For me, reading Anne Rice's Vampire novels was always a spiritual experience. The way she would wrestle out questions about life, morals, and God through her characters left me in wonder.
I was particularly drawn to her story "The Tale of the Body Thief". In it the vampire Lestat, after hundreds of years of being a vampire, longs to experience human feelings again. He is gifted with the opportunity by a gentleman who can swap souls. He agrees to a 24 hour switch.
Within moments of the transformation, he regrets his decision. The pressure in his bowels revolts him. His bad breath makes him nauseous. He is overwhelmed by the limitations of his new body. The simplest tasks require so much effort. He desires nothing more than to reclaim his vampiric body with its' preternatural strength, senses, and eternal youth.
As I read it, I wondered if Jesus experienced anything like that; going from immortal to mortal, from timeless to present, limitless to limited. What was that like?
I read a poem on a blog recently that addressed this question. I think in general I am a little too boorish to appreciate poetry properly, but this one really spoke to me.
Click here.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Significant Destabilizing Event
I read a really great post this week where a gentleman described in 11 steps how he left his faith and was brought in to something better. Although we did not share the same starting points in terms of faith, his journey resonates with me. As I poured over his list, I kept thinking, "Yep...MmmHmm... been there... did that one". I want to share some of his steps in terms of my experience. I think anyone who leaves a paradigm of some kind will go through similar steps.
Step 1 - Blissful Ignorance
He states that this is the step where, "we see all opposition as evil, sin, 'the adversary', tempting people to stray from the truth." Growing up charismatic, I learned that we were right and everyone else was wrong. Since we believed in the "gifts of the spirit" we were "Full Gospel" (so by definition, everyone else was only "part gospel"). Nearly everyone else was considered "other", so we believed we had a lot of opposition trying to water down or destroy our truth.
Step 2 - Niggling Suspicions
Here he states that we start to see that the opposition may hold something of value and words like "perhaps" enter our mind. These started for me when I joined Bible Quizzing in my early teens. I was learning the books of Romans and James, and I noticed that neither Paul nor James seemed to talk like we talked, or feel like we felt. In fact, I started to come across a fair amount of scripture which seemed to contradict what I had been taught.
In addition, all of the quizzers from other churches were not anything like what I had been told to expect. Instead of playing church and being lukewarm, I found peers that had profound insights into the things of God and were passionate for their faith.
Step 3 - Active denial of Step 2
I never actually went through this step. Being a teenager, I had a natural rebellious streak anyway, so the idea of being a rebel for Christ was appealing. However, I have seen a lot of people hit this point. They are so afraid of being wrong, or being out of the right group, that they aggressively squash any questions that had been forming in their head. They recommit and become more fundamental than ever.
I think step 3 is more involved with leaving a faith paradigm (though I suppose it could happen in other things). There tends to be more than an idea at stake when shifting within or out of your faith. Faith groups have words like heretic, apostate, excommunication, damnation, etc... which are strong inhibitors to keep you from questioning or investigating too much.
Step 4 - Significant Destabilizing Event
I LOVE this phrase. It speaks volumes. I pray each of you reading this may have MANY Significant Destabilizing Events. The author of this list says that this is "some critical incident that throws one out of the denial stage". I would also add that it solidifies your niggling suspicions if you never had a denial stage.
As I look over my history, most of my paradigm shifts had some kind of S.D.E. (or at least a D.E.). I can look back and think, "That is the event or item that caused me to question ____".
My ultimate point in writing this blog was to share a few of my significant destabilizing events (perhaps in the comments section you might share some of yours).
I remember when I first allowed the question to form that perhaps God was not a Republican. :) I was at the music festival Ichthus, reading a Christian Rock magazine. The editorial was written by a man who was obviously passionate about Christ, but he was criticizing the Republican administration for its lack of concern for the poor. I remember just staring at the magazine. I couldn't get the two ideas to fit... man of God... not Republican...man of God...not Republican. There may have been smoke coming out my ears as I wrestled with that one.
I had an SDE concerning Hell, and it has remained destabilized ever since. I was in my early twenties and worked with my Dad's carpet company. He had a couple installers and a number of guys from church he had hired as laborers. One of the installers was a guy named Jerry. Jerry was a kind and honest man from what I knew of him. He always put in a good day's work. I knew he had gone through a bad divorce and struggled to gain the acceptance of his son. Sadness hung over him. Through things he said I slowly pieced together that he had never felt truly accepted by anyone. He presumed he would always be rejected. So he drank... a lot. The man was just plain lonely.
His drinking got worse over the years. He literally drank himself to death. We were on a job when my dad told us. We all just shook our heads. It was so sad. Later in conversation, one of the guys from my church said, "The real tragedy here is that Jerry didn't accept Jesus. Now he is in Hell."
I couldn't sleep that night. Was Jerry in Hell? After all of the rejection Jerry had dealt with, did God reject him too? It is the rejection Jerry would have expected from God. This wasn't equating to me. Doesn't God save the day? Doesn't he rescue? Doesn't he love the rejected? Does salvation really come down to a set or right words or beliefs? Doesn't that make God rather small? Isn't he bigger than our expectations?
Steps 8 and 9 - Belief system collapse and belief system rebuild.
The author says that going through these steps requires one to sit with uncertainty. This is a hard place. Most of our faith structures tell us to be certain. However, a willingness to sit in this place allows us to move forward to new paradigms.
Step 11 - Openness to repeat this cycle.
The thing is, once you do this cycle, you never stop doing it. Walter Brueggemann says that this is the only way to truly grow in God because "God will not be settled".
I have read so many authors lately that I cannot remember who to credit this thought to, but the point is that when you "settle" God, when you say "This is who He is", you have created a graven image and have stepped into idolatry. Faith lived out must always be thesis/anti-thesis, because God is always on the move. He will not be calculated and predicted (read Job). The Spirit blows wherever it pleases.
If we are to be followers of Christ, we must be willing to move.
Step 1 - Blissful Ignorance
He states that this is the step where, "we see all opposition as evil, sin, 'the adversary', tempting people to stray from the truth." Growing up charismatic, I learned that we were right and everyone else was wrong. Since we believed in the "gifts of the spirit" we were "Full Gospel" (so by definition, everyone else was only "part gospel"). Nearly everyone else was considered "other", so we believed we had a lot of opposition trying to water down or destroy our truth.
Step 2 - Niggling Suspicions
Here he states that we start to see that the opposition may hold something of value and words like "perhaps" enter our mind. These started for me when I joined Bible Quizzing in my early teens. I was learning the books of Romans and James, and I noticed that neither Paul nor James seemed to talk like we talked, or feel like we felt. In fact, I started to come across a fair amount of scripture which seemed to contradict what I had been taught.
In addition, all of the quizzers from other churches were not anything like what I had been told to expect. Instead of playing church and being lukewarm, I found peers that had profound insights into the things of God and were passionate for their faith.
Step 3 - Active denial of Step 2
I never actually went through this step. Being a teenager, I had a natural rebellious streak anyway, so the idea of being a rebel for Christ was appealing. However, I have seen a lot of people hit this point. They are so afraid of being wrong, or being out of the right group, that they aggressively squash any questions that had been forming in their head. They recommit and become more fundamental than ever.
I think step 3 is more involved with leaving a faith paradigm (though I suppose it could happen in other things). There tends to be more than an idea at stake when shifting within or out of your faith. Faith groups have words like heretic, apostate, excommunication, damnation, etc... which are strong inhibitors to keep you from questioning or investigating too much.
Step 4 - Significant Destabilizing Event
I LOVE this phrase. It speaks volumes. I pray each of you reading this may have MANY Significant Destabilizing Events. The author of this list says that this is "some critical incident that throws one out of the denial stage". I would also add that it solidifies your niggling suspicions if you never had a denial stage.
As I look over my history, most of my paradigm shifts had some kind of S.D.E. (or at least a D.E.). I can look back and think, "That is the event or item that caused me to question ____".
My ultimate point in writing this blog was to share a few of my significant destabilizing events (perhaps in the comments section you might share some of yours).
I remember when I first allowed the question to form that perhaps God was not a Republican. :) I was at the music festival Ichthus, reading a Christian Rock magazine. The editorial was written by a man who was obviously passionate about Christ, but he was criticizing the Republican administration for its lack of concern for the poor. I remember just staring at the magazine. I couldn't get the two ideas to fit... man of God... not Republican...man of God...not Republican. There may have been smoke coming out my ears as I wrestled with that one.
I had an SDE concerning Hell, and it has remained destabilized ever since. I was in my early twenties and worked with my Dad's carpet company. He had a couple installers and a number of guys from church he had hired as laborers. One of the installers was a guy named Jerry. Jerry was a kind and honest man from what I knew of him. He always put in a good day's work. I knew he had gone through a bad divorce and struggled to gain the acceptance of his son. Sadness hung over him. Through things he said I slowly pieced together that he had never felt truly accepted by anyone. He presumed he would always be rejected. So he drank... a lot. The man was just plain lonely.
His drinking got worse over the years. He literally drank himself to death. We were on a job when my dad told us. We all just shook our heads. It was so sad. Later in conversation, one of the guys from my church said, "The real tragedy here is that Jerry didn't accept Jesus. Now he is in Hell."
I couldn't sleep that night. Was Jerry in Hell? After all of the rejection Jerry had dealt with, did God reject him too? It is the rejection Jerry would have expected from God. This wasn't equating to me. Doesn't God save the day? Doesn't he rescue? Doesn't he love the rejected? Does salvation really come down to a set or right words or beliefs? Doesn't that make God rather small? Isn't he bigger than our expectations?
Steps 8 and 9 - Belief system collapse and belief system rebuild.
The author says that going through these steps requires one to sit with uncertainty. This is a hard place. Most of our faith structures tell us to be certain. However, a willingness to sit in this place allows us to move forward to new paradigms.
Step 11 - Openness to repeat this cycle.
The thing is, once you do this cycle, you never stop doing it. Walter Brueggemann says that this is the only way to truly grow in God because "God will not be settled".
I have read so many authors lately that I cannot remember who to credit this thought to, but the point is that when you "settle" God, when you say "This is who He is", you have created a graven image and have stepped into idolatry. Faith lived out must always be thesis/anti-thesis, because God is always on the move. He will not be calculated and predicted (read Job). The Spirit blows wherever it pleases.
If we are to be followers of Christ, we must be willing to move.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
The open forum
I have been involved in a friendly theological discussion over at another blog. It is one of those discussions where we probably don't disagree half as much as it might appear. It also has the pleasant aspect of having remained respectful, which is always nice.
My end of the discussion, and I came in at the middle, concerned what role the Pharisees play and represent in the Gospels and Acts.
I always have felt that I was fortunate to have exposure to a number of lines of Christian thought through Detroit Bible Quizzing's multi-denominational program. It expanded my horizons. I think blogging and blog discussions provide some similar soil.
Anyway, I feel I haven't written as much here lately as I would like, but have written a fair amount over there. I am also curious what your take on it may be.
http://historicchristianorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-emergent-orthopraxy.html
My end of the discussion, and I came in at the middle, concerned what role the Pharisees play and represent in the Gospels and Acts.
I always have felt that I was fortunate to have exposure to a number of lines of Christian thought through Detroit Bible Quizzing's multi-denominational program. It expanded my horizons. I think blogging and blog discussions provide some similar soil.
Anyway, I feel I haven't written as much here lately as I would like, but have written a fair amount over there. I am also curious what your take on it may be.
http://historicchristianorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-emergent-orthopraxy.html
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Religious Illiteracy
There was an article in the newspaper today about religious illiteracy. Stephen Prothero is publishing a book about our lack of knowledge in America about religion; not just other religions, but our own. He particularly focused on Evangelicals who, though the loudest, tend to be the least knowledgeable. He says:
"Ironically,the United States became a nation of forgetters at the same time it became a nation of evangelicals. Believing in Christ became more important than knowing about Christ. To evangelicalism, therefore, we owe both the vitality of religion in contemporary America and our impoverished understanding of it."
A perfect example of this was shown on a blog that I frequent. There was a discussion going on about a teaching given with the topic "Finding God in the Other". In it, one of the writers proclaims their ignorance of theology, then attempts to present a theological argument. The rebuttal that came afterwards was stinging, but spot on. Here is that snippet:
____________________
Feb 24, 07:30 AM
Hi! I don't know a lot about theology or doctrine. But I can say this! Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God, He is God,(for those who want to debate what this would mean…. I am not really into strong theological debate!!! The basis of the Gospel is simple!! Jesus, who is God, came down to live on earth, became human, lived among us and died to bring us back to God! He is alive today and we can know Him!!! That is it… FINITO! I know He is alive.. I know Him deeper than I know even my own family!!! THE GOSPEL IS NOT MEANT TO BE INTELLECTUALISED, THEOLOGICALLY DEBATED!!!! Jesus, who He is, His divinity, ... is the one unquestionable. undebatable fact!!! You either say He is the Only Way to God or you don't!!! It is that simple!!!!
Feb 25, 12:59 AM
This thread is such a great example of why Christianity gets a bad wrap. How do you expect anyone to take our collective faith seriously when our discussions are filled with people that are “confident” that these doctrines are bullet proof but then they start their defense with some comment like “I don’t know much about the subject but I’m sure I’m right”. That is harmful. The only people that talk that way are people that have not put in the time to study our religion and our sacred scripture. Spouting cliche phrases doesn’t help our cause here. Renouncing wisdom is rejecting the LOGOS that the author of John’s gospel tells us was “in the beginning… and became flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus”. Rejecting wisdom is rejecting the aspect of God that was incarnated in Jesus.
I believe people can have a simple faith. I don't think faith has to be complicated. However, when you take it out to the public square I believe it is time to step up to the plate or stay home. As was shown in the exchange above, there are many Christians who have absolute faith and certainty about something of which they know very little. Unfortunately, it is often those who lack knowledge who are the loudest. Those who proclaim "the Truth" most sternly rarely have more than a few scriptures at their command.
I think this lack of education about our own religion is an example of how our Church (universal) has been shaped by culture rather than the other way around. In our present culture, education is something to be avoided. People often seem to take a sense of pride in how little they know. Our culture is into working longer hours to buy boats, RVs, vacation homes, gadgets and gizmos. As a nation, the sky is the limit as to how much we will spend on our entertainment. Our places of learning must fight for every dime they get. The Church has absorbed this mentality into its ethos. If the salt loses its saltiness........
"Ironically,the United States became a nation of forgetters at the same time it became a nation of evangelicals. Believing in Christ became more important than knowing about Christ. To evangelicalism, therefore, we owe both the vitality of religion in contemporary America and our impoverished understanding of it."
A perfect example of this was shown on a blog that I frequent. There was a discussion going on about a teaching given with the topic "Finding God in the Other". In it, one of the writers proclaims their ignorance of theology, then attempts to present a theological argument. The rebuttal that came afterwards was stinging, but spot on. Here is that snippet:
____________________
Feb 24, 07:30 AM
Hi! I don't know a lot about theology or doctrine. But I can say this! Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to God, He is God,(for those who want to debate what this would mean…. I am not really into strong theological debate!!! The basis of the Gospel is simple!! Jesus, who is God, came down to live on earth, became human, lived among us and died to bring us back to God! He is alive today and we can know Him!!! That is it… FINITO! I know He is alive.. I know Him deeper than I know even my own family!!! THE GOSPEL IS NOT MEANT TO BE INTELLECTUALISED, THEOLOGICALLY DEBATED!!!! Jesus, who He is, His divinity, ... is the one unquestionable. undebatable fact!!! You either say He is the Only Way to God or you don't!!! It is that simple!!!!
Feb 25, 12:59 AM
This thread is such a great example of why Christianity gets a bad wrap. How do you expect anyone to take our collective faith seriously when our discussions are filled with people that are “confident” that these doctrines are bullet proof but then they start their defense with some comment like “I don’t know much about the subject but I’m sure I’m right”. That is harmful. The only people that talk that way are people that have not put in the time to study our religion and our sacred scripture. Spouting cliche phrases doesn’t help our cause here. Renouncing wisdom is rejecting the LOGOS that the author of John’s gospel tells us was “in the beginning… and became flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus”. Rejecting wisdom is rejecting the aspect of God that was incarnated in Jesus.
I believe people can have a simple faith. I don't think faith has to be complicated. However, when you take it out to the public square I believe it is time to step up to the plate or stay home. As was shown in the exchange above, there are many Christians who have absolute faith and certainty about something of which they know very little. Unfortunately, it is often those who lack knowledge who are the loudest. Those who proclaim "the Truth" most sternly rarely have more than a few scriptures at their command.
I think this lack of education about our own religion is an example of how our Church (universal) has been shaped by culture rather than the other way around. In our present culture, education is something to be avoided. People often seem to take a sense of pride in how little they know. Our culture is into working longer hours to buy boats, RVs, vacation homes, gadgets and gizmos. As a nation, the sky is the limit as to how much we will spend on our entertainment. Our places of learning must fight for every dime they get. The Church has absorbed this mentality into its ethos. If the salt loses its saltiness........
Timothy 2:15 (Amplified Bible)
15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
The problem with Utah politics
Multiple times the people of the Valley said no to a public funded soccer stadium. But big business wanted it, so the legislators ignore the people and give it.
Few in Utah want public money to go to private Ed. But an out of state lobby group throws around some money, and bingo, here it is.
I have been meaning to write a blog on the corruption of Utah's mono-powered legislature, but this editorialist from the Deseret News did a much nicer job than I could.
Click to read:
Must Citizens Fight their Government?
Few in Utah want public money to go to private Ed. But an out of state lobby group throws around some money, and bingo, here it is.
I have been meaning to write a blog on the corruption of Utah's mono-powered legislature, but this editorialist from the Deseret News did a much nicer job than I could.
Click to read:
Must Citizens Fight their Government?
Saturday, March 10, 2007
I have a confession
I would have, at one time in my Christianity, written a blog exactly like this one (Click here). I relished reading scripture about judgement (everyone else's, not mine). Mine was a theology of hell, fire, and brimestone. Sure, I loved people - I loved them with the TRUTH! Scripture in my hands was a weapon and you would have to be damn sure of your orthodoxy and righteousness in my prescense.
Thank God chinks began to develop in that armor over time (it pains me to think of the damage I caused back then). I remember one of the first chinks. A friend of mine popped in a Leslie Phillips cassette and she sang out, "It's your kindness that leads us to repentance O Lord".
"What a stupid thing to say", I retorted. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Her sin being revealed will cause her to repent".
Later that night I read in the Psalms - It is your kindness that leads us to repentance O Lord. I sat there stunned... what a wimpy thing... this sounded almost liberal. I knew then that God was kind enough to reveal to me something about his nature that I was choosing to overlook.
Looking back now, I realize that it was my own insecurities that were driving my hard-nosed theology. Being right and using God as your trump card gives one a great sense of power and satisfaction. Thank God that, as Malcom X said near the end of his life, "I am more flexible now".
I responded to the blog mentioned above and I will paste it here. It is interesting that, as I re-read it, I still hear my own sense of "I am right, you are wrong". I wonder if that need will ever be fully exercised from me?
I have to disagree with the over arching view of the author's point.
Paul's main rivalries in the faith were those Christian's who wanted to maintain the law and thereby make of the gentiles a second class citizen in the faith (or better yet, not a citizen at all). He was encouraging the Romans to avoid those who would say "my Christianity is better than yours and you need to be like me". The ones he was telling them to avoid were, in effect, trying to place a monopoly on the Grace of God, so that others would have to come to them in order to be judged qualified. Paul encouraged the new converts to avoid them because, like the Pharisees, they were right and everyone else was wrong, and it is impossible to hold a conversation with someone caught up in that kind of thinking.
I am sure there was some arrogance driving the Pharisees and later the Christians who wanted to be on the top tier, but mostly I see it as fear. They say most bullies do what they do out of a need for control. The Pharisees ran around pointing out where everyone else was wrong. Like bullies, it gave them a sense of security to put others beneath them. Paul later dealt with the Christian version of the Pharisees (they never really go away).
The thing is, the Pharisees were not wrong. In a technical sense, they were not wrong to say many of the things they said (even against Jesus). However, they had a horrible attitude about people. I am sure they would have said, "Hey, we are just showing we love them by telling them the truth!" Jesus didn't buy that line then, and I think we should reject it now.
Jesus probably would be judged a heretic by many of today's Christian churches. He would probably fail at many points of orthodoxy, and he would enjoy the company of people who annoy most Christians.
We would be like the Pharisees and Zealots of his time. We would want him to fight against the immoral structures, speak out against an ungodly society, help us separate wheat from the chaff. Join us in the battle of us vs. them. Stand for truth!
He would look at us with loving bewilderment. "Umm... I was just gonna head down to the park to spend the day talking to the homeless, but I would love to have you join me".
We would shake our heads as he walked away. Slowly, we would convince ourselves that it was not him but a false Christ that was trying to deceive us. Having ferreted out another false Christ, we would walk away a little deeper in our pride than we had been formerly.
I don't think Paul was telling us to avoid people who did not believe rightly about doctrinal points such as the trinity. Remember Paul's core point was "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.” The people Paul was telling them to avoid were those Christians who thought they were better than everyone else (they did not see themselves as foremost among sinners... they were sure they had it together). He wanted us to avoid those who felt we had to measure up to their standard in order to be acceptable to Christ.
Jesus dealt with these people, Paul dealt with these people, and we are still dealing with them today.
Thank God chinks began to develop in that armor over time (it pains me to think of the damage I caused back then). I remember one of the first chinks. A friend of mine popped in a Leslie Phillips cassette and she sang out, "It's your kindness that leads us to repentance O Lord".
"What a stupid thing to say", I retorted. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Her sin being revealed will cause her to repent".
Later that night I read in the Psalms - It is your kindness that leads us to repentance O Lord. I sat there stunned... what a wimpy thing... this sounded almost
Looking back now, I realize that it was my own insecurities that were driving my hard-nosed theology. Being right and using God as your trump card gives one a great sense of power and satisfaction. Thank God that, as Malcom X said near the end of his life, "I am more flexible now".
I responded to the blog mentioned above and I will paste it here. It is interesting that, as I re-read it, I still hear my own sense of "I am right, you are wrong". I wonder if that need will ever be fully exercised from me?
I have to disagree with the over arching view of the author's point.
Paul's main rivalries in the faith were those Christian's who wanted to maintain the law and thereby make of the gentiles a second class citizen in the faith (or better yet, not a citizen at all). He was encouraging the Romans to avoid those who would say "my Christianity is better than yours and you need to be like me". The ones he was telling them to avoid were, in effect, trying to place a monopoly on the Grace of God, so that others would have to come to them in order to be judged qualified. Paul encouraged the new converts to avoid them because, like the Pharisees, they were right and everyone else was wrong, and it is impossible to hold a conversation with someone caught up in that kind of thinking.
I am sure there was some arrogance driving the Pharisees and later the Christians who wanted to be on the top tier, but mostly I see it as fear. They say most bullies do what they do out of a need for control. The Pharisees ran around pointing out where everyone else was wrong. Like bullies, it gave them a sense of security to put others beneath them. Paul later dealt with the Christian version of the Pharisees (they never really go away).
The thing is, the Pharisees were not wrong. In a technical sense, they were not wrong to say many of the things they said (even against Jesus). However, they had a horrible attitude about people. I am sure they would have said, "Hey, we are just showing we love them by telling them the truth!" Jesus didn't buy that line then, and I think we should reject it now.
Jesus probably would be judged a heretic by many of today's Christian churches. He would probably fail at many points of orthodoxy, and he would enjoy the company of people who annoy most Christians.
We would be like the Pharisees and Zealots of his time. We would want him to fight against the immoral structures, speak out against an ungodly society, help us separate wheat from the chaff. Join us in the battle of us vs. them. Stand for truth!
He would look at us with loving bewilderment. "Umm... I was just gonna head down to the park to spend the day talking to the homeless, but I would love to have you join me".
We would shake our heads as he walked away. Slowly, we would convince ourselves that it was not him but a false Christ that was trying to deceive us. Having ferreted out another false Christ, we would walk away a little deeper in our pride than we had been formerly.
I don't think Paul was telling us to avoid people who did not believe rightly about doctrinal points such as the trinity. Remember Paul's core point was "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.” The people Paul was telling them to avoid were those Christians who thought they were better than everyone else (they did not see themselves as foremost among sinners... they were sure they had it together). He wanted us to avoid those who felt we had to measure up to their standard in order to be acceptable to Christ.
Jesus dealt with these people, Paul dealt with these people, and we are still dealing with them today.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Is God's goodness objective or subjective?
I have been wrestling with a thought that I want to throw out there. When I say wrestle, I mean I have not come to any conclusion yet… it is just an idea I want to state, but I don’t want to defend it.
I am wondering about the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac. I am questioning whether the goodness of God is objective or subjective. Is good such because God has declared it so, or is goodness a standard outside of God to which he aligns himself?
I have heard from the lips of many believers in Christ this year various forms of this phrase - “If God declares it… then it is right”.
The immediate danger I see in such a paradigm, is that one could begin to justify a myriad of questionable and evil acts under the phrase “God told me to do it” or “It is His will”.
Beyond that, I wonder what it says about the nature of good. If God tells you to do something that would normally be defined as evil, does that make it good? Do normally abhorrent acts become acceptable if God does them?
I think many believers (me included) would be uncomfortable stating that there is an objective standard of goodness, because that would imply that goodness is something that God must, or chooses to, submit to. Implying such a thing would seem to lessen God ... make him penultimate.
However, if I were to take the subjective notion of goodness (dependent on God calling it good) to its logical end, I would have to ask the question, “If God told you to rape someone, would it being his command sanctify the act?” If your answer is no, because God would never tell anyone to do such a thing – then you are stating that there is a standard outside of God by which he judges right and wrong. The act is inherently evil and God could not deny his goodness.
If you are determined that it is God who sets the standard of goodness, then one would have to be willing that good and evil are ambivalent terms and are set by God based on the fact that he has all the power.
This makes me wonder if Abraham gave the best response to God regarding the sacrifice of his son Isaac. Here is the quick version: God tells his servant Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Abraham proceeds to do this without question. At the final moment, the Lord stays Abraham’s hand and says, “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
I tend to feel that most word choices in scripture are not accidental. So my eyes really gravitate to “Now I know that you fear God”. I know God considered Abraham’s actions righteous, but could he have been hoping for a better response than fear?
I read a book to my class every year that involves the biggest and toughest kid in school gaining some insight. He realizes at the end of the book that all of his peers praised him and did what he said because they feared him. Based on this new knowledge, he realized that he didn’t have any real friends.
Most people would not do an immoral thing if instructed to. Stick a gun to their head and they might reconsider. Put their loved one in danger, and they might do almost anything.
Fear can be a powerful motivator. At an outward glance, it might resemble obedience.
I can’t look in to Abraham’s heart, but it makes me wonder if God was satisfied with the events of that day. Abraham seemed ready to do an immoral thing – a very immoral thing – because he feared God.
Scripture says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. But it is only the beginning. Perhaps only a first step.
I wonder if God was disappointed that the relationship he had with Abraham had not moved on to something a little deeper.
Just thinking out loud……
I am wondering about the story of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son Isaac. I am questioning whether the goodness of God is objective or subjective. Is good such because God has declared it so, or is goodness a standard outside of God to which he aligns himself?
I have heard from the lips of many believers in Christ this year various forms of this phrase - “If God declares it… then it is right”.
The immediate danger I see in such a paradigm, is that one could begin to justify a myriad of questionable and evil acts under the phrase “God told me to do it” or “It is His will”.
Beyond that, I wonder what it says about the nature of good. If God tells you to do something that would normally be defined as evil, does that make it good? Do normally abhorrent acts become acceptable if God does them?
I think many believers (me included) would be uncomfortable stating that there is an objective standard of goodness, because that would imply that goodness is something that God must, or chooses to, submit to. Implying such a thing would seem to lessen God ... make him penultimate.
However, if I were to take the subjective notion of goodness (dependent on God calling it good) to its logical end, I would have to ask the question, “If God told you to rape someone, would it being his command sanctify the act?” If your answer is no, because God would never tell anyone to do such a thing – then you are stating that there is a standard outside of God by which he judges right and wrong. The act is inherently evil and God could not deny his goodness.
If you are determined that it is God who sets the standard of goodness, then one would have to be willing that good and evil are ambivalent terms and are set by God based on the fact that he has all the power.
This makes me wonder if Abraham gave the best response to God regarding the sacrifice of his son Isaac. Here is the quick version: God tells his servant Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Abraham proceeds to do this without question. At the final moment, the Lord stays Abraham’s hand and says, “Do not lay a hand on the boy. Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
I tend to feel that most word choices in scripture are not accidental. So my eyes really gravitate to “Now I know that you fear God”. I know God considered Abraham’s actions righteous, but could he have been hoping for a better response than fear?
I read a book to my class every year that involves the biggest and toughest kid in school gaining some insight. He realizes at the end of the book that all of his peers praised him and did what he said because they feared him. Based on this new knowledge, he realized that he didn’t have any real friends.
Most people would not do an immoral thing if instructed to. Stick a gun to their head and they might reconsider. Put their loved one in danger, and they might do almost anything.
Fear can be a powerful motivator. At an outward glance, it might resemble obedience.
I can’t look in to Abraham’s heart, but it makes me wonder if God was satisfied with the events of that day. Abraham seemed ready to do an immoral thing – a very immoral thing – because he feared God.
Scripture says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. But it is only the beginning. Perhaps only a first step.
I wonder if God was disappointed that the relationship he had with Abraham had not moved on to something a little deeper.
Just thinking out loud……
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
If you are going to discuss theology then read a few books from various points of view so that you have the language at your disposal to help the conversation. If you are not here to add to the conversation then why are you here? Let’s work together to “flesh out the wisdom of God just as Jesus did”. Let’s not make our faith a religion for dummies.