine: we are the latest in a long succession of dust-creatures who come before our Creator with humble hearts, knowing our proper place before Him.

Scriptures: "Train Children Up...."

2005-02-07T17:38:00.000-08:00

In our homiletics class we talked about the importance of preaching a "promise" text with both conviction and compassion. Conviction because we believe that the Bible is God's word and authoritative, compassion because we understand that many situations are complex and God's Word should be preached in a way that gives life. One such "promise text" we talked about was Proverbs 22:6 "Train children up in the right way, and when they are old, they will not stray" (NRSV). When this text is preached without compassion, the guilt is laid upon many good parents who did their best to train their children in the right way.

Incidentally I ran across an article by Gordon Hugenberger (pastor at Park St. Church in Boston) in our Hebrew book on this verse the next day. Here I highlight insights from the article:

"As desirable as such a promise would be, experience contradicts it far too often to be attributable solely to deficient parenting. Indeed, in spite of the best parenting in the universe, namely God's own, many of his children departed from the way they should have gone, and they continued their rebellion to the bitter end (cf. Isaiah 1:2 "I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me")."

In reality, there is no basis from the Hebrew text to justify the all-important modifier "right" in "the right way." The Hebrew is literally "according to his way." Although this expression of [someone]'s way is well attested in the Bible, especially in Proverbs (1:31, 3:17, 8:22), it always refers to the way these persons actually go rather than "the right way" (or as KJV puts it "the way he should go").

Accordingly, Proverbs 22:6 is not a promise but an ironical warning. "Parents, if you train up your child 'according to his way'--in other words, if you quit the hard work of loving disciple and just give in and let your child have his own way--you will reinforce his sinful proclivities to such a degree that, apart from supernatural intervention, even when he is old he will not depart from it."

The earlier translators likely missed this understanding of the text as a warning not because the Hebrew is difficult, but because the verse seems to command readers in something they ought not to do (leaving a child to his/her own ways).

"Actually, such rhetorical device is entirely at home in wisdom literature such as Proverbs, which uses sarcasm to good effect. Compare Proverbs 19:27, 'Stop listening to instruction, my son, and you will stray from the words of knowledge.' "

Public theology: A Public Theologian

2005-02-03T22:44:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine, who know my interests in Christian ethics, is fond of brining to my attention various situations, like driving without a license, jay-walking, leaving a SUV on the railroad tracks, and asking me “is that ethical?” I was bothered by these questions at first. I resisted them, but I wasn’t sure why. If I want to be an ethicist, shouldn’t I be interested in these questions? Aren’t ethicists primarily men and women who sit and make judgments about the moral decisions of others?

Perhaps some are. Ethics, properly understood, is the study of moral reasoning. Hence, many types of ethicists are possible. Christian ethicists, to narrow the field of discussion, are responsible for packaging the appropriate Biblical and social data in order to help the church and the world to make moral decisions according to the way of Jesus, not to make personal moral judgments. They can, of course, also come to conclusion about what action the data suggest. They need not reserve “judgment” in the sense of an informed and authoritative opinion; but they are also responsible for not lording their judgments over fellow human beings.

On our long trips together, most recently to Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Park, I have mentioned to RA and SDA my desire to become a public theologian. Just this week, I used the term again as I explained my vision to NSA over the phone. This got me thinking: what do I mean by the term “public theologian”? Just today I was reading Max Stackhouse’s Public Theology, and found that he put words to what I had previously only intuited. Public theology, to paraphrase Stackhouse, means two things. First, public theology is “public” in that what Christianity has to offer the world in terms of its salvation is not esoteric, privileged, or inaccessible. It is something that can be discussed rationally by Hindu, Muslim, Marxist, or Jew. Second, a public theology can contribute to questions of political, economic, and social life. Such a theology has a responsibility to contain an element of justice, and can be held accountable on that basis. A third description, implied by Stackhouse’s discussion, is that public theology contrasts with, pietistic, inward-looking concern for personal character. While the concern for personal character is important (even central to the Christian enterprise), it is not all that theology has to offer, nor the only thing that God is doing. This public theology is what I have in mind when I say I am interested in Christian ethics.

From the pulpit: "A Gratuitous Choice" A Sermon on Luke 5:1-11

2005-01-30T13:58:00.000-08:00

As RJ mentioned, we both gave our first sermons for our preaching class this week. If you're interested, you can take a look at my sermon A Gratuitous Choice on Luke 5:1-11. I would love to hear any feedback or reflections you may have!

Personal: My life in seminary: a week in review

2005-01-28T22:21:00.000-08:00

Some highlights from the things I've been learning this week at Fuller:

Many of you know that the Greek manuscript of the NT that is used by scholars, theologians, and pastors consists of a reconstructed text. That is, from all the extant Greek manuscripts, fragments and complete books, we choose the best reading, using the dual principles of age and difficulty of the reading. Great care is taken in making these decisions. Some of finest minds in NT studies, including Metzger, Nestle, and the Alands, have devoted significant parts of their scholarship to the task.

It seemed amazing then to learn this Monday that the Hebrew OT, however, comes down to us as a single manuscript, called the Leningrad Codex (the original is currently in St. Petersburg, Russia, though the same city used to be called Leningrad). Even more surprising, this codex was copied in 11th century (c. 1008 AD). This means that the time between the original writing of the OT and the manuscript which is commonly used are removed by a far longer time period that then the corresponding parts of the NT. The Codex is the oldest and one of the best examples of the Masoric text.

Leningrad Codex, WSRP (West Semitic Research Project)

On Tuesday I attended a lecture in homiletics. We discussed how to approach a text with the intentions to preach from it. The most powerful insight came from Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard suggest that we read the text as you we read a love letter. How do we read a love letter? Word by precious word, in anticipation of good things in has in store for us, again and again, with enthusiasm and excitement, thinking of the spirit and author of the letter, trying to imagine/envision what they are thinking and feeling. Reading the text as a love letter places us into a receptive spirit to hear the words of love.

I gave my first sermon from a pulpit on Thursday. I preached from the Matthew 9:9-13, “The Calling of Matthew,” to my Homiletics section. As I dialogued with the text, questioning it, trying to tease out its meaning, I realized that its message was for me. I began to preach to myself. I understood, felt, the text to be exhorting us to live, continually, in God’s mercy. Jesus comes to Matthew, a tax collector, a traitor to his own people, and entreats him: “follow me.” No conditions are placed on Matthew. Jesus does not demand that Matthew get his act together, that he stop hanging out with the riff-raff, or take more personal responsibility before he can enjoy intimate table fellowship with him. No, Jesus calls Matthew, and us, without condition, to receive God’s mercy. So was the crux of my message.

Providence: Coincidence or Destiny

2005-01-27T04:23:00.000-08:00

"I have come to understand that life is composed of a series of coincidences. How we react to these- how we exercise what some refer to as free will- is everything." These words are from the memoir of John Perkins, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. It is a theme stressed throughout the book. In our lives we all have choices. Some choices, such as whether to drink soda or water for lunch, are of little consequence. Some choices however, can affect the whole rest of our lives.

Perkins makes an interesting point. Upon studying the lives of brilliantly successful men, or the outcomes of war, or even reflecting upon our own lives, one must ask the question, how much influence does coincidence really have on our lives, the lives of others, and events that shape the world?

In elementary school, we are all taught that we should strive to be the best that we can be. In our great nation, with the structure laid down by the founding fathers in the Constitution of the United States, any one of us can even be the President one day. Our education is designed to make us believe that, "...all men are created equal" and such. Or, maybe we don't even have to take it that far. If you stay in school, and if you go to college, you are guarnateed a good job. Such ideas are not only taught in school, but are emphasized by our parents and television. A series of commercials a few years back had the comedian Sinbad in a series of sketches, where all he would say is "Math" and "no math", where in the math he would be dressed as an astronaut or an engineer, and in the no math he would be flipping burgers or tossing garbage. This false belief that there is a certain algebraic equation for success is one of the great delusions of our society.

Let us look at a case study. I'll use myself as an example, because there is no one I know better. My last semester at the University, I was ready to graduate with a B.A. in history and classical civilizations, and I still had no idea what I wanted to do, nor did I have any job lined up for me after graduation. One week-end afternoon, feeling a bit depressed over something totally unrelated (of which I don't even remember the cause), I decided to take a ride on my bike through the campus for some fresh air. Twisting and turning on the pavement, I ended up across the aquatic center, stopped in front of a post board, not looking for anything in particular, but just looking. There, my eyes focused on one sheet, "needed, English speakers to teach Korean students in Korea. Contact Jongyeon Tark for more information." I had been learning Korean. I had learned the script from a Korean friend of mine, and armed with that knowledge had begun to teach myself the language from a textbook I had bought online. I was also psyched about the oppurtunity to travel there and use my newfound skills. If I had not gone out to ride my bke that day, I never would have seen that flyer. I never saw another flyer like that anywhere else on campus. To me, this is one of those big coincidences that shaped my life. Although the plan eventually fell through and I did not go to Korea, the idea that I would be going shaped my life for months.

Now we must analyze the role that destiny plays in this scenario. A Christian might say, that everything happens for a reason, and that God's hand plays a role in all coincidences. One can say that the reason I decided to leave my house that day is because God placed that desire within my breast, because I was destined to end up in front of that flyer. God works in mysterious ways.

Do we all have destinies? Is everything we are going to do in our lives already foretold? Is everything destined to happen in a certain way? If this is the case, then what role does free will play in all this? If everything we are going to do is already planned, then where is our free will, guaranteed to us in our creation by God?

One can argue that we all do have free will, and everything is destined to happen a certain way. God, in his omniscience, already saw the end of the world before he even created it. We have, all of us, already lived our lives and made all the decisions we had to make. The entire story of the universe is like one improv show that has been filmed. We, with our free will, already made the choices. Now, we are just watching the video. Good Lord, if that is correct, that means that Calvin was right. Certain of us are pre-destined for salvation, while others are going to burn in hell, and there's nothing we can do about it!

From the pulpit: "I, not the Lord" vs. "not I, but the Lord"

2005-01-19T17:45:00.000-08:00

RJ and I are in a Homiletics (Preaching) class this quarter, and among the topics the professor has addressed are "what is preaching (and what it's not)" and "what to preach about."

Among other things, preaching is not a "sharing" of religious experience. At first, this statement struck us as kind of odd and unhelpful. Who wants to listen to a preacher that doesn't open up about himself/herself yet instructs others to do so? If the preacher does not share his/her experience, how can we know that the preacher knows the cares of our everyday lives and is in touch witth our stories?

Our professor elaborated on why she made this assertion. It is not so much that we should not share about our lives, but as we communicate God's Word, we need to be careful to distinguish (for ourselves and our listeners) between what the Word actually says and what is simply our own experience or advice. Our experience is not always normative--we are all different people and God often communicates with us and interacts with us in different ways according to our wiring and experiences.

One example of my being on the receiving end of such "sharing" is in the area of dating and contemplating marriage. Friends that care very much for RJ have given him/us advice according to their own experiences, along the lines of "if you're not head over heels for her and absolutely can't imagine living life without her, you shouldn't be dating." I happen to disagree. Not because I am the one involved here, but because I have known people who have stayed in relationships when they weren't so lovey-dovey, and as they shared life together they built a great foundation for a wonderful marriage. I also think that people have many blocks toward marriage that do not necessarily get worked out in abstract but in the context of a relationship. This particular experience of "falling in love," though important to some, is not normative for all.

Paul (the apostle) followed Dr. Shuster's advice in 1 Corinthians 7 when he responded to the Corinthians's question about singleness and marriage. He was careful to distinguish what was the Lord's command and what was his own judgement from experience by prefacing some sentences with "I and not the Lord" and others with "not I but the Lord."

Knowing what "I, not the Lord" means, what is meant by the converse, "not I, but the Lord?" I love this quote from Bob Brown who writes about his experience of preaching the Word of God and not his own opinions:

"The authority does not lie in the preacher. Members of the congregation who were upset by something I said could not, at the end of the day, hold me solely responsible for upsetting them, unless I had grossly misrepresented the passage under scrutiny. Their quarrel was not finally with me, but with the Bible. I could gradually absent myself and leave the battle wtih the proper adversaries.

"If someone was grasped by a word of healing and forgiveness, that was not my doing either, but the work of the One to whom the Bible witnesses. The healing power was not lodged in the preacher's frail frame, but in the stout and trustworthy authority of a script that had stood the test of time for 2,000 years. It could be relied upon long after the preacher had disappeared from the scene."

I hope these words will always describe my preaching, whatever the time, place, or setting.

Surprise me: Goulet!

2005-01-09T23:24:00.000-08:00

Mark, Cory, and Scott doing their Robert Goulet impression.

We fare-welled Cory during his last few days at Oaknizzle.

Love and justice: The centrality of love and justice

2005-01-07T14:41:00.000-08:00

I’ve been doing some reading on the themes of love and justice for my ethics class (Love, Justice, Community and Postmodern Ethics). Though their approach varies, the biblical ethicists that I have read all emphasize the centrality of love and its inextricable connection with justice. This emphasis should not come as a surprise since, for Christians, the heart of living, of being human, is love. Stephen Mott argues that Christian ethics then too must be grounding love (Biblical Ethics - for more information, see my "reading list" on the sidebar). A Mott point out the love is the pattern of life into which we are reborn in Christ. The first fruit of the Holy Spirit is love (Gal 5:22-23). “Love” is also the “new command” of Jesus (Jn 13:34-35) and the greatest commandant (Mt. 22:37-40). Paul avers that love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:10). Therefore, a Christian ethic, and its basis for social action, must be established in love. In practice, Mott points out, love brings Christians into social involvement through carrying out the full implications of love for the individual. “If we see a person in dire poverty or hurt by prejudice and we love that person, there comes a time when love must consider the causes of misery of the loved one, a time when love must not only bind wounds but turn to stop the attack.”

Mott eloquently and cogently argues for the centrality of love and justice. Stassen and Gushee (in Kingdom Ethics - again, its on my "reading list") offer an erudite typology of four major Christian definitions of love. Stassen and Gushee ask, what do we mean by love?

Sacrificial love. Ander Nygren, a Swedish bishop, argues that Christian love is purely unselfish, unmotivated by any value or benefit the other may have for us. Sacrificial love is not something we’re able to do. Instead, God initiatives it and we mearly reflect that love. While Christian love is certainly sacrificial, there are some limitations to this definition. First, there is nothing that we can do to contribute to this love. Second, this love seems so ideal, that it may be written of as impractical or possible.
Mutual love. Daniel Day Williams, the proponent of this view, argues that the Hebraic/biblical understanding of the biblical story is one in which God cares about our response to love and calls us into personal communion of love with him. This definition offers a correction to Nygren’s perspective by correctly indicating that God deeply desires our response of love and is affected by what happens in history (if you’re in doubt, see the Abram’s debate with the Lord over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra in Gen 18:22-33).
Love as equal regard. Gene Outka argues that Christian love should be defined as equal regard. Love means we value all persons equally. This definition fits well with the imperative of justice since justice is based on equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities for all persons (for more on what those particular rights and opportunities should be, see Martha Nussbaum’s excellent Women and Human Development).
Delivering love. The proponents of defining love as “delivering love,” such as Amy Laura Hall, view love as a complex drama, irreducible to a single principle or theme that would screen out other scriptural meanings of love. “The drama behind the word love is the drama of deliverance.” Stassen and Gushee offer four themes they consider crucial acts in the drama of delivering justice. First, love sees with compassion and enters into the situation of persons in bondage. Second, love does the deeds of deliverance. Third, love invites us into community with freedom, justice, and responsibility. Fourth, love confronts those who exclude. All four theme link love and justice strongly together.

Since love and justice are so central to the life and teaching of Jesus, whatever we can do to flesh out the meaning of love in our own lives would be of great benefit to us. This includes most of all, acting out in love and doing the works of justice. For who ever learned how to play the violin just by reading and thinking about it? Who has become an expert in cooking without getting in the kitchen and trying it? In the same way, we learn about love and justice by doing it, by showing compassion and mercy to those around us, and my righting wrongs and partnering with God to bring healing and wholeness. God showed love to us by entering incarnationally into our own life of bondage. “This is love: not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 Jn 4:10). The delivering love offered by the cross can work continually in and through us. “Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another” (1 Jn 4:11).

Let me know how your experiments in love and justice is going by replying to this post.

Public theology: Defining the place of national loyalties

2005-01-04T15:46:00.000-08:00

Some time ago I posted a comment in response to scotteric's thoughtful comments about my post "A 'savior' for the world" (see the original post and comments). I though I would actually place the comment as a post in order to draw more attention to the discussion.

"But does a sense of loyalty to a politician necessarily conflict with our loyalty to Christ?"

I don't think there is a necessary conflict between loyalty to political leader and Christ. I am suggesting that our loyalties to nation blind us to the character of Christ and the context of his teaching. In the US there is civil religion that is confused with Christian faith. The God that politicians invoke is different from the God of Jesus Christ.

Consider: the methods of the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of Christ are quite distinct. How did Rome enforce the rule in its kingdom? With war machines (battering rams, catapults), and military power. Caesar rules because he has more money, power, and military might. How does Jesus respond to this awesome power? He responds with parables: "The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed." Then he eats with outcasts and sinners. He heals the lame and the sick. These are the tools of his warfare: parables, healings, and mercy.

Jesus does not respond to Roman oppression and domination by making war, though that was an option for him. Imagine a Jesus at Gethsemane that called upon legions of angels and slaughtered the Roman soldiers that came for him. Jesus did not opt for war. Instead, Jesus responds by submitting to God on the cross. Jesus’ loss ended up being a total victory.

Our national loyalties hinder us from seeing Jesus as a peacemaker, and peace as a central theme of his teaching.

America (The Book)
About America (The Book)

My brother Luis gave me America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction as a present for Christmas. A satirical piece written by John Stewart and the folk of the Daily Show, it comes complete with a forward by Thomas Jefferson. Written as a text book, the America pokes fun of the US, especially the folly that results from idealizing the founding fathers. Though a bit vulgar, America succeeded not only in making me laugh (one of my favorite pastimes), but also in surprising me with its insightful social commentary.

A post on posting: a philosophy of blogging

2005-01-02T13:43:00.000-08:00

Q: What’s the formula for a good blog?

A: Three ingredients come to mind: personality, creativity, and consistency. By personality I mean the ability to convey personality in writing. It doesn’t much matter what personality is conveyed. What matters is allowing the uniqueness of the blogger as a human being, that comes from their particular perspective, to flow through their writing. By creativity, I’m referring to the ability to express content in an unusual and compelling manner. There are plenty of sources of information. Those who read blogs are looking for something that those sources aren’t providing. If a blog simply reproduces information of competing sources without giving it a unique twist, it has missed something of the strength of the medium. Consistency means staying power or endurance. Many bloggers have begun with interesting ideas for blogs or write a fascinating post, only to leave you hanging for weeks, waiting for another post, much like Image Comics had us waiting for a second or third issue of their promising books.

What do you think makes for an interesting blog?

Economic ethics: The Bible and Trade

2004-12-26T18:33:00.000-08:00

I was looking for a list of ethical clothing companies when I came across this on the Tearfund site:

the bible and trade

For most of us, shopping is the most regular interaction we have with the world’s poorest people. Our lifestyle often depends on products such as coffee, fruit and chocolate, which are produced in the developing world. Our choices offer us a powerful opportunity to transform lives. God’s message about trade is simple: it should provide a fair deal to everyone involved.

As Christians we know that Jesus wants to have complete control of our lives. He knows that without His intervention, our lives will remain a mess in terms of our relationship with God, our neighbour, our environment and ourselves.

If as Christians the whole of our lives are under the authority of Jesus then we know He must be interested in what happens when we engage in trade - and go shopping.

Since Jesus asks us as Christians to love our neighbour as ourselves, and our neighbour is any other human being with whom we come into contact, when we shop we have more than our own needs to consider.

The Bible gives us a very real challenge to be Christ-like in the way we think and behave in the world of trade

This section will give you more info on the Bible and trade and you.

decisions, decisions

Living in the fourth richest country [UK] in the world gives us plenty of choices. It also gives us plenty of responsibilities. How will we rise to the challenge?

Justice
Jesus said that ‘workers deserve their wages’ (Luke 10:7).
Using honest weights and measures means not taking advantage of others. They say that money makes money, and with all the wealth at our disposal, it can be easy for the West to come off best when trading with poorer countries. It’s not just financial wealth either, as for some the lack of basic education leaves them unable to read or write, and therefore potentially far more vulnerable to getting stitched up by unscrupulous traders.

Responsibility
God commanded the Israelites to build a protective wall around the roof of their house so that they would not be guilty of bloodshed on their property if someone were to fall (check out Deuteronomy 22:8 for more DIY tips). So what’s the message? We are responsible for the safety of others, even if they happen to be making our clothes thousands of miles from our home. If we’re paying for something, we’re acting as an employer.

Choices
If we want to buy cheap, we can’t simply leave our conscience at the checkout. James 5:4 points out that ‘the wages you have failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you’. Products have to be paid for, and the cheap ones often cost less because at some point someone has been paid less for their work. The voiceless are the ones who often get squeezed out of the fair wages, and James is right to draw the links between the treatment of others and our conscience. Buying fair trade says ‘no’ to the system that abuses others and says ‘yes’ to a decent wage for a decent job. The choice is yours.

Equality
The age of the multi-national company is well and truly upon us – the same products get sold all around the world – but this principle is strangely familiar to many of the Bible writers. As well as Micah 2:2 and Habbakuk 2:6-10, take a look at Isaiah 5:8. There we read that the prophet condemns those who ‘add house to house and join field to field till no space is left…’ Ring any bells?

How about those businesses who dominate the world markets? What about the familiar situation where power is held by only a few people? This desire to control an ever greater part of the market, to put profit above all other priorities can bring about a whole load of problems. How should we respond? We might not be able to cause a change of heart at the top of a skyscraper, but we can support local businesses, ones where decent wages are paid and decent profit goes back to help that community.

For more info and Bible study on fair trade:
Personal Bible studies
Why is Fair Trade Important?
Modern Day Sweatshops

By the way, the rest of the world is much more thoughtful on these issues than US. Most sites I found were UK, Australian, and Canadian sites. It took me a long time to find these, but hopefully you will find them useful.

Responsible Shopping (Look up what your shopping supports!)
Retail Scorecard
A list of boycott targets by activist organizations
How some major companies are doing on this issue (including Nike, H&M, and Gap)

Ministry in Jesus' footsteps

2004-12-21T16:43:00.000-08:00

What does it mean to do ministry in Jesus' footsteps? One answer is "incarnational ministry." Read about what I have been learning about incarnational ministry in my latest prayer letter, which includes highlights from my Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and Culture and Transformation classes.

For my other prayer letters since starting Fuller:
December 2003
July 2004

Public theology: The relevance for ethics in Tolkien’s work

2004-12-14T13:50:00.000-08:00

Here's part of James Fowler's article which I found especially insightful. Fowler is the Executive Director of the Center for Ethics at Emory University.

The relevance for ethics of Tolkien’s work lies in the symbolism of the ring as representing those objects of human longing and obsession that can corrupt and weaken moral personhood. The “Ringwraiths” illustrate the damage to moral substance that results from unchecked lust for power, for wealth, or for notoriety. We are weakened morally by the shortcuts we take in striving for control and self-advancement. The Uruk-Hai suggest the madness that results when life is centered on collective hatred and the drive to wreak devastating destruction on those who are other. Tolkien’s complex, disturbing gift helps us see the dynamics of resentment, self-deception and corrupted power. He depicts the moral horror that can result, both from evil intent, and from our responses to it.

These are not bad issues for us to reflect upon in our daily lives and responsibilities, or as we try, as a nation, to move forward from our military victory in Afghanistan in the difficult, long term struggle to defuse terrorism, heal wounds and achieve a lasting peace. And as the world looks for a peaceful resolution of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

Love and justice: Commmunity Development and Community Organizing

2004-12-10T15:10:00.000-08:00

I'm reading a book for my "Culture and Transformation" class called "Transforming Power" (Robert Linthicum, IVP). Its primary focus is on what power is, why the church needs to learn how to use power, and how power can practically be used through community organizing. Although I have been exposed to urban ministry for a while, I’ve always been instructed in the community development model, and it was not until coming to Fuller that I heard about community organizing. What is the difference between these two approaches? To put it simply, community development develops new systems in a neighborhood, usually by bringing in outside resources, whereas community organizing utilizes the resources within the existing system and holds the system accountable to its own rules to accomplish improving the standard of living in the community. (As a side point, he has an interesting definition of community development that I have not seen before: “working with and mobilizing the poor to provide needed services for themselves.”) Linthicum says that the traditional 4 things evangelical church is about: being God's presence, praying for the city, practicing faith in action (including community development), and preaching the gospel are insufficient to bring systemic change to the global urban world. To these four he adds the wise and responsible use of power through community organizing.

To illustrate the need for power, he shares the true story of his community being redlined (banking institutions illegally refusing home loans to the particular neighborhood), victim to the city and banking institution to force neighborhood attrition so properties would sell for cheap for new development. The churches in the neighborhood considered their options:

“We [could] continue to be a presence in the community until the city claimed eminent domain and purchased the churches. We might temporarily sustain the churches, but we would not stop the destruction of our community.

“We might hold prayer meetings to pray for our community. But prayer without action would be insufficient to stop this willful pillaging of the community.

“A third alternative we considered was that we could evangelize in the community. That might bring a number of individuals in the community to Christ, but it would not stop the community-destroying policy of those redlining political and economic systems.

“We could provide community services to the people of the systems’ intentional war of attrition on our community. That is, we could carry on a ministry of practicing our faith through social services. But such an approach would not stop the systems from destroying the community. Rather than doing community service, we could enter into a ministry of practice through advocacy. We preachers could appear before city council and advocate the cause of the community. But this kind of action would be insufficient—the council would simply deny our allegations and dismiss us. Still another way we could carry out a ministry of practice was through community development. We could mobilize the community to take care of itself: clean up the streets the city’s sanitation department was neglecting; pick up the garbage and trash the city wasn’t picking up, police the streets ourselves. But we quickly realized tat mobilizing the people to develop our own community, while an important task, would not encourage the city and fiduciary institutions to abandon their plan. In fact, if we were to take on the work the city was legally responsible for providing, we could allow the city to avoid its legal responsibility to our neighborhood.

“We finally came to the inevitable alternative. We realized that we had to directly confront those greedy political and economic leaders with sufficient people power so that they would have to listen. That is, if we were to save our community and our churches from literal destruction, we would have to learn to use power.” (Linthicum, 79-80.)

The first half of the book is on a theology of power, and the second half is on concrete practices of power. I found some of his interpretation of certain Biblical passages a little sloppy and sometimes overly simplistic: he makes certain points although Biblical I don't think they can be made the way he makes them, or he oversimplifies by saying that it is values that drive actions not the other way around (I think it goes both ways, see my blog on Lessons from Mean Girls). But he shines in what he knows best--I highly recommend chapter 4 in part I--a very good primer on the different dimensions of power and makes a strong argument for the use of power and for community organizing. The case studies in which community organizing was used were particularly helpful.

I think community development (CD) is very important, but I think community organizing has a few advantages that supplement CD:

1) it really utilizes to the max the resources already available

2) I think it is more readily implementable for students after college as a commitment outside a full-time vocation; CD takes a lot of building new infrastructure, but if college students can be trained in community organizing, wherever they end up it is easy for them to get involved with that without needing to recruit a lot of outside resource. *InterVarsity people: What if some of the urban projects incorporate aspects of community organizing?*

3) community organizing really emphasizes change as coming from the people of the neighborhood since it requires relational power.

Here are some additional sites on community organizing:
Parnters in Urban Transformation
Association of Communities Organized for Reform Now (ACORN)
Direct Action and Research Training (DART)
Pacific Institute for Community Organizing (PICO)
Regional Congregations and Neighborhood Organizations (RCNO)

Scriptures: Why read the NT in Greek?

2004-12-09T15:35:00.000-08:00

Rachel and I are in the midst of writing our final paper for our Exegetical Method course. The task: to use grammatical, lexical, textual, redaction, and socio-historical analysis to determine the meaning of Matthew 9:9-13 in Greek. The work is as technical as it sounds, but through it I am gaining a greater appreciation of the complexity of the exegetical task and the reasons for choosing one rendering of a text over another.

For example, in 9:13, Matthew has Jesus telling the Pharisees to “go and learn” (poreuthentes mathete). However the word translated “go,” and imperative, is actually a participle, that is, an “-ing” word, in the Greek. Also, in English the word “and” links the two verbs, but there is no “and” in the Greek. So why don’t the English translations render this “going and learn?” Well, first that isn’t very good English. Second, the participle in this instance is an example of attendant circumstance. Attendant circumstance participles “piggy back” on the mood of the controlling verb, the order to “learn.” So the best translation would render the imperative as a finite imperative linked to the main verb with the word “and.” Hence, the reasoning behind many English translations, NRSV, NIV, becomes clear.

So why bother reading the Greek text if it turns out that the major translations come out alright? Three reasons come immediately to mind.

First, studying the NT in Greek fosters a love for the Word of God. It is quite uplifting to ruminate on the Greek words and imagine the Jesus (in the gospels) saying them. Though the gospels are interpretative historical narratives, the reconstructed Greek NT is as close as we can get to the very words of Jesus.

Second, even the best translation can never serve as a substitute for text in the original language. Languages are not exact semantic equivalents of each other. Interlinear versions of the text are deceptive because they suggest there is a one for one correspondence between Greek and English words. There are some insights which are obscured by translation. For example, the triadic structure of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) becomes more obvious through a grammatical analysis of the Greek text. In the particular text I’m working on, Matthew uses the Greek word “behold” (idou) in order to emphasize that Jesus is eating with the tax-collectors and the sinners.

Third, there are inherent ambiguities in the text. In translations the ambiguities are eliminated by making interpretive choices against a theological background. That is, your theology influences how you render the text. If the Bible is to correct us, then we need to read the text with the ambiguities, asking for the Holy Spirit’s guidance in its interpretation.

Well. Back to work!

Scriptures: An example of the advantage of reading the NT in Greek

2004-12-09T15:34:00.000-08:00

Here' s a good example of what RJ was talking about when he said that "Languages are not exact semantic equivalents of each other" and "there are inherent ambiguities in the text that are eliminated in translations."

Matt 5:39 reads "do not resist an evil doer" or "do not resist an evil person" in all the English translations I know of. But "doer" or "person" is not actually in the Greek text. What the Greek text actually says is "do not oppose τῷ πονηρῷ." τῷ πονηρῷ is in the Greek dative case, which has several functions, including indirect object, instrumental, and manner. πονηρῷ is an adjective, meaning evil. So τῷ πονηρῷ can be translated a number of ways that are equally supported grammatically. Translating τῷ πονηρῷ as an indirect object would be "do not oppose evil," or, if you take evil to be substantized (such as the use of the word wise in "the wise") then "do not oppose the evil person." If τῷ πονηρῷ is translated with instrumental it would yield "do not oppose with evil means." Translating τῷ πονηρῷ as a dative of manner yields "do not resist in an evil way." Which should be the preferred translation?

Translating Matt. 5:39 as "do not resist evil" or "do not resist an evil doer" is untenable for a number of reasons. First, what would you call Jesus' encounters with the authorities of his day, the Pharisees? Is it not resisting evil/evil doers? Secondly, the apostle Paul uses the same Greek word in Gal. 2:11 "I opposed him [Peter] to his face." If Paul's understanding of Jesus' command is "do not oppose evil" then Paul was breaking Jesus' command by opposing Peter. It seems more likely, especially given Rom. 11:14-21, which seems like a Pauline reiteration of Matt. 5:38-48, that Matt. 5:39 should be translated and interpreted in line with Rom. 11:17 "Do not repay anyone evil for evil" but rather, conquer evil with good. The emphasis is not on "do not resist" but on "not with evil means." Do not resist evil is passive. Resisting evil with good is active. There is a great deal of difference between these two interpretations of this passage, and the latter would not be known if the Bible was only read in English.

Personal: How my PhD will help address the needs of the Latino community

2004-12-07T14:50:00.000-08:00

Yo!

Here are some of my thoughts on how I see myself participating in the Latino community. I submitted an altered form of this essay as my vocational statement for the Hispanic Theological Initiative doctoral grant.

In the last few years I have realized that pursuing a doctoral degree is not simply my decision; rather, God has chosen me to participate in the work of equipping the saints. Accepting the grave, but joyous, responsibility of becoming a pastor-teacher requires rigorous training. Doctoral work constitutes God’s means of transforming me into an influencer who can represent and empower the Latino community. As a professor of Christian ethics and religion at a secular university, I will able address the needs of the Latino community with an embodied theological response through teaching, scholarship, and congregational involvement.

First, as a teacher, I will play a formative role on two groups: Latino/as who must come to terms with their cultural identity, and people of other ethnicities who must deal with the increasing Latinization of the US. The growing influence of Latino/as is increasingly evoking xenophobic backlash, such as the English-only laws. The evolving definition of mestizaje among the youngest Latino generation requires that Latino/as understand their identity, not as an either/or construct, but as a location within a matrix of indigenous cultural identification and dominant culture assimilation. As a professor of ethics, I will be able to help students develop holistic ways of thinking and seeing that acknowledge their loyalties and recognize cultural/national identity as an aspect rather than a divisive defining characteristic.

Second, through my scholarship I will address the structural and institutional oppression of Hispanics. As a Christian ethicist in training, I am especially concerned with social justice and the preferential option for the poor. I aim to raise awareness of unacknowledged oppression and develop transforming initiatives that break the vicious cycles of sin through my writing and research. In addition, there is a need to address the issue of Hispanics who oppress other Hispanics. As Hispanics gain influence within the global community, we need to learn how to use power responsibly and not repeat the abuses of past oppressors. As a professor, I will be working with upwardly mobile Hispanics, influencing them to become people of integrity and to recognize their interdependency on the rest of the Latino community. Commitment to Christ is an insufficient basis to ensure ethical behavior: a thick understanding of Jesus, arrived at through training in Christian ethics and lived out through concrete expressions of the Sermon on the Mount, will train Hispanics to distinguish kingdom values from secular ideologies.

Third, through involvement in the Latino Christian church, I will be able to encourage an ecumenical spirit. Traditionally, the majority of Latinos have been Catholic, but there is a growing Protestant movement. As a child, I grew up Catholic. As an adult, I have been a member of Protestant congregations. Though I consider myself a Protestant theologian, I recognize the tremendous insights of Catholics such as Ada-María Isasi-Díaz and Virgilio Elizondo. Miguel De La Torre and Edwin Aponte note that partnerships between Hispanic Catholics and Protestants are more common among theologians and scholars than among people at the congregational level. As a scholar who is also rooted in a local Latino congregation, I will be able to foster relationships among clergy and congregations of both groups.

The question arises whether a Latino/a with a doctorate, benefiting from the status and salary of a professor, can truly represent the as yet marginalized Latino community. Being involved in the Latino community is not optional but essential for engaging in theology relevant to the community. The mentorship from an experienced Latino/a theologian, provided as part of this scholarship, will ground my research in the Latino community. Though I am equally comfortable in the dominant and Latino cultures, I have intentionally chosen into a Spanish-speaking congregation during my time at seminary. Hispanic congregations must not only be the recipients, but also the source of theological reflection. I desire for the concrete needs of real Latino communities, not theoretical abstractions, to be the starting place of my theological reflection and scholarship.

Spirituality: The Bottom Line

2004-11-26T02:20:00.000-08:00

My friend Scott, a therapist-in-training at Fuller, recently wrote:

“Taking care of [yourself]”…It's an interesting emphasis among those in psychology - taking care of yourself. It is apparent that for those in the helping profession we often have trouble taking good care of ourselves physically, spiritually, and emotionally. (read Scott’s full posting)

As this is a common issue not only among therapists but also among those in full-time ministry (pastors have a significantly higher rate of depression than the general population), and also for those of us who are in care-taking capacities, professionally or in our families, Scott poses good questions I’m sure have crossed our minds more than once:

Does the advice "You take care of you" run contrary to the call to sacrifice at times for others?

Does the advice "You take care of you" promote an independence that can stifle the expression of God's love through dependence in community?

Does the advice "You take care of you" fit with what Jesus lived and would command for us?

At surface what seems like a no-brainer (“take care of yourself”) turns out to be much more complicated and nuanced like everything else in life.

At the risk of speaking out of ignorance (since psychology is not my field), it seems from my own experiences that concrete responses to these questions vary from person to person and from situation to situation. God has busted my box on this issue whenever I thought I came to some understanding of it. When I felt I needed to be out influencing students, God showed me that I was only a small part of the picture and that He is mover and shaker, and at times without me. But this lesson was not taught without its flip side. Often when I felt like I had no emotional energy except to fall in bed and never wake up, opportunities (what I call divine appointments) arose, and when I made myself available to God, He did amazing things through this broken vessel as well as refreshed my soul in the process.

Along similar lines, at times when I felt I really needed to talk to my friends, not a single soul was at home. I was forced to talk only to God. After this happened a few times, I began to suspect that perhaps God was trying to teach me something. At other times when I felt down, God lavished exactly the right words from specific friends that I could not have known to ask for.

This quote has served me well as a reminder of my appropriate place in the universe: “The real question for every disciple of Jesus is not ‘Am I effective?’—but, ‘Do I believe that Jesus Christ is effective?’ ”

What, or who, is the bottom line in my universe? Me, or God? What is the driving motivation? My students and many friends have heard me ask this over and over—“Am I doing this out of fear or out of faith?” On the outside the actions may very well look the same. But ultimately, things I do out of fear never grow me, and things I do out of faith always expand my experience with God.

I guess perhaps it is both-and rather than either-or: make ourselves available to God but know that God made us as finite beings; be aware of our needs and make them known but allow God and others to serve us as we seek to serve others.

After all, it seems to me that God is more interested in answering these questions for us in person than giving us answers once-and-for-all and thus removing the need for our dependence on Him.

Spirituality: Give Life, not death

2004-11-24T17:15:00.000-08:00

Several things that happened today drove home an important lesson: as friends, and particularly as people with spiritual influence or seeking to influence others towards Christ, we need to be concerned not only with what we say, but also the impact of our words on the receiving person(s). We have incredible power to build each other up or tear each other down with our words—usually without giving it any thought! It is not enough to “speak the truth in love”; we need to ask “will this ‘truth’ build up this person or harm this person?” In other words, “is it loving to speak this ‘truth’?” I am not talking about only saying to people what we think they want to hear. Rather, I am saying that we must pay enough attention to how we communicate so that the way in which we are delivering the message does not obscure or even contradict our message.

Dr. Sherwood Lingenfelter, professor of my Culture and Transformation Class, gave us the insight that rather than making a judgment on something we see, we should ask open-ended questions and allow others to tell the story from their perspective, because in a cross-cultural situation, or really in any situation I can think of, we probably don’t have all the data to make an informed judgment without such dialogue.

There are ways to build up and ways to tear down even while expressing the same content. Rather than responding with “that is an unrealistic plan” to someone who just shared their vision with you, ask “what thoughts do you have towards accomplishing that goal?” Instead of “You clearly haven’t thought this through,” try “What you said brought this to my mind…do you think that should be a factor in this decision?” When we are talking to impressionable minds, whether at 15, 25 or 55, in our class or small group or congregation, about sensitive issues such as race and culture, let’s speak in ways that encourage further study and dialogue, that lift up the overlooked and marginalized, rather than reducing the complex issues to someone else's special interest with little relevance to the gospel or our lives.

Let’s help each other to speak words that give life rather than words that bring death or perpetuate lies or stereotypes. If something someone says hurts me, I want to not just think “well I’m sure they didn’t mean it how it came across to me” and give them the benefit of the doubt. Rather, I want to say, “This is probably not what you meant, but this is how it came across to me, and it was hard for me because of this. What did you want to say? And what can we do to communicate better?”

Lord, help us, for it is only by Your Spirit we can speak words of life.

Reel world: National Geographic Special on Return of the King

2004-11-23T23:08:00.000-08:00

The National Geographic Special on the Return of the King attempts to connect the characters of fantasy with figures of popular history. Despite the excellent quality of most of National Geographic films in general, this particular special fails to accurately assess the content of the film. The documentary over-reaches, seeing parallels where none exist.

For e.g., Professor Michael Drout, touted as a Tolkien Expert, makes the claims that “Wallace and Aragorn both are in love with the idea of freedom and independence.” Like Wallace, Drout notes, “Aragorn seeks power in order to set people free.”

Does Aragorn seek power (even to set people free)? Aragorn does want to set people free, but does not seek power to do so.

Elrond rides to meet Aragorn in the fields of Rohan and presents him with the reforged sword of Isildur. Aragorn does not demand the sword; rather he is reluctant to take up the mantle of the kingship symbolized by the sword because he is not sure that will result in the greatest good.

Aragorn’s reluctance to seek power is a theme as well of the other Lord of the Rings films. In the Fellowship, Arwen reminds Aragorn that he is not Isildur himself, simply Isildur’s heir. Aragorn responds by saying, “The same blood runs throughout my veins; the same weakness.” In the same film, Aragorn tells no one of his lineage, even when Boromir claims at the Council of Elrond that Gondor “has no king.” Instead it is Legolas that points out that Aragorn is the rightful heir of Isildur. Later, when Frodo offers Aragorn the ring, trusting that Aragorn, of all men, would not use the ring for evil, Aragorn closes up Frodo’s extended hand; Aragorn reassures Frodo: “I would have followed you to the fire of Mt Doom.”

In the Two Towers, when Gandolf points out that “there is one who could unite” the men of Middle Earth, Elrond reminds us that Aragorn has chosen exile rather than the title of King of Gondor.

Aragorn’s quest is not for power. Instead Aragorn’s reluctance to accept power is a theme of the films. To be fair, the documentary doesn’t promise a fair analysis of the Return of the King. Instead, the documentary ultimately is about finding parallels in history to the Lord of the Rings, some more superficial than others.

What do you think?
What is Aragorn’s motivation for doing “good” in the film? What motivates the other characters? What accounts for the ubiquitous appeal of the Lord of the Rings story?

Reel world: Lessons from Mean Girls

2004-11-22T19:20:00.000-08:00

If you like your comedy entertaining yet also profoundly insightful, or if you like Weekend Update from Saturday Night Live, go to the video store and rent Mean Girls. RJ and I just watched it and it is an amazingly clever piece of social commentary. I’ve been telling people: “It’s like Animal Farm set in a high school.”

* * * SPOILER ALERT * * *

One of the most surprising and most insightful lessons from the movie is that when we pretend to be someone else, even in jest, we ourselves are changed. The way we act shapes the way we think, not only the other way around. We cannot act mean without becoming mean on the inside. Stating it positively, when we choose to be kind to those around us, our attitudes towards them are also changed in the process. This is the profound insight of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: that our actions and our hearts are intimately connected, and both good and evil are self-perpetuating. This is why Jesus points out that hate leads to violence, and holding a grudge leads to murder… and also why He offers us concrete actions, or transforming initiatives (Stassen’s term from his book Kingdom Ethics) to break out of the vicious cycle—go seek out your brother/sister and be reconciled, examine yourself before you judge someone else, pray for your enemies, be welcoming as your Father in heaven is.

Another important lesson is the warning not to find our identity or significance in comparison. “Calling somebody else fat won’t make you any skinnier. Calling someone stupid doesn’t make you any smarter. Ruining [someone else’s] life definitely didn’t make me any happier.” Is the reverse not true also? Telling someone that they’re smart won’t make me any less intelligent, telling somebody they’re beautiful won’t make me less attractive. Why then are we so reluctant to affirm each other, to praise the good we see in each other’s lives?

“Our whole sense of self is dependent upon the way we compare ourselves with others and upon the differences we can identify. This all-pervasive competition…prevents us from entering into full solidarity with each other, [which] would require giving up dividing lines…. And that would mean losing our identities! This fear betrays our deepest illusions: that we can forge our own identities…that we are the trophies and distinctions we have won. It makes us into competitive people who compulsively cling to our differences and defend them at all cost, even to the point of violence.” (Henri Nouwen, Compassion)

If this is the vicious cycle, what is the transforming initiative?

“This is the mystery of the Christian life: to receive a new self, a new identity, which depends not on what we can achieve, but on what we are willing to receive…. [Jesus] wants us to let go of the old life, which is so full of fears and doubts, and to receive the new life…a new identity that enables us to say, ‘I am not the esteem I can collect through competition, but the love I have freely received from God.’ ” (Nouwen, Compassion)

May you and I live fully in this new identity we have received through Christ.

Personal: A Day in the Life of a Young Theologian

2004-11-17T23:56:00.000-08:00

Perhaps you’re asking yourself “what’s seminary like?” You’re wondering “Am I being called to seminary?” While there are as many seminary experiences as there are seminarians, I wanted to provide a day in the life, a play by play of a typical day of my life in seminary.

Tuesday

9:00 a.m.
Impressive. Kitchen was clean when I got up. Made egg-white burrito on wheat tortilla. Yum.

9:20 a.m.
Spend some time sitting out in the California sun reading over Foster’s Celebration of Discipline, the chapter on the discipline of service for devotions. Generates some ideas about an essay I’d like to write for the SEMI about true leadership, that is according to the way that Jesus redefined it. The type of leadership which doesn’t seek self-promotion or position but to serve in secret.

9:45 p.m.
Write a letter to my sister to thank her for her Halloween e-card and to update her about my goings on.

10:05 a.m.
Sean, my flatmate, comes in from seeing his client. Talk with him briefly about what’s going on.

10:30 a.m.
Arrived at the library and headed straight to first basement to research the 1st century Messianic expectations for Gospels paper. I didn’t need to look up the call numbers since I had done that the night before.

12:35 p.m.
Summary of findings from morning study: The plethora of Messianic expectations suggests that we should talk about one Messiah, but Messiahs. The identity of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels both matches and departs from these Messianic prototypes.

12:50 p.m.
Arrive in Gospels class a bit early to set up laptop and ask prof about proportion of the paper which should deal directly with the Gospels and what proportion should centered on the background Jewish context.

1 p.m.
Marianne Meye Thompson begins class with prayer. We spent the first hour finishing our discussion on the Gospel according to John. Concentrated on the divine prerogatives of judgment and life as given to Jesus and Jesus as the one true “eye-witness” of the Father (1:18; 5:37; 6:44). The genius of the Gospel of John: It argues for the divinity of Jesus using Jewish exegetical methods and ways of reasoning.

1:50 p.m.
Took our class break. Ate a Balance bar for lunch while staring dreamingly at the San Gabriel Mountains against a deep blue sky.

2 p.m. Somewhat naturally, a fellow student asked Thompson: “how do you understand the trinity?” Thompson, who was handing out lecture outlines for the second hour, jovially replied “so you want me to give an explanation of the trinity in five minutes or less?” This starts a surprising twenty minute discussion about the nature of the trinity. Thompson: “If you were a heretic, what type of heretic would you like to be: a modalist or a tri-theist?”

2:58 p.m.
While I was in the at the School of Theology advising office (to sign up for classes for Winter Quarter), I ran into Lisa, a student colleague. She had just moved in across the street from my apartment in mid-October. “You should come over with Rachel this week-end to hang out.”

3:10 p.m.
Arrive back home. De-brief with Rachel about her day. Have a tortilla with tomato-basil veggie burger.

3:40 p.m.
Began studying for Hebrew. The translation of the verses was quite tough today. I’m elated to be able to translate Old Testament Hebrew and appreciate the chance to learn the language, but its hard work. Pratico, the workbook’s author, seems to be infatuated with Noah in this chapter.

5:12 p.m.
Pretty tired. Rachel and I take a break, sitting on the couch, staring into space for a few minutes.

5:17 p.m.
Transition to memorizing new Hebrew vocabulary words for quiz tomorrow, Wednesday.

5:58 p.m.
Begin to review Hebrew vocabulary from previous chapters (the quiz is cumulative).

6:23 p.m.
Nathan, my roommates asks, “Did you notice the sink?”
“Um . . . you mean our sink in the bathroom?”
“No the kitchen sink. It’s chrome instead of brown.”
Ah, an explanation for the clean kitchen this morning.

6:25 p.m.
Raced towards Psychology building for class on Biblical and Practical peacemaking. I’m excited that the discussion will provide some fodder for my paper.

6:32 p.m.
Begin class with Allen leading us in prayer. Discussion centers on The Challenge of Peace, the brief book written by U.S. Catholic bishops based on the dignity and sacredness of the human life. “Modern warfare threatens the obliteration of human life on a previously unimaginable scale.”

8:02 p.m.
Class break. I pack up and take my leave, saying good-bye to Allen, Alegra, and Dave. I need finish researching and start writing the paper from this morning.

8:35 p.m.
Arrived back in my apartment. Heading over to the neighbors, I set up my laptop and books and put some water on the stove for tea—green, thank you very much, pre-lactate, as homage to Dr. John. Rachel I think was in her own room finishing a paper of her own.

12:05 p.m.
Drowsy, I pack things up, putting them in neat piles, like D taught me, and head for bed.

12: 20 p.m.
Before falling asleep I set my alarm with enough time to head to the gym before chapel. I read a few paragraphs of Celebration of Disiciple and say my little prayers, before shutting off the light.

Personal: The fear and truth about becoming an academic

2004-11-11T01:09:00.000-08:00

What drives me towards a life of academics? I am far yet from actually being an academic, having completed a little more than a year of graduate school. What first comes to mind as motivations for pursing academics: to push the boundaries of human understanding of God, to analyze, critique, and improve our grasp of the workings of the “kin-dom,” (Ada-Maria Isasi-Diaz’s phrase), to proclaim the ineffable transforming power of the Word of God so that it becomes efficacious in the lives of men and women. This is, in a sense, an expounding in detail of my primary calling, my own particular version of what all believers are called to: to respond to the invitation of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, to “follow me.”

However, becoming an academic constitutes a secondary calling. Perhaps this is a clearer explanation of my secondary calling: the exploration of human epistemological limits. The thrill of the examining the unknown or the little understood, drives me.

Simultaneously, fear, anger, hate constitute the unholy weapons waged against me, making me hesitate, stumble, and fall. Fear makes me doubt that I have the capacity to do the work that God inspires me to do. What if I’m not smart enough? That student seems to get this quicker than I. Does that mean I'm not cut out for this line of work? I’m not bright enough to keep up with that professor. How can I presume to teach some day if I can't even keep up with the class? After all, who am I to think that I can push forward the edge of human understanding? Anger then chimes in: stop trying to console me! Your words of pity and compassion are unwelcome! Argh! I feel the need to punch, kick, damage the wall, or my desk, or fling this computer across the room. The hate collects its toll: I hate this place. My roommates are always frustrating me. My neighbors are against me. Fear, anger and hate are unite in self-condemnation.

And this battle rages on within me, nearly everyday. The lies seep in, though I well know the truth. In the midst of the battle, the voices of doubt and fear do not go unchallenged. The Spirit that lives within me testifies to the truth and sheds light on the darkness. “There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus” (Ro 8:1), "conduct yourself not according to worldly wisdom, but according to divine grace" (2 Cor 1:12), “Love one another, as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34), “do not let your heart be troubled. Believe in God and believe also in me” (Jn 14:1). Through the Spirit I can recognize these voices as the lies that they are.

And I remember: it is not my gifting, not my talents or abilities, whatever they may be, that qualify me to serve God as an academic. God could have chosen any one of hundreds—-or thousands of hundreds—-to walk down this path. Nonetheless, He chose me. He prepared this good work in advance for me to walk into (Eph 2:10). Just as God has prepared good works of service for you to do, too. May the Holy Spirit guide each of us into the good works prepared in advance for us to do.

Public theology: A "savior" for the world

2004-11-07T01:32:00.000-08:00

In Luke 2:10, 11 an angel of the Lord comes to shepherds living in the fields proclaiming good news for all people: the birth of one through whom God offers peace, a Savior, who is Messiah and Lord. Interestingly, an inscription from 9 BC celebrates Caesar Augustus using the same formula. The birth of Augustus is proclaimed as a day of good news for all people, he is called both “savior” and “Lord.” To the original audience the conflict between these two claims would not have been lost. Other portions of Luke emphasize the choice that needs to be made by the readers of the gospel: “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Luke 16:19-read it in context). Either Jesus or Caesar is savior and Lord.

From the pulpit, it is often cited that Augustus claimed the title “savior of the world,” promised order, peace, and justice, and that security and prosperity would be achieved through a new world order. Sermons on this passage sometimes conclude with a call to choose between giving glory to Caesar or glory to Jesus, glory to man or glory to God. However, this conclusion falls a bit off the mark by failing to ask who or what authority today competes for the loyalty of the world by promising peace, justice, security and prosperity on its own terms.

In his second State of the Union address, Bush emphasized that “this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm.” This peace is ensured through the use of “American armed forces,” that is military might. This language typifies the promises of the current administration.

In this last election, 23 percent of voters “identified themselves as white born-again or evangelical Christians” (Lauri Goodstein and Willaim Yardley, NY Times, 5 Nov “Bush Benefits From Efforts to Build a Coalition of the Faithful”). “Seventy-eight percent of them voted for the president - clearly an increase over the 2000 election” (ibid).

Luke challenged the notions of loyalty to emperor and empire of his original audience. Today Luke challenges us to scrutinize our own uncontested loyalties to president and country.

Public theology: The human cost of the war in Iraq

2004-11-01T23:52:00.000-08:00

For those of us who have struggled to weigh the pros and cons of the U.S. "liberation" of Iraqis, here is a new piece of non-partisan evidence to enter into the mix: a study just came out from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health that estimates 100,000 more Iraqi civilians died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred.

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:48)

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has his foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Spirituality: : : : x x x c h u r c h . c o m : : :

2004-10-30T10:55:00.000-07:00

Craig Gross and Mike Foster, two young pastors from Riverside, CA have have set-up a sorely needed anti-porn website : : : x x x c h u r c h . c o m : : :. On the site, you can download free accountability software, x3watch, which sends a list of the sites you've visited that may contain questionable material to your accountability partners.

Both the site and the program are fantastic transforming initiatives to encourage open, honest conversation about the insidious effects of porning on individuals and our entire society.

Here are some suggestions (from XXXchurch.com) about you can do right now:

-------------------------

1. Talk About It.
Get the collective conversation started. If you're waiting for someone else to bring it up you just might be waiting a long time. Talk to your friends, your buddies and especially your kids.

2. Get Your Crap Together.
Get your crap together. You're either part of the problem or the solution. We can't be complaining if in our own lives we are indulging in it.

3. Get Involved.
We need your help gosh darn it! Help us out! Get involved in one of our campaigns, buy a T-shirt and download our flyers. Do something! Standing on the sidelines is for wussies and old ladies.

Public theology: What is a Christian to do in this election?

2004-10-28T23:02:00.000-07:00

What does the Bible have to say about the key issues in this election? Two prominent Christian organizations, Focus on the Family and Sojourners, offer two different lists for our consideration:
Focus on the Family
Sojourners

These lists are radically different. I agree with Sojourners that God is not a Republican or a Democrat, that sincere Bible-believing Christians can choose to vote for Bush or Kerry for reasons deeply rooted in their faith, despite the either-or molds that the two parties try to squeeze us into. I am grateful that Sojourners has pointed out deeply Christian ethical issues that are glossed over by the “Moral Majority,” such as caring for the poor and vulnerable, respecting the image of God in every person (human rights), peacemaking, and caring for God’s earth.

The most important thing I am learning this election is that we must be holistically consistent in voting on the issues we care about. Traditional single-issue voting is not enough. If I care about protecting human life and reducing the number of abortions, I need to also vote to reduce poverty, because the two are intricately connected (see Fuller professor Dr. Glen Stassen’s study on the connection between abortion and poverty). If I care about reducing terrorism, I need to also vote for someone who is for peacemaking and international cooperation (see RJ’s blog below on working towards international cooperation or Dr. Stassen’s article on reducing terrorism).

Our role as Christians is not to give uncritical support to either party, but to vote for the candidate with the policy closest to the Sermon on the Mount. Check out the Sojourners' website for more reflections on the major issues in this election. There is no perfect candidate, and regardless of who becomes the next president, we must continue to use our democratic privilege to speak out for justice and peace.

A final observation: Focus on the Family cites the Prophets’ example in calling Christians to influence the nation. However, the issue that the Prophets repeatedly speak out on—namely caring for the poor—is conspicuously absent from the list.

P.S. I just recently watched Fahrenheit 911. Some may call it liberal propaganda. It is certainly clear that Michael Moore has an agenda, but I found a number of parts of the film disturbingly truthful. I encourage you to watch it yourself before you cast your vote—I trust that you can make your own sound judgment if you watch it with an open yet discerning mindset. If you want to dialogue more about it afterwards, I would love to hear what you think.

--Rachel (for the latest papers and pics click here).

Scriptures: The end of Mark

2004-10-27T01:29:00.000-07:00

----------------------------

And [the man wearing a white robe] said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.'"

They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

—Mk 16:6-8

----------------------------

“In our oldest Greek manuscripts, Mark ends at 16:8. A number of scholars have argued that Mark could not have ended his Gospel there, and that the original ending of Mark has been lost” (Thompson, course syllabus).

The three alternative Markan endings constitute an attempt to supply a more complete ending. However, we need not supply such an ending. As part of the coursework for my Gospels class, I’ve written a paper in which I argue that given the weight of the external and internal textual evidence, the literary structure and style, and overriding of the major objections, Mark 16:1-8 provides a good and fitting conclusion to the Gospel of Mark.

I pray you find it helpful in generating your own reflections.

Scriptures: Interconnectedness of the synoptics

2004-10-22T01:56:00.000-07:00

Don Hagner, one of my New Testament teachers, took us through pericope 150, the parallel passage of defilement (or the controversy over clean and unclean) in Matthew 15:1-20 in the Greek. Fantastic! Though I could not myself read it without the help of a lexicon (and other aids), I could follow along with Hagner as he translated on the fly.

Hagner's right about one thing: only by encountering the commonalities and differences among the synoptics for myself am I convinced about the interrelatedness of the synoptic gospels. I highly encourage anyone to use the cross-references in their bibles to compare similar passages in Mathew, Mark, and Luke and ask: what do the distinct ways of presenting the gospel stories tell us about the theological emphasis and interest of the authors? I am finding the process very revealing.

Public theology: Working towards international cooperation

2004-10-20T02:21:00.000-07:00

Had a great discussion tonight in my Biblical and Practical Peacemaking class. Though I'd put some down some of the highlights in note form.

Voices of the Bush Administration
The logic of the current administration: the US must not allow international laws and agreements to hinder the continuation of America’s grand strategy to remain the sole superpower as far into the future as possible. This involves taking unilateral action to maintain US hegemony. In this way, the US can stomp out international threats like terrorism. This is almost ver batum the language of the current administration. Want to read more?
To view the administration's 90 page report which further details their position go to the Project for the New American Century.

Towards International Cooperation
Mt. 5:43-48—“Love your enemies . . . as your Father in heave” is about who is included in our community of neighbors (Lev 19:17-18).

How does this work itself out internationally? We have to work together with other nations. We need to work towards international cooperation. The idea of bringing people into community makes basic sense.

There are limits to unilateral power which point to a need for need for a cooperative foreign policy. The US with its military power cannot meet its goals (like reducing terrorism), without major help from Europe and other nations. In the second Gore-Bush Presidential debate, Bush, asked about what type of foriegn policy he would pursure, answered: I"f we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble." (You can read the transcript of the debate yourself on the Commission of President Debates site). Bush was right in the debates four years ago: we need a humbler foreign policy, and the US should not do it alone.

We need a cooperative foreign policy in pursuit of justice. For other nations to cooperate with the US, the US needs to cooperate with other nations.

Surprise me: Languages of Spain

2004-10-18T01:14:00.000-07:00

This is off topic, but I thought this was interesting.

Q: How many languages are spoken in Spain?

A: The site Spain Languages offers an answer in the form of an interactive map of the linguistic regions of Spain. The major languages are: Castilian (Spanish), Euskera (the Basque language), Galician (which shares its origin with Portugese), and Catalán.

On posting: Why does this blog exist?

2004-10-17T17:17:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd write a sort of "statement of purpose" to provide direction for what I post on this blog. Essentially, this is an answer to the question, why does this blog exist?

The Reformation brought about great gains for church. Though the Reforming Spirit was expressed in a variety of ways (the magisterial reformers, Luther and Calvin, in Germany and Switzerland, the Anglican formulation in England, the Anabaptist expressions in Holland especially but also throughout Europe) all of these expressions shared some transforming ideas. Chief among these were the justification by faith alone, the relocation of Scripture as central to the church, and the idea of the priesthood of all believers.

These transforming ideas meant that the grace of God through Jesus is made available to all who will accept it, and that each believer, arising out of and within a community of faith, had the priestly privilege of interpreting Scripture for themselves. Along with this privilege comes the duty to interpret the Scriptures responsibly. Responsible interpretation entails that every member of the church must engage in a measure of theological education.

As one who is called to study theology full-time, I want to describe what I am learning, through coursework but also through the discussion with other students and my teachers, so that it might serve as starting point for theological musings of others. In this way I hope to disseminate the seeds of a theological education among friends and family and strangers, participating in the reforming spirit.

On posting: Musings as a running commentary

2004-10-16T10:53:00.000-07:00

Some of you know that Musings of a Young Theologian is also the name of essentially a list of courseswork, papers, and articles that I have on-line. I will continue to update that list but have decided to provide something of a running commentary, a motion picture of theological reflection, rather than the static photos on the TWiki site.