This post is inspired by Erwin McManus' sermon of 14 December, 2014.
Have you ever felt like you are on the wrong side of a story? Like the things that happen to you should have happened to someone else, or that the things that happened to someone else should have happened to you?
Have you ever watched someone make a terrible decision and been powerless to stop it? Maybe you've even tried to stop them; tried to explain how they were making a mistake; tried to alert them to the dangers of what they were doing?
Has it ever seemed like the entire country was devolving into violence, anger and hatred? And despite your loud yelling, obvious logic, and confident propositions no one listened to you?
I have.
And let me tell you how I've responded: I've been critical, angry, and petty. I've been despondent, ready to throw in the towel on this whole Christianity thing.
And I've been self-righteous.
I've been angry at the unjust flourishing enjoyed by those who seem to only care about their own interests and getting their own way--no matter what it costs others. I've been livid by what I perceive as self-absorbed piety.
And I've been angry at God for allowing the world to be like this.
But it gets worse. I've been angry at God because the people who seem to be the worst violators of justice and peace are those who call themselves Christians. And even worse still is that these people who claim to follow Jesus are claimed by Jesus too! They enjoy all the benefits of their privileged position, thinking that all they need to do is acknowledge that it was God who gave them that privilege.
And it makes me angry.
So angry in fact that I don't want to go to church, listen to a sermon, sing a song, or talk about Jesus. I've begun to feel as if the people at church are there celebrating themselves and the good fortune of being them.
Breathe.
In Luke 15 Jesus tells the parable that is commonly called "The Prodigal Son." I used to think I loved that story, because that's what good Christians do: they love stories of redemption and hope. But over the years I've begun to like it less and less. Not because I stopped loving redemption and hope, but because I started to realize that my identification with this story was not that of the prodigal, but of the the other son.
I am the older son.
I've never gone off the rails. I've made good decisions. I've done good things in my life. But I am critical and judgmental of those who haven't--let me qualify that-- I've been critical and judgmental of those who are critical and judgmental. I am what I critique. And I need to change.
Not a change that stops calling to a destructive world, but a change in my own heart. A change of how I feel about my fellow "older brother" types. And a change of how I feel about God.
Because the story in Luke 15 is really about God. It is really about a God who loves even the most disgustingly self-righteous as well as the most disgustingly unrighteous and wants to bring both types home. And I need to celebrate when they, like I, come home.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Biblical Texts We Ignore
I got to thinking the other night about how every Christian position seems to orient itself towards certain interpretations of certain biblical passages while ignoring others. It seems that any doctrinal statement is at the expense of a comprehensive reading of the bible. Why is this?
"Numbers. Nothing good here; just a bunch of numbers..."- Lesley (Tongue planted firmly in cheek).
I posed the thought to my wife over dinner, and that was her response. She then agreed with me that each side of the conservaliberal divide emphasizes certain passages and ignores the ones the other side emphasizes.
What does this tell us?
It tells us that neither side is interested in being biblical. Instead, they are interested in being right. This is why I am not a liberal or a conservative. I've no interest in being right, nor in trying to make others think that I am so. I'm interested in being faithful.
It also tells us that our socio/political positions are woefully insufficient and catastrophically inadequate to partner with the God of the bible. If your "biblical" theology ignores part of the bible your "biblical" theology is sentimental bullshit. You can disagree about those parts that are troubling, but you can't ignore them and call yourself "biblical."
OR
The bible is contradictory. This is a statement of fact. How many times did David meet Saul? How many animals got on Noah's ark?
There are three options available in the wake of this revelation: You can ignore the parts of the bible that you don't like; you can throw out the bible altogether as nonsensical piety; or you can adjust your perspective of what the bible is saying until you can hold all of it together in first tension and finally a dissonant harmony.
What texts do you ignore?
"Numbers. Nothing good here; just a bunch of numbers..."- Lesley (Tongue planted firmly in cheek).
I posed the thought to my wife over dinner, and that was her response. She then agreed with me that each side of the conservaliberal divide emphasizes certain passages and ignores the ones the other side emphasizes.
What does this tell us?
It tells us that neither side is interested in being biblical. Instead, they are interested in being right. This is why I am not a liberal or a conservative. I've no interest in being right, nor in trying to make others think that I am so. I'm interested in being faithful.
It also tells us that our socio/political positions are woefully insufficient and catastrophically inadequate to partner with the God of the bible. If your "biblical" theology ignores part of the bible your "biblical" theology is sentimental bullshit. You can disagree about those parts that are troubling, but you can't ignore them and call yourself "biblical."
OR
The bible is contradictory. This is a statement of fact. How many times did David meet Saul? How many animals got on Noah's ark?
There are three options available in the wake of this revelation: You can ignore the parts of the bible that you don't like; you can throw out the bible altogether as nonsensical piety; or you can adjust your perspective of what the bible is saying until you can hold all of it together in first tension and finally a dissonant harmony.
What texts do you ignore?
Bleed.
This has been a summer where every ounce of optimism I had about being a Christian was vaporized like so much water in the California drought of public opinion. This has been a summer like so many others that will stand as the harbinger of things to come. From ISIS to Ukraine to Ferguson to Immigration to Wall Street the world has changed, and not for the better. But that's not what has sapped my hope for Christianity. That sapping is the result of the response of so many well-meaning (and that's my best hope for them) Christians to the events that I've just mentioned.
My God, what a world You love.
Christians. We are anything but. "The world will know you by your love" - Is that how you're known? That's not how I know you. I know you by your vitriol for anything you disagree with. I know you by your justification of systemic sin if it benefits you. I know you for your anger about what others do to water down the gospel, conform to the media's agenda, or take resources from the mouth of your children and give it to those less deserving.
I know you because I am you.
And I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the fact that I am a part of it, and that everything I do or say is a part of the problem. We are the problem. Christian! You are the problem! Sin is not the problem, you are sin to those you are trying to save! If you tell someone to repent of their sin while to them you represent everything evil they will not listen. And it is on you if they fail to, because the gospel you've presented is a sham.
Our gospel is a sham because it is not good news.
I've nothing hopeful to offer in conclusion. I've no good thing to say that will soothe the wound my words have opened, because the wound should not be soothed.
Bleed.
Bleed with those whom your words have severed. Let the dust drink up your blood like the blood of your brother. Suffer the rebuke that strikes me even as it strikes you. Know that I am you. I need to change. I don't know how, and I don't imagine grace will fix it without sacrifice.
God, show us how to be like Jesus in the power of your Spirit. Show us how to be for others in love.
My God, what a world You love.
Christians. We are anything but. "The world will know you by your love" - Is that how you're known? That's not how I know you. I know you by your vitriol for anything you disagree with. I know you by your justification of systemic sin if it benefits you. I know you for your anger about what others do to water down the gospel, conform to the media's agenda, or take resources from the mouth of your children and give it to those less deserving.
I know you because I am you.
And I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the fact that I am a part of it, and that everything I do or say is a part of the problem. We are the problem. Christian! You are the problem! Sin is not the problem, you are sin to those you are trying to save! If you tell someone to repent of their sin while to them you represent everything evil they will not listen. And it is on you if they fail to, because the gospel you've presented is a sham.
Our gospel is a sham because it is not good news.
I've nothing hopeful to offer in conclusion. I've no good thing to say that will soothe the wound my words have opened, because the wound should not be soothed.
Bleed.
Bleed with those whom your words have severed. Let the dust drink up your blood like the blood of your brother. Suffer the rebuke that strikes me even as it strikes you. Know that I am you. I need to change. I don't know how, and I don't imagine grace will fix it without sacrifice.
God, show us how to be like Jesus in the power of your Spirit. Show us how to be for others in love.
The Bible: Literal? Inerrant? Infallible? Authoritative? True?
There are just so many semantic and linguistic nuances flitting about regarding the bible that a person hardly knows what to make of it. For many of us, the designations "inerrant" and "infallible" are academically split hairs that have become the weapons of war for those who find in them ultimate meaning. But we find no such meaning in them.
A quick distinction.
Let's just start out with what these terms actually mean. First, inerrant literally means without error; that every word and punctuation in the bible is without error. The second term, infallible, means that the intentions of the bible are always successful; literally, incapable of being wrong or of failing.
Further messiness.
However, when we get to tossing around terms like "error" and "failure" we need more distinction. What is an error? An error according to intention? An error according to standards of inquiry? Whose standards? What about success? Again, according to intention? According to other standards?
It gets worse.
Now, there is a distinction between what the words mean in a lexical sense and how people use them. When someone says "the bible is literally true" they may mean that the bible contains no errors in intention, but mostly what they mean is that everything in the bible happened woodenly and literally as it is recorded. When the Israelites were fighting the Amorites in Joshua 10 and the text says that "the sun stood still int he heaven,"literalists take it to mean that the sun is moving and the earth stood still. Now, we understand scientifically that as far as we are concerned the sun does not move, but that we move in relation to the sun. If the sun stopped moving it would have no impact on us whatsoever. So the passage in Joshua 10 makes no sense from this perspective.
Inerrant/Infallible.
This is where the inerrantist or infalliblist steps in and says, well, that was just a figure of speech. The intention of the text was to say that God made the day last extra long so that Israel could destroy the Amorites (a questionable ethical concession, but one that we will avoid for today). It was not a scientific explanation of how the feat was accomplished, but was rather a subjective account of what happened from their perspective.
Not helpful.
I've thought for many years that these designations were not only unhelpful, but were just plain silly. The bible is not a science text book; the modern concept of history did not exist when the bible was written. The intention of the bible was not to prove itself by the criteria we've constructed for it. Rather it was to bear witness to the movement of God of restoring the whole world to Godself. The renewal of all things. So often we get it into our heads that the bible exists to prove us right. It doesn't. Our being right about the bible makes no difference to the bible. Nor does it to God.
Some questions.
When can we get beyond these unhelpful ways of talking? And what is a better way of talking about the bible? Do we really need to assent to one of these designations to be a follower of Jesus?
Are we too stuck on this bible thing?
Jesus said that the sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the sabbath in Mark 2. I wonder if he would say the same thing about the bible: the bible was made for humans, not humans for the bible. Just a little something to consider.
A quick distinction.
Let's just start out with what these terms actually mean. First, inerrant literally means without error; that every word and punctuation in the bible is without error. The second term, infallible, means that the intentions of the bible are always successful; literally, incapable of being wrong or of failing.
Further messiness.
However, when we get to tossing around terms like "error" and "failure" we need more distinction. What is an error? An error according to intention? An error according to standards of inquiry? Whose standards? What about success? Again, according to intention? According to other standards?
It gets worse.
Now, there is a distinction between what the words mean in a lexical sense and how people use them. When someone says "the bible is literally true" they may mean that the bible contains no errors in intention, but mostly what they mean is that everything in the bible happened woodenly and literally as it is recorded. When the Israelites were fighting the Amorites in Joshua 10 and the text says that "the sun stood still int he heaven,"literalists take it to mean that the sun is moving and the earth stood still. Now, we understand scientifically that as far as we are concerned the sun does not move, but that we move in relation to the sun. If the sun stopped moving it would have no impact on us whatsoever. So the passage in Joshua 10 makes no sense from this perspective.
Inerrant/Infallible.
This is where the inerrantist or infalliblist steps in and says, well, that was just a figure of speech. The intention of the text was to say that God made the day last extra long so that Israel could destroy the Amorites (a questionable ethical concession, but one that we will avoid for today). It was not a scientific explanation of how the feat was accomplished, but was rather a subjective account of what happened from their perspective.
Not helpful.
I've thought for many years that these designations were not only unhelpful, but were just plain silly. The bible is not a science text book; the modern concept of history did not exist when the bible was written. The intention of the bible was not to prove itself by the criteria we've constructed for it. Rather it was to bear witness to the movement of God of restoring the whole world to Godself. The renewal of all things. So often we get it into our heads that the bible exists to prove us right. It doesn't. Our being right about the bible makes no difference to the bible. Nor does it to God.
Some questions.
When can we get beyond these unhelpful ways of talking? And what is a better way of talking about the bible? Do we really need to assent to one of these designations to be a follower of Jesus?
Are we too stuck on this bible thing?
Jesus said that the sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the sabbath in Mark 2. I wonder if he would say the same thing about the bible: the bible was made for humans, not humans for the bible. Just a little something to consider.
Tone
Have you ever noticed that you can tell which side of an argument a person favors just from the tone of their voice? They don't even have to take a side for you to know where they stand. You can just tell. Tone is also indicative of religious or philosophical leanings. I can peg a televangelist from a mile away because of the tone of his voice. And I bet you can too.
More than just a sound.
More than just a sound.
But there are other kinds of tone. For instance, the sorts of words we use to describe a situation or topic can also be a kind of tone. When courtroom drawings were regular occurrences in newspapers, the way the characters in the trial were depicted was a type of tone; sometimes the way the artist drew the defendant would be a determining factor of whether or not they were found guilty.
Tone matters.
The tone we use can have far reaching consequences. If the tone I carry when writing on this blog is too cynical, I stand to lose influence with those who are committed to the topics I address here. If too rigid, those who disagree with me will tune me out.
Appropriate, or fitting-ness, of tone.
Is there ever a time when an abrasive tone is the most effective? I think there is. For instance, when a child is about to run into traffic an urgent and authoritative/controlling tone is needed in both word and action. But what about something a little less obvious? Say doctrinal allegiance? If a certain doctrinal stance is vital to you, are you willing for your tone to exclude those who disagree from your church? Is your own personal righteousness dependent on an unwavering tone?
Consider the effect of your tone before you speak and act.
It is okay and even good to make a stand on things that matter to you. But when your stance is one of exclusion and ostracism you gain nothing. You may even lose those who were entrusted into your care. It is okay to disagree, but the tone of your disagreement matters more than your position, especially if you are trying to lead people in following Jesus. Think about that next time you address one of the more divisive topics in society.
Tone matters.
The tone we use can have far reaching consequences. If the tone I carry when writing on this blog is too cynical, I stand to lose influence with those who are committed to the topics I address here. If too rigid, those who disagree with me will tune me out.
Appropriate, or fitting-ness, of tone.
Is there ever a time when an abrasive tone is the most effective? I think there is. For instance, when a child is about to run into traffic an urgent and authoritative/controlling tone is needed in both word and action. But what about something a little less obvious? Say doctrinal allegiance? If a certain doctrinal stance is vital to you, are you willing for your tone to exclude those who disagree from your church? Is your own personal righteousness dependent on an unwavering tone?
Consider the effect of your tone before you speak and act.
It is okay and even good to make a stand on things that matter to you. But when your stance is one of exclusion and ostracism you gain nothing. You may even lose those who were entrusted into your care. It is okay to disagree, but the tone of your disagreement matters more than your position, especially if you are trying to lead people in following Jesus. Think about that next time you address one of the more divisive topics in society.
The Truth is Human, too
One of the most compelling, ironic, and terrifying passages in the bible for me is John 18. It may sound weird, but I think verse 38 should be seen as one of the most serious warnings for us who study such things.
John 18 finds Jesus before Pilate. After a series of questions, Pilate utters those immortal words- "What is truth?"
The most obvious aspect to this verse is the irony. In several places (most notably John 14) Jesus has claimed to be the truth. And when he states that "everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me" we should hear his assertion of chapter 14 reverberating through our minds. And so when Pilate asks rhetorically what truth is, we should want to scream "He's right in front of you!"
Yet while we have, over the centuries, established a theological connection between truth and divinity, we balk at the connection between truth and humanity.
See, evangelical Christians are quick to assert that Jesus is the truth. Even if we don't get this turned around, we still maintain that truth is only to be found in Jesus' divinity, and not his humanity. This, I think, is founded on a mis understanding of the warning of Pilate's question; we assume that truth from a human perspective is what Pilate wanted, and it was for this reason that he failed to perceive the truth before him.
But it was not human truth that Pilate was after; it was divine.
In the verses preceding the philosophical despair, Pilate has been asking Jesus if he is a king-he is aware that Jesus is not a human king (see vs 36-37). He is asking if Jesus considers himself a "god" in the Roman sense. When Jesus turns that inquiry on it's ear, Pilate disengages, uttering his infamous words.
This parallels the debates of the early church.
Who was Jesus? Was he a man? A "god?" An Aeon? Was he Messiah? Was Messiah a man? Was he YHWH? The conclusion of millennia is that he was/is both God and human. This has been a foundation of the Christian faith- that Jesus was the Messiah, and as such was both fully God and fully human.
But if this is so, what of the truth of Jesus' humanity?
In Jesus we point to God's unique apprehension of truth. Yet we ignore the complete picture of Jesus; we elevate his divinity at the expense of his humanity. While he is uniquely the truth, the human aspect of that reality cannot be overlooked with pious eyes towards the heavens. This, I think, is actually the warning of Pilate's words. Of course we must take the obvious road as well as the other. But the irony goes deeper than that. We cannot ignore that in Jesus truth is to be found by humans and in humans. Truth is not reserved for the Platonic Forms, but is instead the property of humanity through the revealed incarnation of Jesus the Messiah.
Your humanity does not preclude you from the truth. It enables you to engage it.
Because you are human you may know the truth that sets you free, but it is not found by looking at the sky. It is found by looking at others. It is found by looking at Jesus.
John 18 finds Jesus before Pilate. After a series of questions, Pilate utters those immortal words- "What is truth?"
The most obvious aspect to this verse is the irony. In several places (most notably John 14) Jesus has claimed to be the truth. And when he states that "everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me" we should hear his assertion of chapter 14 reverberating through our minds. And so when Pilate asks rhetorically what truth is, we should want to scream "He's right in front of you!"
Yet while we have, over the centuries, established a theological connection between truth and divinity, we balk at the connection between truth and humanity.
See, evangelical Christians are quick to assert that Jesus is the truth. Even if we don't get this turned around, we still maintain that truth is only to be found in Jesus' divinity, and not his humanity. This, I think, is founded on a mis understanding of the warning of Pilate's question; we assume that truth from a human perspective is what Pilate wanted, and it was for this reason that he failed to perceive the truth before him.
But it was not human truth that Pilate was after; it was divine.
In the verses preceding the philosophical despair, Pilate has been asking Jesus if he is a king-he is aware that Jesus is not a human king (see vs 36-37). He is asking if Jesus considers himself a "god" in the Roman sense. When Jesus turns that inquiry on it's ear, Pilate disengages, uttering his infamous words.
This parallels the debates of the early church.
Who was Jesus? Was he a man? A "god?" An Aeon? Was he Messiah? Was Messiah a man? Was he YHWH? The conclusion of millennia is that he was/is both God and human. This has been a foundation of the Christian faith- that Jesus was the Messiah, and as such was both fully God and fully human.
But if this is so, what of the truth of Jesus' humanity?
In Jesus we point to God's unique apprehension of truth. Yet we ignore the complete picture of Jesus; we elevate his divinity at the expense of his humanity. While he is uniquely the truth, the human aspect of that reality cannot be overlooked with pious eyes towards the heavens. This, I think, is actually the warning of Pilate's words. Of course we must take the obvious road as well as the other. But the irony goes deeper than that. We cannot ignore that in Jesus truth is to be found by humans and in humans. Truth is not reserved for the Platonic Forms, but is instead the property of humanity through the revealed incarnation of Jesus the Messiah.
Your humanity does not preclude you from the truth. It enables you to engage it.
Because you are human you may know the truth that sets you free, but it is not found by looking at the sky. It is found by looking at others. It is found by looking at Jesus.
The Objective Fallacy, or, Taking Back the Bible
The fallacy of thinking that we can read anything without doing the work of interpretation has reached critical mass. I find this fallacy most often attached to the bible. Too often I hear Christian leaders claim for their interpretation of the bible absolute authority. It sounds like this (tell me if it rings any bells):
"This is not what I say, it's what the bible says."
This says two things right off the bat. First, it says that the person talking is not honest enough to own their interpretation. Second, it says that they are not actually confident in their own reading and to cover up for their doubt they claim "Scriptural Authority" so as to not deal with objections or arguments. This tactic is both dishonest and destructive.
This is the Objective Fallacy.
The objective fallacy is according the weight and significance of objectivity to something that is highly subjective. It is claiming absolute authority for something that is unworthy of it. It is lying about the authority of your words in the hopes that people will accept your words without holding you responsible for the results they have on the world.
Any thinking person should realize that the words in the bible did not fall from the mouth of God and plop directly into your ear canals. They were written by humans, copied by humans, translated by humans over centuries and millennia.
Society has changed.
The world of the bible is, in one respect, the world of today. People are still people, food is still food. But the social patterns and ways of speaking are very different. This is nowhere more evident than when it comes to reading the bible and understanding exactly what is meant by the words and phrases. On the one hand, we can get a pretty good idea about what certain things mean (death is still death, love is still love). On the other, we're really not sure what many of the phrases in the bible mean to our world today. Additionally, even the words of today require interpretation. I can speak normal, present day English to you and you will have the task of interpreting what I say and mean.
And there is a good chance you will misunderstand me.
My wife and I do this all the time. She will have one thing in her head and I an entirely different thing, and while we each think the other is talking about what we are talking about, we end up on completely different pages. The end result is frustration followed by realization that we were misunderstanding each other. The task of the interpreter is to engage such conversations from within and bring clarity and understanding to them.
And the bible is the same.
I have written about how the bible needs to be interpreted in another blog post, so I won't retread it all here. But I will say that no one reads the bible without interpreting it according to what they know or without the aid of the Holy Spirit. It is neither one or the other, but it is both and the other. However, to ignore your role in the process is dishonest and destructive.
And I am sick of that destruction.
It's time to take the authority of the bible away from those who abuse it and make it guilty of their own error. If you are a pastor or teacher who says things like this, STOP! Own your ish (as my friend Satoshi says). Don't profane the word of God for the sake of getting your way. For the rest of us, stop listening to people who say things like "It's not me, it's the bible." Take back the bible from those who have laid hold of it through violence and have continued to do violence to and through it. Claim your interpretation; do the work; own your ish. And then listen humbly to others who differ from you and see where the Holy Spirit convicts you.
"This is not what I say, it's what the bible says."
This says two things right off the bat. First, it says that the person talking is not honest enough to own their interpretation. Second, it says that they are not actually confident in their own reading and to cover up for their doubt they claim "Scriptural Authority" so as to not deal with objections or arguments. This tactic is both dishonest and destructive.
This is the Objective Fallacy.
The objective fallacy is according the weight and significance of objectivity to something that is highly subjective. It is claiming absolute authority for something that is unworthy of it. It is lying about the authority of your words in the hopes that people will accept your words without holding you responsible for the results they have on the world.
Any thinking person should realize that the words in the bible did not fall from the mouth of God and plop directly into your ear canals. They were written by humans, copied by humans, translated by humans over centuries and millennia.
Society has changed.
The world of the bible is, in one respect, the world of today. People are still people, food is still food. But the social patterns and ways of speaking are very different. This is nowhere more evident than when it comes to reading the bible and understanding exactly what is meant by the words and phrases. On the one hand, we can get a pretty good idea about what certain things mean (death is still death, love is still love). On the other, we're really not sure what many of the phrases in the bible mean to our world today. Additionally, even the words of today require interpretation. I can speak normal, present day English to you and you will have the task of interpreting what I say and mean.
And there is a good chance you will misunderstand me.
My wife and I do this all the time. She will have one thing in her head and I an entirely different thing, and while we each think the other is talking about what we are talking about, we end up on completely different pages. The end result is frustration followed by realization that we were misunderstanding each other. The task of the interpreter is to engage such conversations from within and bring clarity and understanding to them.
And the bible is the same.
I have written about how the bible needs to be interpreted in another blog post, so I won't retread it all here. But I will say that no one reads the bible without interpreting it according to what they know or without the aid of the Holy Spirit. It is neither one or the other, but it is both and the other. However, to ignore your role in the process is dishonest and destructive.
And I am sick of that destruction.
It's time to take the authority of the bible away from those who abuse it and make it guilty of their own error. If you are a pastor or teacher who says things like this, STOP! Own your ish (as my friend Satoshi says). Don't profane the word of God for the sake of getting your way. For the rest of us, stop listening to people who say things like "It's not me, it's the bible." Take back the bible from those who have laid hold of it through violence and have continued to do violence to and through it. Claim your interpretation; do the work; own your ish. And then listen humbly to others who differ from you and see where the Holy Spirit convicts you.
Faith the Second
Last week I began exploring how the bible uses the word faith and what it means by it. I began comparing Malachi 1-3 to Romans 9, and argued that the sense in which Paul is using faith in Romans 9 by quoting Malachi 1 is the same as that which Malachi is using it: the proper orientation of spouses in marriage. The bible uses "faith" in the sense of how marriage partners are supposed to be "faithful" to each other. It is, in this instance, not a set of markers for what is real. Faith is not a conceived set of limits to reality.
The second sense of faith that I want to look at is the way it functions in Luke 17 1-10. In verses 1-4 Jesus instructs his disciples to forgive the repentant and be forgiven without limit. The disciples response to this admonition is: "Lord, increase our faith!" (vs. 5). This seems an illogical request to the way we think of faith- why is faith the critical component of forgiveness?
If we are determined to maintain an understanding of faith that is purely cognitive, then we must construct an impressive network of patterns and cause/effect sequences to arrive at a point where we can understand the disciples' response. We would need to assume that the way we understand reality determines our action absolutely. That construction assumes a cognitive authority that is imputable for action; that there is no action that can transgress what we think of as real. So in that sense, we would say that the disciples have a readily accessible understanding of the world which says that you cannot forgive a person that much because it will violate some universal principle of retibutive justice. And so a new paradigm must be employed that eschews justice in faovr of God's mercy; trusting that God will make it right while we allow sin to reign.
This sounds all well and good, as we in fact do need to make those cognitive moves to arrive at a place where we can truly forgive others. But the problem with the logic that got us there is that it assumes a singular potential sequence of cause and effect from cognitive to active. That is to say, that no other possible option from point A exists except to arrive at point Z. It assumes a rational validity that only goes in one possible direction. Your "worldview" is changed and therefore you will inevitably act in this specific way, regardless of decision or action.
There is, as I'm sure you've guessed, a better option in this reading of Luke 17 in my estimation: that faith here functions volitionally, not cognitively. When the disciples ask for more faith, they are not assuming that through some complex system of metaphysical leaps they will arrive at a place where they will understand forgiveness and so act accordingly, but are asking for the ability to decide to forgive. They understand faith as a volitional action that in some cases, such as the one under consideration, will violate our sense of justice and righteousness. Faith is, in some cases, a decision to act against our beliefs.
Jesus' response in verses 6-10 demonstrate that this faith is not a magical power (as we sometimes assume), but is the expected posture of those who follow Him. "The slave does not expect a reward from his master for doing his job, does he? So you too, when you have done everything commanded of you, should say 'we are only slaves doing our duty.'" This faith is not a change in perspective (although that does happen as a result of faith), but is the decision to act obediently.
Specifically, it is the decision to forgive even though the perpetrator persists. Faith is intrinsically the posture of forgiveness exhibited by those who are simply the slaves of the kingdom of heaven. This then implies humility...
The second sense of faith that I want to look at is the way it functions in Luke 17 1-10. In verses 1-4 Jesus instructs his disciples to forgive the repentant and be forgiven without limit. The disciples response to this admonition is: "Lord, increase our faith!" (vs. 5). This seems an illogical request to the way we think of faith- why is faith the critical component of forgiveness?
If we are determined to maintain an understanding of faith that is purely cognitive, then we must construct an impressive network of patterns and cause/effect sequences to arrive at a point where we can understand the disciples' response. We would need to assume that the way we understand reality determines our action absolutely. That construction assumes a cognitive authority that is imputable for action; that there is no action that can transgress what we think of as real. So in that sense, we would say that the disciples have a readily accessible understanding of the world which says that you cannot forgive a person that much because it will violate some universal principle of retibutive justice. And so a new paradigm must be employed that eschews justice in faovr of God's mercy; trusting that God will make it right while we allow sin to reign.
This sounds all well and good, as we in fact do need to make those cognitive moves to arrive at a place where we can truly forgive others. But the problem with the logic that got us there is that it assumes a singular potential sequence of cause and effect from cognitive to active. That is to say, that no other possible option from point A exists except to arrive at point Z. It assumes a rational validity that only goes in one possible direction. Your "worldview" is changed and therefore you will inevitably act in this specific way, regardless of decision or action.
There is, as I'm sure you've guessed, a better option in this reading of Luke 17 in my estimation: that faith here functions volitionally, not cognitively. When the disciples ask for more faith, they are not assuming that through some complex system of metaphysical leaps they will arrive at a place where they will understand forgiveness and so act accordingly, but are asking for the ability to decide to forgive. They understand faith as a volitional action that in some cases, such as the one under consideration, will violate our sense of justice and righteousness. Faith is, in some cases, a decision to act against our beliefs.
Jesus' response in verses 6-10 demonstrate that this faith is not a magical power (as we sometimes assume), but is the expected posture of those who follow Him. "The slave does not expect a reward from his master for doing his job, does he? So you too, when you have done everything commanded of you, should say 'we are only slaves doing our duty.'" This faith is not a change in perspective (although that does happen as a result of faith), but is the decision to act obediently.
Specifically, it is the decision to forgive even though the perpetrator persists. Faith is intrinsically the posture of forgiveness exhibited by those who are simply the slaves of the kingdom of heaven. This then implies humility...
Jacob I have loved, but Esau...
Two primary ideas have been derived from this bit of scripture. The first, famously, is that people are "predestined" on an individual basis for either heaven or hell. While this idea has lost popularity in public circles, it maintains a high degree of acceptance in the hallowed halls of academic theology, particularly within the Calvinistic traditions.
The second, related to the first, ascribes that same principle of selection to people groups as well as individuals. However, most scholars who purport this reading also, and by necessity if they are Christians, adhere to the notion of "dispensation," by which is meant that in various "epochs" or eras, God has chosen different people. This notion derives itself from some combination of anti-semitism, manifest destiny, and Christian supersessionism, becoming in a circuitous fashion the doctrine by which each of these notions are supported. We tend to do that: create doctrine out of our prejudices and then use that doctrine to support our prejudices.
These ideas come from a particular reading of Romans 9 which understand Paul's argument to be that the Jews have been rejected as God's people due to their unbelief in Jesus and complicency with Roman efforts to execute him. However, such a reading of Romans 9 fails to consider what is meant by the passage Paul is quoting: Malachi 1:3.
Malachi 1 begins the prophecy of destruction against Edom. But before the (in)famous declaration of selection between Jacob and Esau, verse 2 begins with a declaration of love by YHWH towards his people- "I have loved you, declares YHWH." But verse one finishes with a rebuttal- "But you have said: 'How have you loved us?'"
It is within the context of God's declaration of love and the bitter questioning of a people in distress that the famous proof text for predestination is offered. God's selection in this case is not arbitrary- the passage goes on to explain how God's love is not being received because the people are not acting in love. It seems to paint an unusual picture of God's interaction with God's people that hinges more entirely on the action of the people than on the love of God. See, the text contends that God's love is ever present, but that it is ignored by people who do not love in return. The verse in 1 John 4 that reads "We love because he first loved us" compels us to maintain the initial act of love as originating from God, but in Malachi and elsewhere we find the pivot point to be the response of love.
What is often overlooked or just plain ignored is the fact that in Malachi 1 Jacob represents the nation of Israel and Esau represents the nation of Edom. The text is not referring to individuals. It is referring to nations whose identities are tied to etiological characters who share a common ancestor; both nations are children of Abraham. Yet the text is clearly of the persuasion that the coming judgement on Edom (!) is not a result of a lack of God's love, but of the failure on the part of the people to return God's love appropriately.
This observation dispels two misconceptions. The first is the idea that God picks certain people and rejects others. Based on research of the alleged passages that support this claim, I contend that that claim is not consistent with the bible. Instead, I think it is a symptom of the same inclination that leads us to construct doctrines out of/that support our prejudices. It is easier to treat a person unlovingly if you can believe that you were selected for love but she was not. The same is true of gospel proclamation: if you can convince yourself that God picks some and not others, then you have a harder time convincing yourself to tell them about how they might or might not be picked. I have heard several times that the doctrine of predestination does not remove the need for telling others about Jesus, because we do not know who is picked and who is not. But even though that would be true, it still removes incentive to call others into the world redeeming life of Jesus.
Finally, the notion of dispensational supersessionism mis reads Romans 9 because it has not read Malachi 1 to be an exposition on what it is to love within the context of judgement. Instead, driven by the desire to become the biggest, best, most loved, favored, etc, nation, it has ignored Paul's adamant assertion that Christ becomes the means by which the people of God is enlarged, not reduced. Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, did not come to cut Israel as a nation off (I know you're thinking of Romans 11, but read that passage carefully- it does not say that the tree was cut off, but only some branches) but to become the means for covenant participation for the rest of the world. Christ does not remove Israel from the covenant, but rather includes the gentiles in the covenant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)