Summer of Religious Diversity

Ever since I moved here to Pennsylvania from Texas and then Virginia, I have been wanting to go to some different services and get to know some different religious communities. Nothing against Amarillo, TX but it's not really known for it's "diversity". Catholicism is about as "far out there" as it got. So for the remainder of this summer I will be visiting a different community every week, starting Sunday July 1 through the second weekend in September. I have picked religions or denominations that I have always been curious about and have specifically picked locations close to home. The best way I figure to love my neighbors as myself is to actually get to know them and there are a surpising amount of these communities close to my house and home church. Anyway, I will be blogging about my experience each week. I am very excited about this and know it will be a great experience. My tentative schedule is:

1. Antiochian Orthodox
2. Catholicism
3. Buddhism
4. Islam
5. Unitarian Universalism
6. Judaism
7. Hinduism
8. Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
9. Jehovah's Witness
10. Mormonism
11. Messianic Judaism

Tired of the Bible?

This week I have been thinking about the Bible. For whatever reason I grew up in a tradition that emphasized reading my Bible and going to Church. What Christian tradition doesn't? But as I look back and I look around even today, I see a bibliolatry and a misplaced emphasis. First, we worship and serve a Person, not a book. This I think has many implications for how we look at and read Scripture, but my thoughts this week have really centered around the idea of a "misplaced emphasis." How often does Scripture talk about the importance of reading Scripture? Don't get me wrong, it's there. Most of the NT presupposes a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. How often does Scripture talk about the importance of "going to church" in order to be a "good Christian?" Now this one is actually harder for me to find reference for, besides of course the old Hebrews passage every pastor uses, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing..."

My point is not to say these are bad things or that we shouldn't be doing them on a regular basis, only that we've made them ends in themselves when they are only a means to an end. Scripture doesn't give nearly the emphasis on these things that we do in American Christian sub-cultures. Meditating on the Scriptures and meeting regularly with believers are necessary conditions for spiritual growth but they are not sufficient conditions. What does this end up looking like? Well, to the world, it looks like we are smug in our traditionalism, we couldn't care less what happens to the world as long as we are "saved" by reading our Bibles and going to Church.

It's like me proclaiming myself to be an amazing cook, since of course, I have read all the best cookbooks. This is silly. No one will hire a chef because they have "studied and memorized the best cookbooks." No, they have to have actually cooked before. For me, I am tired of "studying the Scriptures" as though that is an end in itself. I realize I know more recipes (read: Scriptural "understanding") than most people but I haven't even really began to cook. I know perfectly the recipe for an amazing dinner, lamb racks in garlic sauce, etc, but all I ever make is a PB&J sandwich.

As students of Scripture it's easy to think that our knowledge of Scripture qua knowledge actually means something, but it is only meaningful in so far as it is the impetus to action.

Gratitude

Tonight I went to a church service, and it was good. There was one thing in particular that made me really think. At the end of the time of singing (sorry for the lack of a better word, I refuse to call it "worship") the music leader prayed, "God, I wish there were words big enough to show our gratitude." For whatever reason, it hit me. We kind of do have 'words big enough to show our gratitude.' They are called 'actions.' Of course the leader didn't say this intentionally but I understood those words in my own life as giving lip service. It's much easier for me to say, "I wish I had words big enough to show my gratitude" while I am missing enormous opportunities to show my gratitude by loving my neighbor as myself, by letting my neighbor borrow my lawn mower (even though I know I won't see it again for 6 mos, or ever), by giving up on the lame excuse "I just don't have time" so that I can volunteer at a homeless shelter, so that I can take time to pray for the less fortunate, by giving up my vacation time at work to go to help Katrina victims. That is gratitude. Now even those might not be gratitude enough, but I have to say it's much better than cop-ing out with a "I wish I had words..."

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?"

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." [Matthew 25:37-40]

Hebrews was written by nobody

This just in, the book of Hebrews was written by nobody. I love it. Click to read the article "Study suggests book of Hebrews wasn't written by anybody."

Global Warming & the Anti-Christ

"I am strongly against Christians embracing the environmental movement. It’s easy to relate to a desire to save the earth. Unfortunately, the designers of this movement have a political agenda that few true Christians would find compatible with the Bible.

The true goal of the environmental movement is to draw the world into a central body that would set the rules. This plan is part of the devil’s master scheme to recreate the type of control he had during the time of the Babylonian Empire. The only way to get back to Babylon is to push for world unity.

The environmental movement is a perfect disguise because it asks nations to surrender their sovereignty for a cause seemingly beneficial to all nations. Recently, a group of well-known evangelical leaders fell for this ploy by deciding to back an initiative to fight global warming."

By Todd Strandberg - Raptureready.com

I have heard a lot of good and bad arguments for why we should or shouldn't take care of creation, but this is a new one for me. Wow.

Courtesy of Raptureready.com (Thanks Art for the link).

Jesus & the Elephant

I am here in TX and truly cringing at the amount of broad generalizations I have run into. I recently had "the conversation" as my wife and I like to call it (both of us being from the South) with my mom about how it really is possible to be a democrat AND a Christian. Needless to say, I wasn't too convincing. But the claims I have heard all week are somewhat depressing, a lot of polarization going on. "Those liberals" all they want to do is take God out of the government. We were founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and our country is going down the tubes because of "those liberals." Global warming? Oh Jared, that's just a political agenda. We can't destroy this earth. What was interesting was some of the broader generalizations that were even about Baptists, "you know, they only teach the basics, but at some point you have to grow out of being a baptist." Anyway, I was amazed at it all and I am know rethinking my coming out of the closet with my democratic and 'liberal' stances, from fear of being forever excommunicated from the family. But, as Kimball says in his new book (which I am ironically reading in TX):

"Today, Christians are known as scary, angry, judgmental, right-wing finger-pointers with political agendas."

His (and my) conclusion about outsiders and their views on Christianity: "I can't blame them - I wouldn't like Christianity either"

Derrida on Death

The Phaedo explicitly names philosophy: it is the attentive anticipation
of death, the care brought to bear upon dying, the meditation on the best way to
receive, give, or give oneself death, the experience of a vigil over the
possibility of death, and over the possibility of death as
impossibility.
-Derrida in The Gift of Death

The idea of "being-towards-death" and "facing your own death" are central to existentialism. However, it seems odd to me that the for Heidegger and other existentialists, these terms mean the exact opposite of Kierkegaard's notion of "facing your own death," with Kierkegaard being the supposed Father of Existentialism. For Kierkegaard "facing your own death" is relational and exoteric (the subject before God). For Heidegger, etc "facing your own death" is esoteric (the subject before the subject). It seems then that for the unbelieving existentialist, "facing your own death" is merely resolving to the fact, a sort of neo-Stoicism. But with Kierkegaard it is a living faith, a relation by constant choice.

Maybe a practical implication:
For the common American, life is the material. But death is non-material and therefore cannot even be in the purview of the material mindset. It precludes the notion of death, it is inauthentic in the Heideggerian sense of always losing oneself in the crowd so as to not have to face one's own death. It needs a material ending and that ending is (perhaps?) retirement.But for the spiritual, death can be faced since it is not only not precluded but included in the very nature of the spiritual. The material is taking and can decide when to stop taking, when it's had enough (retirement). But the spiritual is giving and so cannot decide when to stop giving, only death decides. But it is a death that can be accepted, it is truly the believer's retirement.



The importance of death to the believer cannot be stressed enough.

As we learn to acknolwedge and admit the reality of death,
rather than deny it, we can prepare for our own death by familiarizing
ourselves with it while it remains (probably) at some distance...We should not
downplay or suppress the reality of death in our worship. Every occasion
of worship, after all, harks to the death of Christ on a cross. Every
baptism is a death, a drowning, and we should not gloss this.

-Rodney Clapp, Tortured Wonders

So then, this life brings death and this death brings life (just as Jesus taught). This is the paradox of the Christian life. It brings life now, but only insofar as its hope is in the future, not in this life. To grasp your own death as a Christian is to truly "hide your life in Christ" (Colossians 3; II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:1).

Ehrman on Inerrancy

I just finished Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. It was a pretty basic book but his main point raised some very good questions for me. His main beef about inerrancy is that it is a vacuous word. Almost all evangelicals affirm in their creeds innerancy but only in the autograph. But the problem, Ehrman rightly contends, is that we don't have the autograph. For me, the only thing I thought was "now we have something to work towards." The fact that we don't have the autographs at least gave us something to do, but I never actually thought through what it meant for innerancy. And I haven't thought through all the implications but one thing I know, inerrancy as its classically been defined has become for me a vacuous term. I can completely agree that the Bible is inerrant in its autograph but that doesn't get me anywhere. In what sense then can we talk about the Bible as inerrant?

The Evolution of Language

A while back I posted a blog entitled "Beowulf & Moses" where I compared the language evolution of Biblical Hebrew to English. However, a friend of mine wrote me an email about how this probably isn't a proper comparison. She is a well-educated teacher and Jewish, so I thought I should listen. Here is what she said:

Anyway, about Biblical Hebrew and Old English, there is a vast difference in purpose and culture here. We believe that the Beowulf poem was written in the vernacular or vulgar tongue of the Anglo-Saxons. There you already have the melding of two people groups, cultures and languages. We also think the original poem may have been recited in Old Norse, a very similar language to modern Icelandic. Even though Britain and Iceland are two island nations, Britain's culture and its language suffered many invasions by other European peoples, the Danes the Norse, the Norman French. Its original languages have not fared well because of this.

Several of the old languages of the Celts, most notably Cornish and Manx are no longer spoken as a first language by anyone, though that may be changing thanks to Cornish radio and TV. They are following the Welsh strategy to reintroduce the language. The only reason I know this is because I am a member of the International Reading Association and attended one of their World Congresses in July of 2002 in Edinburgh. There I met teachers from these areas who told me how they were trying to revive speaking, reading and writing in the ancient languages.

English, as Leah likes to say, is a Creole, a mixture of many languages and cultures. Because of politics and trade, the language seems to be constantly changing for the last 1,000 years. England has never had an isolated culture. According to Robin McNeill, Iceland has a very different history. It traded almost exclusively with Norse peoples for several hundred years. It also has never been invaded like England. Its language has changed very little in all that time. This point was made in a recent indie film named "Beowulf and Grendel." The writers and producers of the film were mainly Icelandic, and in an interview I read, said they could read the old English pretty easily, unlike us.

So, the point is well taken. How much a language changes really does depend on its exposure to other cultures and languages, whether through invasion or trade. In any case, I found this information very interesting.

The Language We Use - Part 2

1. A lack of concern for our spirituality outside of the buildings we go to

This actually goes back to a post I put up a few months ago where I discussed our compartmentalization in our spiritual lives and I find that our language of "going to church" emphasizes that even more. In a sense we oftentimes believe that the place we go to worship has a more "spiritual" aspect to it, that it is more "holy" than other places.

I worked at a very small church in Virginia while I was finishing up college as the worship pastor/college pastor and it was a very sweet time. But Sarah and I were the youngest people by 10 years and that was only one other couple. Everyone else was at least 2-3 decades older than us. In any case, I was often reprimanded for hurdling the altar railing to get to the stage or for wearing my hat in the sanctuary (it was okay downstairs, but not "the sanctuary"). I was not allowed to wear shorts or t-shirts, etc. Of course I complied respectfully but I just didn't understand at all where they were coming from.

This is what I want to warn against. When we begin to exalt a space, we forget that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, not any building. Working with the youth group I often hear the term "you can't do that in church!" But by saying such things, we are saying that there are things that are okay outside the church but not okay inside, as though the building somehow is where God dwells, instead of seeing that it's within us that God dwells. We can't get away from "the sacred space", it is always with us because it is us. If our conscience says not to wear a hat inside a church because it's somehow "sacred" we should never wear a hat because we ourselves are a sort of "sacred space". Is this not what Paul means when he says (albeit in response to sexual immorality but applies here), "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Cor 6:19-20)?Of course there are many issues that offshoot from this but my main point is that instead of bringing our idea of "church" down to the level of our daily lives, we should exalt our daily lives to the level of "church", since that is who we are.

The Language We Use - Part 1

This is from a post I did on my church's blog, I thought it might be thought provoking:

We have all heard it said, "The church isn't the building but the people". As much as we "know" that, we still have the "building" concept still embedded in our thinking. Just look at the words we use on a weekly basis.

I am going to church tomorrow.

What did you learn at church today?

Do you go to church?

What seemingly amounts to harmless semantics I think actually affects how we view our spirituality in general. By using such phrases (which shows how we really still think about things, even if on the surface we deny it) we are making it harder and harder on ourselves to not compartmentalize things. My thought is that such language breeds two things (although there is probably more):

1. A lack of concern for our spirituality outside of the buildings we go to

2. A passivity in our engaging in spirituality and our worship, especially when we gather on the weekends at our gatherings.

The Inferiority of Women

Oftentimes one reason given for the subordination of women to men is taken from the biblical text of Genesis 2:21-22 where the woman is created from a rib of Adam. So, goes the argument, since woman was taken from man she is therefore derivative and subordinate. However, Phyllis Trible in her classic work God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality has a humorous and very good argument against such reasoning. She very insightfully recognizes that the same language is used in the relationship between the man (ha-'adam) and the ground (ha-'adama). Man was taken from the ground (cf. Gen 3:19, 2:7).

So, even though man was taken from the ground that doesn't mean that man is subordinate to or inferior to the ground, actually the opposite is the case. "By strict analogy, then, the line "this shall be called 'issa [woman] because from 'is [man] was taken this" would mean not the subordination of the woman to the man but rather superiority to him" (101). I love it!

If we wanted to take the language strictly then the woman is superior to the man. Trible does say that superiority is not at issue so she is not arguing for woman's superiority but she does do a good job of dismantling an argument for male supremacy in this text. Bravo Phyllis, bravo. I found this very thoughtful and helpful.

A Little Clarification Please?

Schleiermacher in his Hermeneutics & Criticism very importantly distinguishes between a philological reading of the text and a dogmatic reading of the text. The philological reading isolates every text of every writer while the dogmatic reading regards the New Testament as One work of One writer. Importantly, he places these in opposition.

"In the application to the N.T. the philological perspective, which isolates every text of every writer, and the dogmatic perspective, which regards the N.T. as One work of One writer, are opposed" (52, #22).

Now Schleiermacher will go on to posit that these are in a dialectical relationship (mutually dependent although in opposition). He does however say that the philological explanation must precede approaching the N.T. as a whole.

Translation (while running the risk of nuancing and oversimplifying): We cannot lose sight of the individual writers in the New Testament (with all their idiosyncrasies and different 'theologies' if you will) by saying that it is all written by the Holy Spirit in some way. In fact, we must first start with understanding what Paul meant (not just broader theologies, but also individual words) and take that seriously before we broaden out to understanding a general "NT theology".

This also seems to play into our understanding of the role of Systematic Theology. Most scholars would agree that if a Systematic Theology is even possible (which many in the non-conservative camp deny) it has to rest on a good grammtico-historical exegesis of the text. In the words of Richard Gaffin, "Systematics rests on good exegesis".

My problem is when these lines are blurred. When we talk of things like a "Two-Adam Christology" in Paul or a Kline-ian reading of the "theophanic glory-cloud" or possibly even an "abeyance of eschatological judgment" found in Genesis 3 (although this is a little different in my mind), how much can we call this reading "Pauline"? When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 did he in fact have in mind a 2-Adam Christology that he was trying to get across to a new and morally immature church in Corinth? I am not in any way denying the validity of such a reading, I am only saying it falls under the realm of a dogmatic reading rather than a philological one and by calling such a system "Pauline" we might be blurring the distinction.

The Paradox of Death & Life In Christ

I thought may I had over-emphasized in my last post, but I randomly opened a book on the shelf by Rodney Clapp called Tortured Wonders: Christian Spirituality for People, not Angels. The page I happened upon said this:

As we learn to acknolwedge and admit the reality of death, rather than deny it, we can prepare for our own death by familiarizing ourselves with it while it remains (probably) at some distance...We should not downplay or suppress the reality of death in our worship. Every occasion of worship, after all, harks to the death of Christ on a cross. Every baptism is a death, a drowning, and we should not gloss this.

Where then is the paradox? That this death brings life. It brings life now, but only insofar as its hope is in the future, not in this life. To grasp your own death as a Christian is to truly "hide your life in Christ" (Colossians 3; II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:1). You are dead to what goes on in this world and alive only to the Kingdom of God. Everything we do in this world is worthless unless it translates into eternity, unless it impacts the Kingdom. And I am sorry to say, even most of what we do at church doesn't impact the Kingdom and will eventually waste away with the rest of us.

The Royal Consciousness

Walter Brueggemann rightly speaks of the "golden age" of Solomon as a time of spiritual decay. Times of satisfaction are never good for the Spiritual life. It is in the passion and the longing for something more just and right that we thrive as spiritual people. Those times where we are in no danger and have become "established", Brueggemann calls "the Royal Consciousness" (more or less, although I am summarizing and editing a bit).

He says:The royal consciousness leads people to numbness, especially to numbness about death. It is the task of prophetic ministry and imagination to bring people to engage their experience of suffering to death (Prophetic Imagination, 41)

How true this is! We, as Christians, HAVE to learn to take the advice in Ecclesiastes, "Meaningless (or better translated, Stupid!), Meaningless, all is meaningless!" The world does not work the way we think it should. We can't keep putting that fact under the rug and keep our happy faces on all the time. The quicker we can come to grips with the fact that we will all die and that the good people oftentimes get screwed in life while the swindlers and thieves get rich, the quicker we will give up this nonsense of security.

You will not be remembered. A sobering fact indeed. No one, I mean no one, will even know you ever existed except for some name on a list, in a hundred years. We have to face this fact. But we still try don't we. Why? Because we cannot face our own death. We cannot imagine truly a time when we will no longer be. But if we can do that, if we can move as Heidegger calls it, into Authenticity, then we are free. We are free to serve God because we truly understand, not just with our mouths like we like to do, but with our lives, we will understand that everything is futile in this life, everything.

Beowulf & Moses

Although many might believe that somehow God gave us a "holy language" and a "Bible dropped from heaven", for the rest of us we have to wrestle how it is that we came to have the Scriptures we have today. Now, if we believe in at least essential Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the Post-Mosaica adequtely barring the notion that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch) and a Post-exilic writing of at least some of the Hebrew canon, there is around 1000 years between Genesis and Malachi. Now, the question is this. How is it that we have a fairly unified Hebrew throughout the Hebrew Scriptures even though the writing supposedly spans a thousand years?

In case you don't think that languages change significantly over the years, I have posted an image of a Beowulf manuscript in English from around the year 1100 (around 1000 years). Let me know if you can read it.

So then, do we accept what many would suggest, that most of the Old Testament was written in the Post-exilic period or do we allow for substantial linguistic updating (along with some evident redaction)? Or is there another option?

Calvin on Encouraging Words

John Calvin on Roman Catholics who deny justification by faith alone:

I forbear to say what sort of zealots for good works they are who thus carp at us. Let them rail with impunity even as they wantonly infect the whole world with their own foul lives! (Institutes, III, 16, 1).

I literally laughed out loud when I read this paragraph. What was it about these guys that just did not allow them to play nice?

This one is for you Dave Williams, here is your anti-papist rhetoric back in full swing.

Secular Space (continued thoughts)

I have done more thinking on what the emerging principle, transforming secular space, includes. As I thought, I remembered the oft-quoted saying by Abraham Kuyper, "there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: mine!" This truth is at the heart of what it means to transform secular space. It is the recognition that God does not just rule at church and among church folk but that he is active in all of creation and has invited us to join. We are so self-absorbed in our own "getting saved" that we miss the whole point of redemption. The good news is not that we "get a ticket to heaven" for when we die but that we are given invaluable insight into what it means to truly live and that life involves bringing heaven to earth, transforming the secular space.

This concept of "bringing heaven to earth" is key to understanding the believer's role in the realized eschatology of the Kingdom of God. It is not just a future, hope-oriented reality but has broken into this age in the death and resurrection of Christ. We, as those united to Christ, are called to bring this new age, this renewed creation, to our worlds.

But this isn't the type of thing that people like to hear because it consumes everything you are. Like CS Lewis said in his book, The Weight of Glory "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased." This goes for Christians too (if not especially).

Secular Space

In the excellent Gibbs/Bolger book Emerging Churches, they identify 3 core practices of emerging churches. These are (1) identifying with the life of Jesus, (2) transforming secular space, (3) living as community. Now, I understand well the implications of 1 and 3, but what about transforming secular space? What is it and is it something we should care about? I haven't read that far in the book yet and have decided not to until I can think through those two questions. I want to know for myself if it's something I believe in or should be believing in. When the modern movement began, it became important to separate the realms of the sacred and the profane. Religion became privatized and also became oil to the water of science (they never mixed). However, recently Christians have bought into this compartmentalization and applied it to their own lives. Sunday morning "going to Church" becomes all-important to our Christianity while going bowling on Friday night or having dinner with the family becomes much less a religious ordeal. We have bought into the separation of the realms of the sacred and the profane. That somehow Sunday morning comes with it an extra boost of spirituality and that a pastor or someone who works in a local church is a "good Christian" or worse "a better Christian". They are somehow more spiritual because they work in the area of the sacred.But such cannot be the case. Maybe this transforming of secular space isn't such a bad idea.

Needing Christ

This is Christianity: Let a person begin seriously to realize his need for Christ. Let him literally give all his fortune to the poor, literally love his neighbor, and so forth, and he will soon learn to need Christ. Christianity is a suit that at first glance seems attractive enough, but as soon as you actually put it on - then you must have Christ's help in order to be able to live in it. -S. Kierkegaard

Do I need Christ? I thought the other day of the Scripture "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleed in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:17-19).

If this is suppose to be true, does my life reflect this? No way. If I found out that Christ has not been raised, I would not be pitied above all men, I would be sorely disappointed, my beliefs would be shattered but my life wouldn't. I would just change my beliefs and change my life direction and go on without hope. Have I come to a place where I no longer desire the American dream? Where I actually put all my eggs in one basket, I no longer try to keep one foot on this earth "just in case it isn't true". How is that faith? How is it faith to try and still have my life, the career I want and a family I want and things I want? I have failed miserably in this. I want to be in that very risky and terrifying place of knowing that if I have put my faith in the wrong God I am to be pitied above all men, that I have absolutely nothing left in this world, I am competely screwed because I have given it all to Christ. And by "given it all to Christ" I mean loving my neighbor and giving to those who need it most because that is what my savior has called me to. I have the Gospel, why do I keep trying to supplement that? Because I am scared of the question, "what if it isn't true?"