i read the entire gospel of Mark in less than 2 hours today in order to get a full view of the gospel. i often read only parts of it but i wanted to experience the whole story. i decided to include one of my observations in my weekly reflection for my Mark class. here it is, again the greek is transliterated (kinda) to english so ignore that part of the entry...
----
The reading of the entire Gospel according to Mark in one sitting revealed new connections. One example is the use of the verb wither (xhrainw) and its forms as applied to multiple entities. The two instances that will be discussed in this reflection are the man with the withered hand in the synagogue in Mk 3:1 (h=n evkei/ a;nqrwpoj evxhramme,nhn e;cwn th.n cei/ra) and the fig tree that withered after Jesus’ words in Mk 11. A relationship exists between each entity’s ability to bear fruit and its withered state.
This relationship points to a deeper meaning beyond the physical bearing of fruit. In Mk 3, the man with the withered hand is described as being in the synagogue but nothing more is shared about him. The other healing and exorcism stories show that individuals with diseases were ostracized from the community. Jesus heals the man in the midst of the community that excluded him. The assumption, based on healing stories, is he was restored to the community and was able to contribute to its life and mission. In other words, he could bear fruit again.
The opposite event occurs in Mk 11. In this instance, Jesus interacts with a fig tree as opposed to a human being. More specifically, his action is the opposite of the healing in Mk 3 and the result is he caused the tree to withered away to its roots in Mk 11:20 (thn sukhn vexhramme,nhn ek rizwn). The explanation provided is that Jesus did not find any fruit on it. Jesus judges Israel due to its lack of bearing fruit and the result is a withered state. The Gospel of John provides additional insight in John 15 when Jesus describes whoever doesn’t abide in him, and doesn’t bear fruit, as being thrown away like a branch and withering. These observations raise more questions than answers. Are the withered entities still able to be healed like the man in the synagogue or are they destined to never bear fruit again or are they simply in a temporary worthless state waiting to be re-attached to the true vine?
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Monday, February 07, 2005
sleeping...
there is nothing theologically deep about this entry (or maybe there is )
i just went in to my daugther's room (19 months) to cover her with a blanket. she was sleeping peacefully... i stood by her crib and watched her for five minutes or so.
i think that part of the reason we sleep is so that God can look at us when we are not moving...
sorry, if you were looking for some academic or intellectual write-up then you came to the wrong place... (or maybe you didn't)
i just went in to my daugther's room (19 months) to cover her with a blanket. she was sleeping peacefully... i stood by her crib and watched her for five minutes or so.
i think that part of the reason we sleep is so that God can look at us when we are not moving...
sorry, if you were looking for some academic or intellectual write-up then you came to the wrong place... (or maybe you didn't)
Friday, February 04, 2005
the meaning of revelation (systematic theology I)
this is a continuation of my Systematic Theology critical log (see 1/28/05 for explanation)
The Meaning of Revelation and its Reception In Different Historical and Cultural Contexts - 2/4/05
Initial Thoughts
My definition of revelation up to this point in my life has been based on Jesus’ words of John 14:6-7 and Colossians 1:15. The starting point of revelation is Jesus Christ as the way to know the Father and as he serves as the image of the invisible God. The basic notion of looking at Jesus, as described in the Bible, and ascertaining God’s actions from his actions serves as my first way of understanding God. The specific revelation from God through Jesus Christ comes from an interaction with the Bible and the community of believers applied to the specific circumstances of the one whom God reveals himself to.
My view of general revelation has been based on Romans 1:20 (God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen), Romans 2:15 (since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts), and Ecclesiastes 3:11 (he has also set eternity in the hearts of men). These verses display how God is available to everybody through creation and the conscience.
I started to raise questions in college about how different people responded to general revelation and how this played out apart from Jesus Christ. The classic question of what happens to a person on a deserted island summarized these questions. I didn’t, however, consider the roles of different cultures in my understanding of revelation.
Tillich: Systematic Theology Volume One (106-137)
Tillich’s definition of revelation is different than any description I have encountered. I need to utilize this log entry to wrap my head around his view of revelation. It is built upon a set of concepts diagrammed below. He describes revelation is a special and extraordinary manifestation which removes the veil from something which is hidden in a special and extraordinary way. The hiddenness is often called “mystery�. The concepts flow from this relationship and sub-relationships. The descriptions are detailed in this log as a foundation for future discussions in the log about revelation as described by Tillich.
mystery – characterizes a dimension which “precedes� the subject-object relationship and the term should not be applied to something which ceases to be a mystery after it has been revealed. Revelation always is a subjective and an objective event in strict interdependence.
miracle – mystery appears objectively in terms of what traditionally has been called “miracle�.
ecstasy – mystery appears subjectively in terms of what has sometimes been called “ecstasy�. Ecstasy points to a state of mind in which is extraordinary in the sense that the mind transcends its ordinary situation.
inspiration – the cognitive element of ecstasy which emphasizes the pure receptivity of cognitive reason in an ecstatic experience. Original revelation is a result of inspiration.
illumination – the divine Spirit, illuminates believers individually and as a group, and brings their cognitive reason into revelatory correlation with the event on which Christianity is based. Dependent revelation is a result of inspiration.
Overall, Tillich describes revelation, whether it is original or dependent, as having revelatory power only for those who participate in it, who enter into the revelatory correlation. He accounts for the reality of objective (miracle) and subjective (ecstasy) elements of mystery while also accounting for the foundation (original) and ongoing (dependent) aspects of revelation. I still do not see, however, how Tillich accounts for the tendency for humans to create their own agendas and projects in his method of correlation. The existential questions and context need to be incorporated into the ‘equation’ but I still haven’t seen how his method can stand unless a check is added to the method. In terms of revelation, this check would need to be applied to the dependent revelation that results from the subjective elements of the encounter with the mystery of God.
Questions:
Are there any constraints to what falls into the realm of dependent revelation? How does the Bible and tradition play a role in defining whether a revelation to an individual or group relates back to the original revelation? Again, who judges whether a dependent revelation relates to the original? If someone (whoever that is) makes a decision, then is this classified as a new original revelation? If so, then is Mormonism an example of new original revelation or is it a dependent revelation?
Cone: God of the Oppressed (36-56)
Cone presents his thesis that all Christian theology is human speech about God and is always related to historical situations, and thus all its assertions are culturally limited. He supports this thesis by first appealing to Feuerbach, Marx, and the sociology of knowledge (Mannheim, Berger, Luckmann). He then applies his conclusions to white and black theology.
Feuerbach asserts that theology is anthropology and that the idea of God is humanity itself projected to infinity. Marx goes further by utilizing sense data to show that the task of philosophy is not merely to interpret the world but to change it. He posits that the ruling class promotes religion to justify the present material relations and that religion should be addressed as a means to remove unjust societal conditions. Lastly, the social of knowledge states that ideas do not have an existence separate from life but arise out of a framework of reality constructed by people.
Cone’s application of these ideas to white and black theology is eye-opening. Two attacks on Christianity that many friends and co-workers over the years have thrown at me is Christianity’s oppression of women and support for slavery. These predictable questions have always challenged me but I have not researched a strong response. Cone’s assertions expose my limited and shallow view of the slavery issues, especially within Christianity.
Cone states what I often have stated with regard to Christianity when he says that “the gospel grants people the freedom to transcend their cultural history and to affirm a dimension of universality common to all peoples.� He says this in relation to the white theologians who openly condemned slavery. I have always thought that “true� Christianity overcomes all the accusations that Christians are against women, blacks, the environment, etc. Cone’s quote shows that the gospel has the ability to do just that.
At the same time, Cone raises the reality that most (if not all) of the world does not allow the gospel to grant people that very freedom he described. In fact, the opposite is still true. His most poignant critique of the Christianity that I know is when he said “that is why they spend time debating the relations between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith than probing the depths of Jesus’ command to feed the poor.� The ideas of Feuerbach, Marx, and the society of knowledge applied to white theology show that whites, when not open to the gospel’s power to grant the freedom to transcend, only care about white issues and the status quo that favors them.
Cone fairly applies the same matrix of critique to black thought on Christianity. He admits that it has been influenced by its social context. My respect for Cone increased when I read this because I am growing tired of people with agendas who do not apply their criteria to themselves. His application reveals that black theology is expressed in the style of story and its content is liberation. He doesn’t state, however, any weaknesses in this view. Instead, he reasserts that “black folks tell tales� without citing any missing pieces to that mode of theology.
Questions:
Cone states that “blacks simply appropriated those biblical stories that met their historical need�. What does black theology do with the biblical stories that do not meet their historical need? How do they account for groups that utilize other biblical stories for their own historical need? Do these outputs ever conflict? If so, then is one historical need greater than the other?
Cone also states earlier that “what people think about God, Jesus Christ, and the Church cannot be separated from their own social and political status in a given society.� Is there any consistent content (even one word) that is shared by people of different social and political statuses? Are the differences more in the application of a consistent set of base truths or are there no base truths?
Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (43-58)
Calvin asserts that there is an awareness of divinity within the human mind and that even idolatry is ample proof of this conception. He stresses that if a person does not know God, then he or she degenerates from the law of their creation. Furthermore, he posits that only 1 in 100 humans receives the seed of religion but, instead, create superstitions, turn away from God, fashion God in our own religions, and only consider the seed of religion if compelled to do so. He adds that humans are further accountable because of God’s self-disclosure in creation and in humanity itself.
Calvin incorporates sin into his argument for how God’s revelation is obscured in this world. His references to Romans 1 show that he sees anything that is too human-focused is an idol fashioned by humanity for its own purposes. Calvin rightly accounts for the danger of humans playing too large a role in describing God, whether apart from the Bible or using the Bible for their own agenda. On the other hand, I do not see how Calvin wuld apply his view of revelation to account for specific issues that are outside of the tradition of the church.
Questions:
Is Calvin restricted in his view of revelation or are the groups that contextualize theologies restricted by their view of revelation in their specific social and cultural situation? Which one is more limited? What role does sin, as defined as self-promoting actions apart from God, play in understanding God’s revelation?
Gutierrez: A Theology of Liberation (27-46), Introduction to Job
Gutierrez describes theological thought about God as thought about a mystery. He refutes the arrogance displayed by those whose God-talk is sure that it knows everything there is to know about God. He contrasts this arrogance with the humility that comes from considering the very difficult question of where is God when innocent people are dying and oppressed in Latin America. How are these people supposed to talk about God? I am starting to extend beyond the space allowed for this section of the log so I will pick this subject up next week.
Final Thoughts:
I plan to record a short, hypothetical discussion between the writers every few weeks to capture where I see them coming from on the topic. This initial discussion will include a set of preliminary questions. The responses will be addressed as the semester goes on. Let’s meet the participants (in no specific order):
John Calvin:
Paul, the consideration of existential questions in your method of correlation, if applied without error, could provide the right answers. I do not see, however, how you account for the reality that human beings, because of sin, fashion religions for their own purposes. What prevents an individual from using your method of correlation to fashion God in their own religion as driven by his/her own personal questions or problems?
James Cone:
Let me take that question and respond with my own questions. John, what is your definition of “right� answers? Do your right answers consider only questions from a while theologian’s perspective? How does your definition of sin play out in a different context than your own? Do you realize that I am not concerned about God’s self-disclosure if that disclosure results in oppression?
Paul Tillich:
James, good use of a contextual reality that displays that we cannot believe that we can theologize apart from the existential questions we face. John, revelation is found in both original and dependent forms based on inspiration and illumination respectively. Dependent revelation, if fashioned after a personal agenda, will not speak to the specific group or individual and will no longer be considered. My main example are the Greek gods and the views of Mary. Do you believe that you can stand apart from revelation and judge which will remain and which will not?
Rosemary Ruether,
The context and the sources of revelation should be tested for patriarchal attitudes. All of these questions point to the tension between tradition and existential questions but are there issues with both of these ideas that need to be addressed, namely, feminist concerns? We need to step back from this discussion to make sure that we are not moving forward without this voice.
Gustavo Gutierrez:
I agree with Rosemary in the sense that all God-talk must not suppose that the speakers know everything there is to know about God. John, do you mention that depravity clouds the view of God’s natural revelation but do you see the sin in the suffering of the innocent? How do reconcile real problems with a theological system that doesn’t address specific issues? If your theology addresses these issues, then I am looking forward to that discussion in the coming weeks.
The Meaning of Revelation and its Reception In Different Historical and Cultural Contexts - 2/4/05
Initial Thoughts
My definition of revelation up to this point in my life has been based on Jesus’ words of John 14:6-7 and Colossians 1:15. The starting point of revelation is Jesus Christ as the way to know the Father and as he serves as the image of the invisible God. The basic notion of looking at Jesus, as described in the Bible, and ascertaining God’s actions from his actions serves as my first way of understanding God. The specific revelation from God through Jesus Christ comes from an interaction with the Bible and the community of believers applied to the specific circumstances of the one whom God reveals himself to.
My view of general revelation has been based on Romans 1:20 (God’s invisible qualities have been clearly seen), Romans 2:15 (since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts), and Ecclesiastes 3:11 (he has also set eternity in the hearts of men). These verses display how God is available to everybody through creation and the conscience.
I started to raise questions in college about how different people responded to general revelation and how this played out apart from Jesus Christ. The classic question of what happens to a person on a deserted island summarized these questions. I didn’t, however, consider the roles of different cultures in my understanding of revelation.
Tillich: Systematic Theology Volume One (106-137)
Tillich’s definition of revelation is different than any description I have encountered. I need to utilize this log entry to wrap my head around his view of revelation. It is built upon a set of concepts diagrammed below. He describes revelation is a special and extraordinary manifestation which removes the veil from something which is hidden in a special and extraordinary way. The hiddenness is often called “mystery�. The concepts flow from this relationship and sub-relationships. The descriptions are detailed in this log as a foundation for future discussions in the log about revelation as described by Tillich.
mystery – characterizes a dimension which “precedes� the subject-object relationship and the term should not be applied to something which ceases to be a mystery after it has been revealed. Revelation always is a subjective and an objective event in strict interdependence.
miracle – mystery appears objectively in terms of what traditionally has been called “miracle�.
ecstasy – mystery appears subjectively in terms of what has sometimes been called “ecstasy�. Ecstasy points to a state of mind in which is extraordinary in the sense that the mind transcends its ordinary situation.
inspiration – the cognitive element of ecstasy which emphasizes the pure receptivity of cognitive reason in an ecstatic experience. Original revelation is a result of inspiration.
illumination – the divine Spirit, illuminates believers individually and as a group, and brings their cognitive reason into revelatory correlation with the event on which Christianity is based. Dependent revelation is a result of inspiration.
Overall, Tillich describes revelation, whether it is original or dependent, as having revelatory power only for those who participate in it, who enter into the revelatory correlation. He accounts for the reality of objective (miracle) and subjective (ecstasy) elements of mystery while also accounting for the foundation (original) and ongoing (dependent) aspects of revelation. I still do not see, however, how Tillich accounts for the tendency for humans to create their own agendas and projects in his method of correlation. The existential questions and context need to be incorporated into the ‘equation’ but I still haven’t seen how his method can stand unless a check is added to the method. In terms of revelation, this check would need to be applied to the dependent revelation that results from the subjective elements of the encounter with the mystery of God.
Questions:
Are there any constraints to what falls into the realm of dependent revelation? How does the Bible and tradition play a role in defining whether a revelation to an individual or group relates back to the original revelation? Again, who judges whether a dependent revelation relates to the original? If someone (whoever that is) makes a decision, then is this classified as a new original revelation? If so, then is Mormonism an example of new original revelation or is it a dependent revelation?
Cone: God of the Oppressed (36-56)
Cone presents his thesis that all Christian theology is human speech about God and is always related to historical situations, and thus all its assertions are culturally limited. He supports this thesis by first appealing to Feuerbach, Marx, and the sociology of knowledge (Mannheim, Berger, Luckmann). He then applies his conclusions to white and black theology.
Feuerbach asserts that theology is anthropology and that the idea of God is humanity itself projected to infinity. Marx goes further by utilizing sense data to show that the task of philosophy is not merely to interpret the world but to change it. He posits that the ruling class promotes religion to justify the present material relations and that religion should be addressed as a means to remove unjust societal conditions. Lastly, the social of knowledge states that ideas do not have an existence separate from life but arise out of a framework of reality constructed by people.
Cone’s application of these ideas to white and black theology is eye-opening. Two attacks on Christianity that many friends and co-workers over the years have thrown at me is Christianity’s oppression of women and support for slavery. These predictable questions have always challenged me but I have not researched a strong response. Cone’s assertions expose my limited and shallow view of the slavery issues, especially within Christianity.
Cone states what I often have stated with regard to Christianity when he says that “the gospel grants people the freedom to transcend their cultural history and to affirm a dimension of universality common to all peoples.� He says this in relation to the white theologians who openly condemned slavery. I have always thought that “true� Christianity overcomes all the accusations that Christians are against women, blacks, the environment, etc. Cone’s quote shows that the gospel has the ability to do just that.
At the same time, Cone raises the reality that most (if not all) of the world does not allow the gospel to grant people that very freedom he described. In fact, the opposite is still true. His most poignant critique of the Christianity that I know is when he said “that is why they spend time debating the relations between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith than probing the depths of Jesus’ command to feed the poor.� The ideas of Feuerbach, Marx, and the society of knowledge applied to white theology show that whites, when not open to the gospel’s power to grant the freedom to transcend, only care about white issues and the status quo that favors them.
Cone fairly applies the same matrix of critique to black thought on Christianity. He admits that it has been influenced by its social context. My respect for Cone increased when I read this because I am growing tired of people with agendas who do not apply their criteria to themselves. His application reveals that black theology is expressed in the style of story and its content is liberation. He doesn’t state, however, any weaknesses in this view. Instead, he reasserts that “black folks tell tales� without citing any missing pieces to that mode of theology.
Questions:
Cone states that “blacks simply appropriated those biblical stories that met their historical need�. What does black theology do with the biblical stories that do not meet their historical need? How do they account for groups that utilize other biblical stories for their own historical need? Do these outputs ever conflict? If so, then is one historical need greater than the other?
Cone also states earlier that “what people think about God, Jesus Christ, and the Church cannot be separated from their own social and political status in a given society.� Is there any consistent content (even one word) that is shared by people of different social and political statuses? Are the differences more in the application of a consistent set of base truths or are there no base truths?
Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (43-58)
Calvin asserts that there is an awareness of divinity within the human mind and that even idolatry is ample proof of this conception. He stresses that if a person does not know God, then he or she degenerates from the law of their creation. Furthermore, he posits that only 1 in 100 humans receives the seed of religion but, instead, create superstitions, turn away from God, fashion God in our own religions, and only consider the seed of religion if compelled to do so. He adds that humans are further accountable because of God’s self-disclosure in creation and in humanity itself.
Calvin incorporates sin into his argument for how God’s revelation is obscured in this world. His references to Romans 1 show that he sees anything that is too human-focused is an idol fashioned by humanity for its own purposes. Calvin rightly accounts for the danger of humans playing too large a role in describing God, whether apart from the Bible or using the Bible for their own agenda. On the other hand, I do not see how Calvin wuld apply his view of revelation to account for specific issues that are outside of the tradition of the church.
Questions:
Is Calvin restricted in his view of revelation or are the groups that contextualize theologies restricted by their view of revelation in their specific social and cultural situation? Which one is more limited? What role does sin, as defined as self-promoting actions apart from God, play in understanding God’s revelation?
Gutierrez: A Theology of Liberation (27-46), Introduction to Job
Gutierrez describes theological thought about God as thought about a mystery. He refutes the arrogance displayed by those whose God-talk is sure that it knows everything there is to know about God. He contrasts this arrogance with the humility that comes from considering the very difficult question of where is God when innocent people are dying and oppressed in Latin America. How are these people supposed to talk about God? I am starting to extend beyond the space allowed for this section of the log so I will pick this subject up next week.
Final Thoughts:
I plan to record a short, hypothetical discussion between the writers every few weeks to capture where I see them coming from on the topic. This initial discussion will include a set of preliminary questions. The responses will be addressed as the semester goes on. Let’s meet the participants (in no specific order):
John Calvin:
Paul, the consideration of existential questions in your method of correlation, if applied without error, could provide the right answers. I do not see, however, how you account for the reality that human beings, because of sin, fashion religions for their own purposes. What prevents an individual from using your method of correlation to fashion God in their own religion as driven by his/her own personal questions or problems?
James Cone:
Let me take that question and respond with my own questions. John, what is your definition of “right� answers? Do your right answers consider only questions from a while theologian’s perspective? How does your definition of sin play out in a different context than your own? Do you realize that I am not concerned about God’s self-disclosure if that disclosure results in oppression?
Paul Tillich:
James, good use of a contextual reality that displays that we cannot believe that we can theologize apart from the existential questions we face. John, revelation is found in both original and dependent forms based on inspiration and illumination respectively. Dependent revelation, if fashioned after a personal agenda, will not speak to the specific group or individual and will no longer be considered. My main example are the Greek gods and the views of Mary. Do you believe that you can stand apart from revelation and judge which will remain and which will not?
Rosemary Ruether,
The context and the sources of revelation should be tested for patriarchal attitudes. All of these questions point to the tension between tradition and existential questions but are there issues with both of these ideas that need to be addressed, namely, feminist concerns? We need to step back from this discussion to make sure that we are not moving forward without this voice.
Gustavo Gutierrez:
I agree with Rosemary in the sense that all God-talk must not suppose that the speakers know everything there is to know about God. John, do you mention that depravity clouds the view of God’s natural revelation but do you see the sin in the suffering of the innocent? How do reconcile real problems with a theological system that doesn’t address specific issues? If your theology addresses these issues, then I am looking forward to that discussion in the coming weeks.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
one type of event, two outcomes
this is from a short reflection paper on Mark 1:16-45 for my Gospel of Mark exegesis class... the greek words are spelled out as a result of the copy/paste and the lack of greek font for this blog.
Mark 1:16-45 includes a series of events that demonstrate the kingdom coming with power through Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mk 1:1). Jesus’ impact on the people he encounters in the first chapter of Mark reveals his authority and ability to restore. In particular, there are multiple instances where one type of event leads to two outcomes. Are the double-meanings an intentional literary technique used by Mark to show Jesus’ power or do these examples show Jesus’ power through intentional events? The two examples are Jesus’ authority in his teaching and his restoring action through healing.
Jesus’ authority (evxousi,a) is displayed in his teaching as well as his healing. The first example is Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue (Mk 1:22). Mark states that the listeners were amazed (evxeplh,ssonto) and differentiated Jesus’ teaching from the instruction of the scribes. They note that Jesus’ teaching had authority. The second example is Jesus’ healing of the man with the unclean spirit (Mk 1:27). This elicits the same response (evqambh,qhsan). The observers surprisingly refer to the action as new teaching (didach. kainh). Their use of the word “new� displays a comparison to prior actions of other teachers. Jesus’ authority associated with teaching is an example of one entity that manifests itself in two ways: word and deed (Moloney, 54).
Another example where one reference points to two outcomes is Jesus’ restoring act of the leper (lepro.j) in Mk 1:41. The man’s leprosy is healed and he is allowed to re-enter the community of Israel. He was sent away from the community according to Levitus 13-14 (Moloney, 58). The suffering is related to the condition as well as the alienation from people. Sin has the same impact. Jesus’ healing is a second example of one type of event that manifests itself in two ways: physical and relational restoration.
additional thoughts/questions:
the power of the kingdom of God is displayed in Jesus overcoming unclean spirits, diseases and taboos. Jesus' touching the man with leprosy is a major taboo of the time. he is then reconnected to the community of faith.
how does sin cut people off from the community of faith?
how does Jesus' healing (in forgiveness) restore people physically and relationally?
Mark 1:16-45 includes a series of events that demonstrate the kingdom coming with power through Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mk 1:1). Jesus’ impact on the people he encounters in the first chapter of Mark reveals his authority and ability to restore. In particular, there are multiple instances where one type of event leads to two outcomes. Are the double-meanings an intentional literary technique used by Mark to show Jesus’ power or do these examples show Jesus’ power through intentional events? The two examples are Jesus’ authority in his teaching and his restoring action through healing.
Jesus’ authority (evxousi,a) is displayed in his teaching as well as his healing. The first example is Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue (Mk 1:22). Mark states that the listeners were amazed (evxeplh,ssonto) and differentiated Jesus’ teaching from the instruction of the scribes. They note that Jesus’ teaching had authority. The second example is Jesus’ healing of the man with the unclean spirit (Mk 1:27). This elicits the same response (evqambh,qhsan). The observers surprisingly refer to the action as new teaching (didach. kainh). Their use of the word “new� displays a comparison to prior actions of other teachers. Jesus’ authority associated with teaching is an example of one entity that manifests itself in two ways: word and deed (Moloney, 54).
Another example where one reference points to two outcomes is Jesus’ restoring act of the leper (lepro.j) in Mk 1:41. The man’s leprosy is healed and he is allowed to re-enter the community of Israel. He was sent away from the community according to Levitus 13-14 (Moloney, 58). The suffering is related to the condition as well as the alienation from people. Sin has the same impact. Jesus’ healing is a second example of one type of event that manifests itself in two ways: physical and relational restoration.
additional thoughts/questions:
the power of the kingdom of God is displayed in Jesus overcoming unclean spirits, diseases and taboos. Jesus' touching the man with leprosy is a major taboo of the time. he is then reconnected to the community of faith.
how does sin cut people off from the community of faith?
how does Jesus' healing (in forgiveness) restore people physically and relationally?
Friday, January 28, 2005
nature and task of theology (systematic theology I)
my intro to system theology course has started. i have been given the option to keep an ongoing critical log of the readings as opposed taking a 3 hr final exam. i will be posting my critical log entries here as well as keeping them in a separate ms word doc. these entries may or may not mean anything to reader because they are based on the following readings:
Paul Tillich - Systematic Theology Vol 1
John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion Vol 1
James Cone - God of the Oppressed
Rosemary Radford Ruether - Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology
Gustavo Gutierrez - A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation
various other readings...
my approach will be to record my initial thoughts on the topic before doing the readings and then write up my reaction to the readings.
here we go:
The Nature and Task of Theology – 1/28/05
Initial Thoughts
This first log entry will most likely be longer than others because I am recording my first impression and questions from the set of readings. My initial sets of questions will serve as reminders of where I began my journey through this semester’s interactions with Calvin, Tillich, Gutierrez, Ruether, and Cone. I plan to write an “Initial Thoughts� section before I embark on the readings in order to capture my current set of ideas and beliefs. This will allow for a “flow within the flow� view of my thinking. I will conclude each entry with a “Final Thoughts� section that summarizes my interactions with the texts. I will randomize my consideration of the texts each week in order to show that I am not predisposed to one or the other.
I was uninterested in and intimidated by theology for the majority of my life. I was raised in a Reformed, evangelical faith environment where I often scoffed at philosophy and theology because I focused mostly on what I viewed as practical applications of God and the Bible. Theology, as defined as a rational discourse about God, and philosophy, as defined as a cognitive approach to reality, both began to interest me when I arrived at these definitions. I then saw clearly how both theology and philosophy (the intersection of the two) impacted all aspects of life.
The criteria for good theology of faithfulness/appropriateness, intelligibility/credibility, and transformative practice complement the criteria I encountered in Paradigms and Progress (PH 330) with Dr. van Huyssteen last semester. In light of these criteria I still have questions such as: What is the aim and/or purpose of theology? Who judges how the theology meets the given criteria? In other words, should I be more skeptical about tradition or the existential questions/answers? Why do ‘new’ theologies seem to completely discount any view that has been the majority? Is the life of the creator of a new theology also a criteria? In other words, what role does a person’s theology play in rationalizing his/her sin? Can reconciliation, especially racial, ever occur if every person has his/her own contextual theology?
Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (35-43)
My initial impression of Calvin’s theology, as a rational discourse on God, focuses heavily God’s revelation and the resulting changes. Wisdom, for Calvin, is embodied in the knowledge of God and ourselves where “knowledge� emphasizes the centrality of revelation in the structure and content of his theology. Calvin states that we cannot seriously aspire to God until we know ourselves and, subsequently, become displeased with ourselves. On the other hand, we cannot know ourselves unless we look to the Lord, who is the sole standard.
He states clearly that our knowledge should serve first to teach us fear and reverence with the results being that we should seek every good from him. Piety is defined as reverence joined with love of God that the knowledge of his benefits induces.
Calvin also states that humanity’s depravity seduces the mind from rightly seeking him. Furthermore, he asserts that the pious mind does not attach to it whatever it pleases, but is content to hold him (God) to be as he manifests himself.
Questions:
(1) How does Calvin reconcile self-knowledge and depravity in terms of seeking God? (2) How does Calvin’s theology account for specific social and political contexts? Will Calvin’s theology (to be determined over the next few months) provide answers to real problems? (3) Would Calvin ascribe the human mind attaching itself to whatever it pleases to Tillich’s correlation method, Gutierrez’ liberation theology, Cone’s black liberation theology and/or Ruether’s feminist theology? In other words, are these other theologies too human-driven for Calvin?
Tillich: Systematic Theology Volume One (xi-xii, 3-34, 59-66)
My initial impression of Tillich’s theology is that he rightly includes the existential questions of humanity in his method of correlation but he leaves the door open for humanity to dictate the theological content without any boundaries.
Tillich provides two criteria for every theology – the object of theology is the ultimate concern and statements must deal with objects as a matter of being or not-being. In terms of Christianity, he asserts that theology is the methodical interpretation of the contents of the Chrsitian faith. He proposes the method of correlation where existential questions and theological answers are in mutual interdependence. Tillich’s distinction between apologetic theology and kerygmatic theology challenged my notion of the Bible’s message to all humanity for all time apart from context. The context of the theology of a theologian impacts the theology. Tillich’s method makes an analysis of the human situation out of which the existential questions arise, and it demonstrates that the symbols used in the Christian message are the answers to these questions. I do not see whether Tillich thinks that the human situation or Christian message should drive the method. Overall, I am skeptical of theologians who use Christian as a vehicle for their personal problems or agendas.
Questions:
Tillich says that God in his self-manifestation to man is dependent on the way man receives his manifestation. If this is true, then is God limited or does God limit his manifestation to humanity?
In light of Tillich’s method, what happens if the symbols do not answer the existential question? Does that mean the Christian message should be changed to fit the existential question?
Does Tillich agree that Christianity is the theology based on his description of the Logos becoming flesh as something which is absolutely concrete and absolutely universal?
Gutierrez: A Theology of Liberation (1-12, 13.25)
My initial impression of Gutierrez’ theology is that the global issue of oppression is addressed by the Christ’s mission of justice for the oppressed. I am uncertain to what extent he sees any other aspects of theology apart from his main concern.
Gutierrez offers his own criteria for good theology as theology must serve as wisdom (spiritual function), rational knowledge, critical reflection on humankind, an up-to-date view, and a political hermeneutic of the Gospel. His goal is to apply this theology to the oppression of the poor and demonstrates how Christ as liberator from sin addresses injustice and oppression. Gutierrez contrasts liberation from development and sees liberation as the expression of aspirations of oppressed people and social classes, an application to an understanding of history where humandind is responsible for its own destiny, and led by Christ as Savior from sin.
My theology is always interrupted by liberation theology because I admittedly am ignorant of suffering and oppression. At the same time, I am weary of theologians using Christianity as a means to achieve their social or political agendas. I anticipate having my worldview impacted by this tension.
Questions:
Is humanity responsible for the outcome of the world? If so, then how much? In other words, are humans trying to correct God in liberation theology or trying to correct the world using Christ as its vehicle? Did Jesus intend to correct the world?
Overall, (continued theme), should theology start with humanity or God? Is Guterrez’ discourse theology or anthropology (a different use of the discourse on humanity)?
Ruether: Sexism and God-Talk (1-46)
My initial impression of Ruether’s theology is that she exposes the patriarchal nature of all theologies (and everything else) and seeks to utilize the Christian message of equality before God as a means of refuting this while also promoting the full humanity of women. She appears to be using Christianity and everything else to provide an answer to her specific issue while disregarding other aspects of theology.
Ruether summarizes her critical principle of feminist theology as the promotion of the full humanity of women and states that “whatever diminishes or denies the full humanity of women must be presumed not to reflect the divine or an authentic relation to the divine, or to reflect the authentic nature of things, or to be the message or work of an authentic redeemer or a community of redemption.�
I admit that I have not reflected on the overall patriarchal nature of the Bible or all earthly institutions. I can see how Ruether’s argument for the application of God’s removal of power structures (in the present? upon Christ’s return?) relates to women’s issues. However, I do not agree with her vitriolic attack on, what appears to me, every aspect of everything that agrees with a majority view or tradition.
Questions:
Ruether states that no group should ever be marginalized (p. 20). Is there any situation where a group should be marginalized? Is there a notion of the greater good of society? How does Ruether account for a conflict between one group who would be marginalized if the other group was not marginalized? Classic question, should a group who practices cannibalism be marginalized?
Why does Ruether use the predictable “majority card� when she states that we should reject all norms of humanity to date?
Ruether states (p. 23) that “to the extend to which Biblical texts reflect this normative principle, they are regarded as authoritative.� Is the Bible only authoritative when it serves an individual’s agenda? Ruether also states that all power relationships (p. 30) should be removed, does this include God as well?
Overall, is Ruether capable of conceding any ground on her perspective? If not, she will continue to be lack any elements of persuasion in her theology with me.
Cone: God of the Oppressed (1-38)
My first impression of Cone’s theology is provides a heartfelt understanding of the problem the universal and particular in theology, especially in terms of black theology. My first encounter with some of Cone’s concerns came in college when a black friend on my InterVarsity Christian Fellowship leadership team shared that white worship music was viewd as “folk music� to the black community and that we could not expect racial reconciliation if the white groups thought that the worship music would be this type.
Cone states (p. 7) that the book “deals with the social basis of theology and is concerned with, among other related matters, the problem of the particular and universal in theological discourse.� His example of bad theology as embodied in the following quote opened my eyes: “The quote that unless black people learn to think like us white folks, using our rules, then we will not listen to you.� The black theology presented by Cone accounts for the black experience of truth and how that is manifested in theology.
Questions:
I struggle with the notion of racial reconcilation “working� in the church. How can groups with different contextual theologies worship together? Does “together� have to mean being in the same building on Sunday morning (or any other time)? Should Christians be aiming, as many have attempted, to bring together all Christians in order to be a stronger witness or are Christians fooling themselves by not accounting for the reality of different contextual theologies?
Final Thoughts (for this week)
The initial set of readings opened my eyes to the wide variety of approaches to theology. These approaches come from different angles that appear to be irreconcilable. The tensions present in the relationship of tradition vs. the sitution of humanity are clearly displayed. My suspicion of theologians using Christianity as a vehicle to promote an agenda or to solve a personal problem has both been emboldened as well as challenged. I do not know where Tillich’s method of correlation will lead in terms of God or humanity dictating which issues should be addressed. I do not know if I will still view Ruether as only using Christianity as a piece of her argument for the full humanity of women. I do not know if Cone’s description of the black experience will answer my questions about racial reconciliation in the church. I do know if my comfort with Calvin’s theology will continue or not. I do not know if I will move understand moreso the real oppression in this world based on the insights from Gutierrez.
My two main, related questions at this point is who drives theology (God or humanity) and how do we judge whether the driver is serving themselves (personal problems, agendas) or truly serving God and, subsequently, humanity?
Paul Tillich - Systematic Theology Vol 1
John Calvin - Institutes of the Christian Religion Vol 1
James Cone - God of the Oppressed
Rosemary Radford Ruether - Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology
Gustavo Gutierrez - A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation
various other readings...
my approach will be to record my initial thoughts on the topic before doing the readings and then write up my reaction to the readings.
here we go:
The Nature and Task of Theology – 1/28/05
Initial Thoughts
This first log entry will most likely be longer than others because I am recording my first impression and questions from the set of readings. My initial sets of questions will serve as reminders of where I began my journey through this semester’s interactions with Calvin, Tillich, Gutierrez, Ruether, and Cone. I plan to write an “Initial Thoughts� section before I embark on the readings in order to capture my current set of ideas and beliefs. This will allow for a “flow within the flow� view of my thinking. I will conclude each entry with a “Final Thoughts� section that summarizes my interactions with the texts. I will randomize my consideration of the texts each week in order to show that I am not predisposed to one or the other.
I was uninterested in and intimidated by theology for the majority of my life. I was raised in a Reformed, evangelical faith environment where I often scoffed at philosophy and theology because I focused mostly on what I viewed as practical applications of God and the Bible. Theology, as defined as a rational discourse about God, and philosophy, as defined as a cognitive approach to reality, both began to interest me when I arrived at these definitions. I then saw clearly how both theology and philosophy (the intersection of the two) impacted all aspects of life.
The criteria for good theology of faithfulness/appropriateness, intelligibility/credibility, and transformative practice complement the criteria I encountered in Paradigms and Progress (PH 330) with Dr. van Huyssteen last semester. In light of these criteria I still have questions such as: What is the aim and/or purpose of theology? Who judges how the theology meets the given criteria? In other words, should I be more skeptical about tradition or the existential questions/answers? Why do ‘new’ theologies seem to completely discount any view that has been the majority? Is the life of the creator of a new theology also a criteria? In other words, what role does a person’s theology play in rationalizing his/her sin? Can reconciliation, especially racial, ever occur if every person has his/her own contextual theology?
Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (35-43)
My initial impression of Calvin’s theology, as a rational discourse on God, focuses heavily God’s revelation and the resulting changes. Wisdom, for Calvin, is embodied in the knowledge of God and ourselves where “knowledge� emphasizes the centrality of revelation in the structure and content of his theology. Calvin states that we cannot seriously aspire to God until we know ourselves and, subsequently, become displeased with ourselves. On the other hand, we cannot know ourselves unless we look to the Lord, who is the sole standard.
He states clearly that our knowledge should serve first to teach us fear and reverence with the results being that we should seek every good from him. Piety is defined as reverence joined with love of God that the knowledge of his benefits induces.
Calvin also states that humanity’s depravity seduces the mind from rightly seeking him. Furthermore, he asserts that the pious mind does not attach to it whatever it pleases, but is content to hold him (God) to be as he manifests himself.
Questions:
(1) How does Calvin reconcile self-knowledge and depravity in terms of seeking God? (2) How does Calvin’s theology account for specific social and political contexts? Will Calvin’s theology (to be determined over the next few months) provide answers to real problems? (3) Would Calvin ascribe the human mind attaching itself to whatever it pleases to Tillich’s correlation method, Gutierrez’ liberation theology, Cone’s black liberation theology and/or Ruether’s feminist theology? In other words, are these other theologies too human-driven for Calvin?
Tillich: Systematic Theology Volume One (xi-xii, 3-34, 59-66)
My initial impression of Tillich’s theology is that he rightly includes the existential questions of humanity in his method of correlation but he leaves the door open for humanity to dictate the theological content without any boundaries.
Tillich provides two criteria for every theology – the object of theology is the ultimate concern and statements must deal with objects as a matter of being or not-being. In terms of Christianity, he asserts that theology is the methodical interpretation of the contents of the Chrsitian faith. He proposes the method of correlation where existential questions and theological answers are in mutual interdependence. Tillich’s distinction between apologetic theology and kerygmatic theology challenged my notion of the Bible’s message to all humanity for all time apart from context. The context of the theology of a theologian impacts the theology. Tillich’s method makes an analysis of the human situation out of which the existential questions arise, and it demonstrates that the symbols used in the Christian message are the answers to these questions. I do not see whether Tillich thinks that the human situation or Christian message should drive the method. Overall, I am skeptical of theologians who use Christian as a vehicle for their personal problems or agendas.
Questions:
Tillich says that God in his self-manifestation to man is dependent on the way man receives his manifestation. If this is true, then is God limited or does God limit his manifestation to humanity?
In light of Tillich’s method, what happens if the symbols do not answer the existential question? Does that mean the Christian message should be changed to fit the existential question?
Does Tillich agree that Christianity is the theology based on his description of the Logos becoming flesh as something which is absolutely concrete and absolutely universal?
Gutierrez: A Theology of Liberation (1-12, 13.25)
My initial impression of Gutierrez’ theology is that the global issue of oppression is addressed by the Christ’s mission of justice for the oppressed. I am uncertain to what extent he sees any other aspects of theology apart from his main concern.
Gutierrez offers his own criteria for good theology as theology must serve as wisdom (spiritual function), rational knowledge, critical reflection on humankind, an up-to-date view, and a political hermeneutic of the Gospel. His goal is to apply this theology to the oppression of the poor and demonstrates how Christ as liberator from sin addresses injustice and oppression. Gutierrez contrasts liberation from development and sees liberation as the expression of aspirations of oppressed people and social classes, an application to an understanding of history where humandind is responsible for its own destiny, and led by Christ as Savior from sin.
My theology is always interrupted by liberation theology because I admittedly am ignorant of suffering and oppression. At the same time, I am weary of theologians using Christianity as a means to achieve their social or political agendas. I anticipate having my worldview impacted by this tension.
Questions:
Is humanity responsible for the outcome of the world? If so, then how much? In other words, are humans trying to correct God in liberation theology or trying to correct the world using Christ as its vehicle? Did Jesus intend to correct the world?
Overall, (continued theme), should theology start with humanity or God? Is Guterrez’ discourse theology or anthropology (a different use of the discourse on humanity)?
Ruether: Sexism and God-Talk (1-46)
My initial impression of Ruether’s theology is that she exposes the patriarchal nature of all theologies (and everything else) and seeks to utilize the Christian message of equality before God as a means of refuting this while also promoting the full humanity of women. She appears to be using Christianity and everything else to provide an answer to her specific issue while disregarding other aspects of theology.
Ruether summarizes her critical principle of feminist theology as the promotion of the full humanity of women and states that “whatever diminishes or denies the full humanity of women must be presumed not to reflect the divine or an authentic relation to the divine, or to reflect the authentic nature of things, or to be the message or work of an authentic redeemer or a community of redemption.�
I admit that I have not reflected on the overall patriarchal nature of the Bible or all earthly institutions. I can see how Ruether’s argument for the application of God’s removal of power structures (in the present? upon Christ’s return?) relates to women’s issues. However, I do not agree with her vitriolic attack on, what appears to me, every aspect of everything that agrees with a majority view or tradition.
Questions:
Ruether states that no group should ever be marginalized (p. 20). Is there any situation where a group should be marginalized? Is there a notion of the greater good of society? How does Ruether account for a conflict between one group who would be marginalized if the other group was not marginalized? Classic question, should a group who practices cannibalism be marginalized?
Why does Ruether use the predictable “majority card� when she states that we should reject all norms of humanity to date?
Ruether states (p. 23) that “to the extend to which Biblical texts reflect this normative principle, they are regarded as authoritative.� Is the Bible only authoritative when it serves an individual’s agenda? Ruether also states that all power relationships (p. 30) should be removed, does this include God as well?
Overall, is Ruether capable of conceding any ground on her perspective? If not, she will continue to be lack any elements of persuasion in her theology with me.
Cone: God of the Oppressed (1-38)
My first impression of Cone’s theology is provides a heartfelt understanding of the problem the universal and particular in theology, especially in terms of black theology. My first encounter with some of Cone’s concerns came in college when a black friend on my InterVarsity Christian Fellowship leadership team shared that white worship music was viewd as “folk music� to the black community and that we could not expect racial reconciliation if the white groups thought that the worship music would be this type.
Cone states (p. 7) that the book “deals with the social basis of theology and is concerned with, among other related matters, the problem of the particular and universal in theological discourse.� His example of bad theology as embodied in the following quote opened my eyes: “The quote that unless black people learn to think like us white folks, using our rules, then we will not listen to you.� The black theology presented by Cone accounts for the black experience of truth and how that is manifested in theology.
Questions:
I struggle with the notion of racial reconcilation “working� in the church. How can groups with different contextual theologies worship together? Does “together� have to mean being in the same building on Sunday morning (or any other time)? Should Christians be aiming, as many have attempted, to bring together all Christians in order to be a stronger witness or are Christians fooling themselves by not accounting for the reality of different contextual theologies?
Final Thoughts (for this week)
The initial set of readings opened my eyes to the wide variety of approaches to theology. These approaches come from different angles that appear to be irreconcilable. The tensions present in the relationship of tradition vs. the sitution of humanity are clearly displayed. My suspicion of theologians using Christianity as a vehicle to promote an agenda or to solve a personal problem has both been emboldened as well as challenged. I do not know where Tillich’s method of correlation will lead in terms of God or humanity dictating which issues should be addressed. I do not know if I will still view Ruether as only using Christianity as a piece of her argument for the full humanity of women. I do not know if Cone’s description of the black experience will answer my questions about racial reconciliation in the church. I do know if my comfort with Calvin’s theology will continue or not. I do not know if I will move understand moreso the real oppression in this world based on the insights from Gutierrez.
My two main, related questions at this point is who drives theology (God or humanity) and how do we judge whether the driver is serving themselves (personal problems, agendas) or truly serving God and, subsequently, humanity?
Friday, January 21, 2005
purify and be purified
i continued reading in 2 Corinthians and i meditated on a verse that has impacted me off and on over the years.
2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverance for God.
my mind quickly jumped to another verse that included the notion of purification.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
one verse is forward-looking with the responsibility of purification seemingly falling on the person. the other is backward-looking with the responsibility of purification falling on God (the faithful and just God). the process includes a desire, based on God's promises, to be purified with the inevitable reality of sin. this sin, when confessed, leads to forgiveness and further purification.
there are two keys. the first is the desire for purification based on God's promises out of reverence for God. the other key is the willingness to confess sins when they occur. this speaks of a positive movement toward purification. this is encouraging to me, especially when i think about how frustrating life can be in our struggle against the flesh where the Spirit desires what is contrary to the flesh (Galatians 5:17) and we do what do not want to do (Romans 7:15). i oftentimes feel like i am moving backwards but these two verses show that God is working a movement toward purification. the reality of sin still leads to further purification.
am i saying that i should seek sin? absolutely not!
temptation will find me based on my evil desires (James 1:14). the proper response to this is to seek purification and then when i fail i should make to confess my sins and i will continue to be purified.
2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverance for God.
2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverance for God.
my mind quickly jumped to another verse that included the notion of purification.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
one verse is forward-looking with the responsibility of purification seemingly falling on the person. the other is backward-looking with the responsibility of purification falling on God (the faithful and just God). the process includes a desire, based on God's promises, to be purified with the inevitable reality of sin. this sin, when confessed, leads to forgiveness and further purification.
there are two keys. the first is the desire for purification based on God's promises out of reverence for God. the other key is the willingness to confess sins when they occur. this speaks of a positive movement toward purification. this is encouraging to me, especially when i think about how frustrating life can be in our struggle against the flesh where the Spirit desires what is contrary to the flesh (Galatians 5:17) and we do what do not want to do (Romans 7:15). i oftentimes feel like i am moving backwards but these two verses show that God is working a movement toward purification. the reality of sin still leads to further purification.
am i saying that i should seek sin? absolutely not!
temptation will find me based on my evil desires (James 1:14). the proper response to this is to seek purification and then when i fail i should make to confess my sins and i will continue to be purified.
2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverance for God.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
a fair exchange?
i read something today that i have never read before. or better stated, i probably read this but i never noticed it. the Bible, even though questioned over and over as God's Word, is inspired and truly is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword.
i read this:
2 Corinthians 6:11-13
We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affections from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also.
do i have a fair exchange with God?
what am i withholding from him?
these verses describe Paul's relationship with the Corinthians but these verses can definitely be applied to God's relationship with his people - including me.
i decided to ask God in prayer what i am holding back. i realized that i am holding back my control of my free time, free energy, free decisions. in other words, i attempt (usually successfully) to guard my own space. i accomplish this by being good enough in my relationships so that i can then go off and do my own thing. this applies to God, my wife, my child, and my friends. i withhold my true self because i do not want to relinquish the few areas that i control (or feel like i control), that are predictable (seemingly), that are safe (seemingly).
Paul challenged the Corinthians to open wide their hearts. once again, God is challenging me to open wide my heart. the "free space" is truly a "sin space". pride, sexual immorality, seclusion, isolation, control of others (indirectly), hatred, envy, jealousy, strife are all found in this "sin space".
Mark 8:34-35
Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and the gospel will save it."
i live with the burden of wanting to look good to everyone so that they will not dare to ask or even consider access to my precious free time or space.
does anyone really know me?
does God even know me?
"as a fair exchange, open wide your heart also!"
i read this:
2 Corinthians 6:11-13
We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affections from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also.
do i have a fair exchange with God?
what am i withholding from him?
these verses describe Paul's relationship with the Corinthians but these verses can definitely be applied to God's relationship with his people - including me.
i decided to ask God in prayer what i am holding back. i realized that i am holding back my control of my free time, free energy, free decisions. in other words, i attempt (usually successfully) to guard my own space. i accomplish this by being good enough in my relationships so that i can then go off and do my own thing. this applies to God, my wife, my child, and my friends. i withhold my true self because i do not want to relinquish the few areas that i control (or feel like i control), that are predictable (seemingly), that are safe (seemingly).
Paul challenged the Corinthians to open wide their hearts. once again, God is challenging me to open wide my heart. the "free space" is truly a "sin space". pride, sexual immorality, seclusion, isolation, control of others (indirectly), hatred, envy, jealousy, strife are all found in this "sin space".
Mark 8:34-35
Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and the gospel will save it."
i live with the burden of wanting to look good to everyone so that they will not dare to ask or even consider access to my precious free time or space.
does anyone really know me?
does God even know me?
"as a fair exchange, open wide your heart also!"
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
years of slumber
the text by bishop wades that i listed a few days ago came back to my mind in the middle of the retreat. his first stage of repentance included a renewed sense of watchfulness.
i took some time to meditate on the concept of watchfulness in my faith. am i watchful? am i awake?
i feel like i often live my life in a state of slumber where i am half-present in my circumstances. the monastic retreat gave me a chance to step away and see that slumber. many times, i choose to be in a fog, asleep, and unaware.
1 Peter 5:8-9 Be self-controlled and alert (watchful)(vigilant). Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the entire world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
Peter, along with James and John, knew more than anybody what it meant to be in a state of slumber and to let our Lord down. he fell asleep when Jesus asked him to keep watch and pray. where is Jesus asking me to keep watch and pray? how do i fall asleep?
Mark 14:37-38
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing but the body is weak.
finally, Paul charges us to wake up in light of understanding our present time.
Romans 13:11
And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.
i was reminded of the Jesus prayer from Bishop Wares' writing. this prayer is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner". i changed this prayer to "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, wake me up!".
may the Lord Jesus Christ awaken his people
i took some time to meditate on the concept of watchfulness in my faith. am i watchful? am i awake?
i feel like i often live my life in a state of slumber where i am half-present in my circumstances. the monastic retreat gave me a chance to step away and see that slumber. many times, i choose to be in a fog, asleep, and unaware.
1 Peter 5:8-9 Be self-controlled and alert (watchful)(vigilant). Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the entire world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
Peter, along with James and John, knew more than anybody what it meant to be in a state of slumber and to let our Lord down. he fell asleep when Jesus asked him to keep watch and pray. where is Jesus asking me to keep watch and pray? how do i fall asleep?
Mark 14:37-38
Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing but the body is weak.
finally, Paul charges us to wake up in light of understanding our present time.
Romans 13:11
And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.
i was reminded of the Jesus prayer from Bishop Wares' writing. this prayer is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner". i changed this prayer to "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, wake me up!".
may the Lord Jesus Christ awaken his people
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
boredom and hunger
i went on a retreat to a monastary in upstate new york this past week. i set a goal of reviewing my past semester and preparing for the next. one of the monks asked us at the introductory gathering to let go of living in the past or the future but, instead, to focus on the present. i realized right away that i needed to do just that.
the outcome of this refocusing was i rediscovered being quiet before the Lord and journaling. the next couple blog entries are excerpts from the times of silence that i spent in prayer and reading through 2 Corinthians.
my first prayer time was awkward. i sat at a desk in my room and i asked God to direct my thoughts. i closed my eyes and then i had an initial thought of "I am HUNGRY". the time was 3 pm and i had eaten a quick lunch before i left but i should not have been that hungry.
i realized that i often get hungry when i am not 'entertained'. i was only at the retreat center for 50 minutes and i was hungry.
is a hunger for food related to an overall level of satisfaction?
does the entertainment of this world fill our desires to the point that we have no room left to hunger for spiritual things, namely, God?
how can i expose myself to times of boredom so that i can hunger?
the outcome of this refocusing was i rediscovered being quiet before the Lord and journaling. the next couple blog entries are excerpts from the times of silence that i spent in prayer and reading through 2 Corinthians.
my first prayer time was awkward. i sat at a desk in my room and i asked God to direct my thoughts. i closed my eyes and then i had an initial thought of "I am HUNGRY". the time was 3 pm and i had eaten a quick lunch before i left but i should not have been that hungry.
i realized that i often get hungry when i am not 'entertained'. i was only at the retreat center for 50 minutes and i was hungry.
is a hunger for food related to an overall level of satisfaction?
does the entertainment of this world fill our desires to the point that we have no room left to hunger for spiritual things, namely, God?
how can i expose myself to times of boredom so that i can hunger?
perseverance required
i am about to embark on a monastary retreat of silence. in preparation, i read a writing by the Orthodox church bishop Kallistos Ware this morning that discussed inquiring after God through prayer. he described a three stage movement of the spiritual Way as praktiki or the practice of virtues, physiki or the contemplation of nature, and theologia or "theology" in the strict sense of the word, that is, the contemplation of God himself.
the section that struck me was his description of the active life in the first stage where he described the God's role and our role. may this excerpt awaken you like it awoke me this morning...
-----------
As its title implies, the active life requires our side effort, struggle, the persistent exertion of our free will. "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life.... Not everyone that says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father" (Matt 7:14, 21). We are to hold in balance two complementary truths: without God's grace we can do nothing; but without our voluntary co-operation God will do nothing. "The will of man is an essential condition, for without God does nothing." (from The Homilies of St Macarius) Our salvation results from the convergence of two factors, unequal in value yet both indispensable: divine initiative and human response. What God does is incomparably the more important, but man's participation is also required.
In an unfallen world man's response to divine love would be altogether spontaneous and joyful. Even in a fallen world the element of spontaneity and joy remains, but there is also the need to fight resolutely against the deeply rooted habits and inclinations that are the result of sin, both original and personal. One of the most important qualities needed by the traveler on the Way is faithful perseverance. The endurance required from one who climbs a mountain physically is required likewise from those who would ascend the mountain of God.
Man must do violence to himself- to his fallen self, that is to say- for the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and it is men of violence who take it by force (Matt 11:12). This we are told repeatedly by our guides upon the Way; and they are speaking, it should be remembered, to married Christians as well as to monks and nuns. "God demands everything from a man - his mind, his reason, all his actions....Do you wish to be saved when you die? Go and exhaust yourself; go and labour; go, seek, and you shall find; watch and knock, and it shall be opened to you." (from The Sayings of the Desert Fathers) "The present age is not a time for rest and sleep, but it is a struggle, a combat, a market, a school, a voyage. Therefore you must exert yourself, and not be downcast and idle, but devote yourslef to holy actions." (From Starets, in Little Russian Philokalia) "Nothing comes without effort. The help of God is always ready and near, but is given only to those who seek and work, and only to those seekers who, after putting all their powers to the test, then cry out with their whole heart: Lord, help us." (from The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology) Peace is gained through tribulations". (from Seraphim de Sarov) "To rest is the same as to retreat." (from The Way of the Ascetics) Yet, lest we should be too much downcast by this severity, we are also told: "The whole of a man's life is but a single day, for those who labour with eagerness." (from The Sayings of the Desert Fathers)
the section that struck me was his description of the active life in the first stage where he described the God's role and our role. may this excerpt awaken you like it awoke me this morning...
-----------
As its title implies, the active life requires our side effort, struggle, the persistent exertion of our free will. "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life.... Not everyone that says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of my Father" (Matt 7:14, 21). We are to hold in balance two complementary truths: without God's grace we can do nothing; but without our voluntary co-operation God will do nothing. "The will of man is an essential condition, for without God does nothing." (from The Homilies of St Macarius) Our salvation results from the convergence of two factors, unequal in value yet both indispensable: divine initiative and human response. What God does is incomparably the more important, but man's participation is also required.
In an unfallen world man's response to divine love would be altogether spontaneous and joyful. Even in a fallen world the element of spontaneity and joy remains, but there is also the need to fight resolutely against the deeply rooted habits and inclinations that are the result of sin, both original and personal. One of the most important qualities needed by the traveler on the Way is faithful perseverance. The endurance required from one who climbs a mountain physically is required likewise from those who would ascend the mountain of God.
Man must do violence to himself- to his fallen self, that is to say- for the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and it is men of violence who take it by force (Matt 11:12). This we are told repeatedly by our guides upon the Way; and they are speaking, it should be remembered, to married Christians as well as to monks and nuns. "God demands everything from a man - his mind, his reason, all his actions....Do you wish to be saved when you die? Go and exhaust yourself; go and labour; go, seek, and you shall find; watch and knock, and it shall be opened to you." (from The Sayings of the Desert Fathers) "The present age is not a time for rest and sleep, but it is a struggle, a combat, a market, a school, a voyage. Therefore you must exert yourself, and not be downcast and idle, but devote yourslef to holy actions." (From Starets, in Little Russian Philokalia) "Nothing comes without effort. The help of God is always ready and near, but is given only to those who seek and work, and only to those seekers who, after putting all their powers to the test, then cry out with their whole heart: Lord, help us." (from The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology) Peace is gained through tribulations". (from Seraphim de Sarov) "To rest is the same as to retreat." (from The Way of the Ascetics) Yet, lest we should be too much downcast by this severity, we are also told: "The whole of a man's life is but a single day, for those who labour with eagerness." (from The Sayings of the Desert Fathers)
Friday, January 14, 2005
block
obedience leads to greater revelation.
sin blocks revelation.
confession opens doors for obedience which, in turn, leads to greater revelation.
basic but true...
sin blocks revelation.
confession opens doors for obedience which, in turn, leads to greater revelation.
basic but true...
Friday, January 07, 2005
questions of authorship
someone made a persuasive argument to me today. he asked me if i analyzed someone's writings over the course of 60 years, then would i expect to see some differences in the writing style, vocabulary, and content? wouldn't the writer's experiences, location, and relationships impact these attributes?
i have been exposed to an onslaught of views on the authorship of the old testament (or hebrew bible if i follow the 'correct' reference). one of the areas questioned by critics is changes in writing of authors over the years. a specific example is the writer of the book of Isaiah.
i have been challenged again (the same ideas were given during an old testament survey class at UVa) by the notion that there were multiple authors of Isaiah. the first author wrote chapters 1-39 and another author wrote 40-66 or 40-55 and then another wrote 56-66. the main evidence cited for this theory is that the perspective shifts from the time before the Jews were exiled to Babylon and the time after they were exiled.
i am still working through the evidence but i definitely see this debate as an example of how we as humans want to define and control everything mysterious and have a neat explanation.
if we were to analyze the writing of the very same people who critique Isaiah and other Old Testament writings, then wouldn't we also find the very same inconsistencies or changes that the critics raise for Isaiah. the critics would claim that they wrote all of their works and cite that their vocabulary, ideas, and style changed due to different seasons in their lives. they would be offended if we said that they obviously didn't write all of their precious works...
maybe the theories that i am reading about are not as neat as the critics make them out to be...
i have been exposed to an onslaught of views on the authorship of the old testament (or hebrew bible if i follow the 'correct' reference). one of the areas questioned by critics is changes in writing of authors over the years. a specific example is the writer of the book of Isaiah.
i have been challenged again (the same ideas were given during an old testament survey class at UVa) by the notion that there were multiple authors of Isaiah. the first author wrote chapters 1-39 and another author wrote 40-66 or 40-55 and then another wrote 56-66. the main evidence cited for this theory is that the perspective shifts from the time before the Jews were exiled to Babylon and the time after they were exiled.
i am still working through the evidence but i definitely see this debate as an example of how we as humans want to define and control everything mysterious and have a neat explanation.
if we were to analyze the writing of the very same people who critique Isaiah and other Old Testament writings, then wouldn't we also find the very same inconsistencies or changes that the critics raise for Isaiah. the critics would claim that they wrote all of their works and cite that their vocabulary, ideas, and style changed due to different seasons in their lives. they would be offended if we said that they obviously didn't write all of their precious works...
maybe the theories that i am reading about are not as neat as the critics make them out to be...
Monday, January 03, 2005
knowing God... or not
The writer of the Gospel according to Mark states the identity of Jesus in Mk 1:1 when he writes "the beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Jesus is identified as the Christ and the Son of God. The rest of the book, however, shows the disciples' lack of comprehension of Jesus' identity. This misunderstanding continues all the way to the cross where the disciples abandon Jesus and they are not even mentioned. Mk 14:50 states, "then everyone deserted him and fled." How is it that the disciples, who spent the most time with Jesus, did not comprehend him more than the Pharisees? What does this expose about my claim of "knowing God"? How well do I know God in light of the disciples' experiences and ideas about God, Jesus, the Messiah, and the kingdom of God?
Mark writes on two levels. On the one hand, the audience knows Jesus' identity from the first verse and then is exposed to a large set of references that prove that Jesus is the Son of God. On the other hand, the disciples go through a set of experiences that are meant to reveal Jesus' identity. The seemingly obvious events and references are not understood by the disciples as the reader would expect or desire. Instead, the disciples continue in their misunderstanding and the reader is left asking "How do they not see that Jesus is the Son of God?".
Jesus provides the disciples with a variety of faith-challenging experiences that take different forms. I propose that the forms are intentional and they are meant to appeal to different senses and potential follow-up reasoning. A quick survey of Mark reveals two categories of experiences with sub-categories within. The initial category includes experiences where the disciples witness events but do not participate. First, the disciples are exposed to Jesus' teaching and this appeals to their sense of hearing. A few examples include Jesus teaching the general people in the synagogue in Mk 1 and his teaching the disciples using a parable and explanation in Mark 4:1-20. Second, Jesus allows the disciples to see an event that points to his identity. For example, the disciples and the crowd witness his healing and forgiving the paralytic in Mark 2:1-12.
The next category includes experiences where the disciples participate. First, Jesus is present with the disciples and the event is against them. For example, Jesus is with the disciples in the midst of the storm in Mk 4:35-41 and he calms the storm. Second, Jesus is present with the disciples and they contribute to the event. A notable example is the feeding of the 5000 in Mk 6:30-44. Finally, a sub-category of the participation category is where Jesus is not present with the disciples and the event is against them. This occurs in Mk 6:45-52 where Jesus sends the disciples ahead in the boat, later comes to them, and the wind is calmed when he gets into the boat. The other events in Mark fit into these categories and all point to Jesus' identity. The disciples, however, are grouped with the Pharisees in Mk 6:52 when Mark states "for they had not understood about the loaves; for their hearts were hardened." Jesus is deeply distressed at the Pharisees' stubborn hearts in Mk 3:5 and he quotes Isaiah in Mk 7:6 stating that their hearts are far from God.
Why did the disciples misunderstand Jesus? They appear to be more on the outside than on the inside. Jesus himself describes those on the outside in Mk 4:11 when he said, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that 'they may be ever seeing but never, perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" This quote is from Isaiah 6:9-10. Jesus explained everything to the Twelve and he provided experiences, both non-participatory and participatory, but they failed to understand his identity as the Son of God (Mk 1:1). Only Peter states that Jesus is the Christ but Jesus' subsequent predictions and reality of his death do not fit Peter's notion of the Messiah.
What experiences has God given me? What have I heard? What have I seen? Where have I participated in God's working and events?
Do I know Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God? Do I know God?
Or do I still see and hear God as the God I want him to be and I go on without truly knowing? Mk 1:1 has been given to me but where do I need my heart to be softened so that I can a person who sees while perceiving and hearing while understanding so that I might turn and be forgiven?
Mark writes on two levels. On the one hand, the audience knows Jesus' identity from the first verse and then is exposed to a large set of references that prove that Jesus is the Son of God. On the other hand, the disciples go through a set of experiences that are meant to reveal Jesus' identity. The seemingly obvious events and references are not understood by the disciples as the reader would expect or desire. Instead, the disciples continue in their misunderstanding and the reader is left asking "How do they not see that Jesus is the Son of God?".
Jesus provides the disciples with a variety of faith-challenging experiences that take different forms. I propose that the forms are intentional and they are meant to appeal to different senses and potential follow-up reasoning. A quick survey of Mark reveals two categories of experiences with sub-categories within. The initial category includes experiences where the disciples witness events but do not participate. First, the disciples are exposed to Jesus' teaching and this appeals to their sense of hearing. A few examples include Jesus teaching the general people in the synagogue in Mk 1 and his teaching the disciples using a parable and explanation in Mark 4:1-20. Second, Jesus allows the disciples to see an event that points to his identity. For example, the disciples and the crowd witness his healing and forgiving the paralytic in Mark 2:1-12.
The next category includes experiences where the disciples participate. First, Jesus is present with the disciples and the event is against them. For example, Jesus is with the disciples in the midst of the storm in Mk 4:35-41 and he calms the storm. Second, Jesus is present with the disciples and they contribute to the event. A notable example is the feeding of the 5000 in Mk 6:30-44. Finally, a sub-category of the participation category is where Jesus is not present with the disciples and the event is against them. This occurs in Mk 6:45-52 where Jesus sends the disciples ahead in the boat, later comes to them, and the wind is calmed when he gets into the boat. The other events in Mark fit into these categories and all point to Jesus' identity. The disciples, however, are grouped with the Pharisees in Mk 6:52 when Mark states "for they had not understood about the loaves; for their hearts were hardened." Jesus is deeply distressed at the Pharisees' stubborn hearts in Mk 3:5 and he quotes Isaiah in Mk 7:6 stating that their hearts are far from God.
Why did the disciples misunderstand Jesus? They appear to be more on the outside than on the inside. Jesus himself describes those on the outside in Mk 4:11 when he said, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that 'they may be ever seeing but never, perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!" This quote is from Isaiah 6:9-10. Jesus explained everything to the Twelve and he provided experiences, both non-participatory and participatory, but they failed to understand his identity as the Son of God (Mk 1:1). Only Peter states that Jesus is the Christ but Jesus' subsequent predictions and reality of his death do not fit Peter's notion of the Messiah.
What experiences has God given me? What have I heard? What have I seen? Where have I participated in God's working and events?
Do I know Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God? Do I know God?
Or do I still see and hear God as the God I want him to be and I go on without truly knowing? Mk 1:1 has been given to me but where do I need my heart to be softened so that I can a person who sees while perceiving and hearing while understanding so that I might turn and be forgiven?
Friday, December 24, 2004
nice story
i could post a nice Christmas Eve message but i was reading Jeremiah this morning and i was led to read the following cutting verses:
2:13 "my people have committed two sins: they have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water"
2:19 "your wickedness will punish you, your backsliding will rebuke you. consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the LORD your God and have no awe of me," declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
the Word became flesh for more than a nice Christmas story about a babe in a manger... the Word became flesh to rescue us from our broken cisterns and the evil and bitterness that occurs when we forake the LORD and have no awe of Him, the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
may this move you to be in awe of the Lord as i am moved as i type this now...
Merry Christmas
2:13 "my people have committed two sins: they have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water"
2:19 "your wickedness will punish you, your backsliding will rebuke you. consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the LORD your God and have no awe of me," declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
the Word became flesh for more than a nice Christmas story about a babe in a manger... the Word became flesh to rescue us from our broken cisterns and the evil and bitterness that occurs when we forake the LORD and have no awe of Him, the Lord, the LORD Almighty.
may this move you to be in awe of the Lord as i am moved as i type this now...
Merry Christmas
Thursday, December 23, 2004
the role of the Lord's Supper
the purpose and carrying out of the Lord's Supper has been a topic of discussion, debate, and other types of arguments throughout church history. this entry is not meant to detail every aspect of that debate.
i do want to point one aspect that has challenged my notion of the Lord's Supper. i have viewed Communion throughout my life as an opportunity to remember God's work through Jesus Christ on the cross for my sins and to confess my sins. the bread and grape juice have always been a symbol to me of this work. most of my understanding has come from the 1-2 minute introduction that pastors have given for Communion (this shows just how important those 1-2 minutes are).
the idea that has challenged me is Martin Luther's notion that the purpose of communion is to motivate believers to fellowship. in his "The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ", he opened the view of the Lord’s Supper for the community not just the individual. his argument is that the body of Christ is strengthened because individuals are taking in the body of Christ and this leads to further unity. as Christians, we are bonded to Christ so that it is as if he were what we are, he makes whatever concerns us to concern him as well, and even more than it does us. in turn, we so care for Christ, as if we were what he is, which indeed we shall finally be - we shall be conformed to his likeness.
the result of this is we should have a stronger sense of being the body of Christ.
do i really believe that i am part of the body of Christ in the sense that if someone is hurting then i should be hurting? how often do i really live that out? is that something i ask God to press upon my hardened heart?
how often have i heard pastors focus on the body of Christ (community of saints) during the 1-2 minutes before communion? how has this 1-2 minutes contributed to my heavy focus on my individual, personal walk with Christ at the expense of caring for my brothers and sisters (and also my enemies whom i should love in order to help them be my brothers and sisters)?
does this shed any light on Jesus' example prayer where he calls us to forgive others for their debts? how can we expect God to forgive us our sins at the Communion table if we do not have our brothers and sisters in mind?
to be blunt, wouldn't it look silly if i took the Lord's Supper by myself? what does that reveal?
i have more to reflect on but this is a starting point. i would love for anybody who reads this to add a comment to let me know about their impressions or experiences with the Lord's Supper.
i do want to point one aspect that has challenged my notion of the Lord's Supper. i have viewed Communion throughout my life as an opportunity to remember God's work through Jesus Christ on the cross for my sins and to confess my sins. the bread and grape juice have always been a symbol to me of this work. most of my understanding has come from the 1-2 minute introduction that pastors have given for Communion (this shows just how important those 1-2 minutes are).
the idea that has challenged me is Martin Luther's notion that the purpose of communion is to motivate believers to fellowship. in his "The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ", he opened the view of the Lord’s Supper for the community not just the individual. his argument is that the body of Christ is strengthened because individuals are taking in the body of Christ and this leads to further unity. as Christians, we are bonded to Christ so that it is as if he were what we are, he makes whatever concerns us to concern him as well, and even more than it does us. in turn, we so care for Christ, as if we were what he is, which indeed we shall finally be - we shall be conformed to his likeness.
the result of this is we should have a stronger sense of being the body of Christ.
do i really believe that i am part of the body of Christ in the sense that if someone is hurting then i should be hurting? how often do i really live that out? is that something i ask God to press upon my hardened heart?
how often have i heard pastors focus on the body of Christ (community of saints) during the 1-2 minutes before communion? how has this 1-2 minutes contributed to my heavy focus on my individual, personal walk with Christ at the expense of caring for my brothers and sisters (and also my enemies whom i should love in order to help them be my brothers and sisters)?
does this shed any light on Jesus' example prayer where he calls us to forgive others for their debts? how can we expect God to forgive us our sins at the Communion table if we do not have our brothers and sisters in mind?
to be blunt, wouldn't it look silly if i took the Lord's Supper by myself? what does that reveal?
i have more to reflect on but this is a starting point. i would love for anybody who reads this to add a comment to let me know about their impressions or experiences with the Lord's Supper.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
decision point
what determines whether we react selfishly to a situation?
i was driving from new hampshire to new jersey today. at one point, the cars came to a complete stop on one of the interstates. my initial reaction inside was to think "this sucks! now we are going to arrive 30-60 minutes later than expected". for some reason, something (my conscience, God, my memory, something) inside of me raised the idea that a horrible accident might have occurred.
quickly, i shifted my thoughts toward praying for the person or persons who were suffering as a result of the accident. (i thank my sister for this because she always prays for people in ambulences whenever they go by)
5 miles down the road i saw a massive tractor trailer off the side of the road on its side. there were countless medical personnel as well as many distraught observers. i realized right away that the person who drove off the road would not be around for Christmas this year and that his or her family would not have him or her present.
back to my original question. what determines how i react to a situation like that traffic jam? will i ever have an immediate selfless reaction or will i always think about myself first? can God work in and through a person to move them to a point where his or her immediate thought is "i should pray for the person who was in the accident"?
i was driving from new hampshire to new jersey today. at one point, the cars came to a complete stop on one of the interstates. my initial reaction inside was to think "this sucks! now we are going to arrive 30-60 minutes later than expected". for some reason, something (my conscience, God, my memory, something) inside of me raised the idea that a horrible accident might have occurred.
quickly, i shifted my thoughts toward praying for the person or persons who were suffering as a result of the accident. (i thank my sister for this because she always prays for people in ambulences whenever they go by)
5 miles down the road i saw a massive tractor trailer off the side of the road on its side. there were countless medical personnel as well as many distraught observers. i realized right away that the person who drove off the road would not be around for Christmas this year and that his or her family would not have him or her present.
back to my original question. what determines how i react to a situation like that traffic jam? will i ever have an immediate selfless reaction or will i always think about myself first? can God work in and through a person to move them to a point where his or her immediate thought is "i should pray for the person who was in the accident"?
Saturday, December 18, 2004
the purpose of the church
i must admit that i have been holding off on writing because i haven't been able to formulate my ideas into a readable and respectable presentation. i am not concerned with that here because my mind is boiling over with ideas that i need to start turning over. These ideas are all a work in progress. i'm sure i will add/remove/change the content of what i write as many times as the days i have yet to live.
i have written a few times about how my study of church history has broadened and challenged my understanding of the church. the question that currently presses me the most is how do i account for the reality that a majority of the church's existence was different than what i have experienced in my 28 years of life. in other words, the last 400 years or so have produced a wide variety of denominations since the Reformation and the make-up of these churches has always been considered "the right way" for me. but this "right way" has existed for a minority (far minority) of the church's lifespan. how do i reconcile this with my church experience today? the better question is, how can i learn from the church's history spanning 1600 or so years before the Reformation? how can i reassess my experience based on the church's pendulum swings over the years?
This question plays out in five areas (in no specific order or importance):
1. purpose of the church
2. view of the Lord's Supper
3. deification or co-redeeming
4. baptism
5. role of tradition
First, i will consider the purpose of the church. the Catholic view of a follower of Christ, from what i have gathered in my readings, is they are a Christian because they are part of the church. contrarily, the Protestant view is an individual becomes a Christian by putting their faith in Jesus Christ and then they join a church. this shift has contributed to the weakening of the community of faith because the recent focus fuels the consumer culture of the church. why should a individual believer stay with a church if the church (local body of believers located in a building with a specific set of programs, worship style(s), and pastor with a level of 'quality') does not serve them? in contrast, if a person's is faith is more closely tied with the local body of Christ, then doesn't that remove the personal taste test and shift the focus to the body of Christ? the difference is subtle but very eye-opening. the view that ties a person's faith more closely with the community and not merely with the individual's "personal walk" provides a stronger foundation for the body of Christ being salt and light of the world (sharing the gospel) as well as being a set of people who love each other and lay their lives down for one another.
my immediate response, based on my years in the church, asks how does this shift back to the church-first view account for an individual's salvation. i think that this is not the most pertinent question for this discussion. the issue in question, at least for me in this discussion, is not how to get more people saved but how the church should be the body of Christ to a dying world.
i believe that the Protestant church has a lot to learn from the prior 1600 years of the church's existence and that I shouldn't blow off those 1600 years due to my lack of understanding of three or four controversial issues that i haven't taken the time or energy to investigate, namely, the form of bread/wine at communion, 'worship' of Mary, prayer formulas for forgiveness, and worship of statues that shed blood or tears. i have started to understand the background of these issues through my study of church history and i can already see how they are not as divisive as i have always thought.
in summary of my first subject, the purpose of the church needs to be re-examined in light of more than the past 400 years and the notion of a person being a Christian because they are part of the church as opposed to becoming a Christian and then joining a church should be considered again.
could this be part of the explanation i have been looking for to account for my recent internal frustrations with salvation campaigns that are run to convert people like market-experts look to convert people to their products? does this provide further backing to the notion of the Christian life being a long race instead of merely crossing the starting line (see Missing the Point by Campolo/McLaren)? is the church's only purpose to save as many individuals as possible or is it also to then be salt and light to the world? in many ways the answer is both but in the Protestant world it is more likely that they focus on the former while the latter suffers. the pendulum has swung toward the individualized view of faith. this swing should be questioned and balanced by incorporating a focus on the church as also playing a role in salvation.
the other four topics will have to wait for another time (2. view of the Lord's Supper, 3. deification or co-redeeming, 4. baptism, 5. role of tradition)
i have written a few times about how my study of church history has broadened and challenged my understanding of the church. the question that currently presses me the most is how do i account for the reality that a majority of the church's existence was different than what i have experienced in my 28 years of life. in other words, the last 400 years or so have produced a wide variety of denominations since the Reformation and the make-up of these churches has always been considered "the right way" for me. but this "right way" has existed for a minority (far minority) of the church's lifespan. how do i reconcile this with my church experience today? the better question is, how can i learn from the church's history spanning 1600 or so years before the Reformation? how can i reassess my experience based on the church's pendulum swings over the years?
This question plays out in five areas (in no specific order or importance):
1. purpose of the church
2. view of the Lord's Supper
3. deification or co-redeeming
4. baptism
5. role of tradition
First, i will consider the purpose of the church. the Catholic view of a follower of Christ, from what i have gathered in my readings, is they are a Christian because they are part of the church. contrarily, the Protestant view is an individual becomes a Christian by putting their faith in Jesus Christ and then they join a church. this shift has contributed to the weakening of the community of faith because the recent focus fuels the consumer culture of the church. why should a individual believer stay with a church if the church (local body of believers located in a building with a specific set of programs, worship style(s), and pastor with a level of 'quality') does not serve them? in contrast, if a person's is faith is more closely tied with the local body of Christ, then doesn't that remove the personal taste test and shift the focus to the body of Christ? the difference is subtle but very eye-opening. the view that ties a person's faith more closely with the community and not merely with the individual's "personal walk" provides a stronger foundation for the body of Christ being salt and light of the world (sharing the gospel) as well as being a set of people who love each other and lay their lives down for one another.
my immediate response, based on my years in the church, asks how does this shift back to the church-first view account for an individual's salvation. i think that this is not the most pertinent question for this discussion. the issue in question, at least for me in this discussion, is not how to get more people saved but how the church should be the body of Christ to a dying world.
i believe that the Protestant church has a lot to learn from the prior 1600 years of the church's existence and that I shouldn't blow off those 1600 years due to my lack of understanding of three or four controversial issues that i haven't taken the time or energy to investigate, namely, the form of bread/wine at communion, 'worship' of Mary, prayer formulas for forgiveness, and worship of statues that shed blood or tears. i have started to understand the background of these issues through my study of church history and i can already see how they are not as divisive as i have always thought.
in summary of my first subject, the purpose of the church needs to be re-examined in light of more than the past 400 years and the notion of a person being a Christian because they are part of the church as opposed to becoming a Christian and then joining a church should be considered again.
could this be part of the explanation i have been looking for to account for my recent internal frustrations with salvation campaigns that are run to convert people like market-experts look to convert people to their products? does this provide further backing to the notion of the Christian life being a long race instead of merely crossing the starting line (see Missing the Point by Campolo/McLaren)? is the church's only purpose to save as many individuals as possible or is it also to then be salt and light to the world? in many ways the answer is both but in the Protestant world it is more likely that they focus on the former while the latter suffers. the pendulum has swung toward the individualized view of faith. this swing should be questioned and balanced by incorporating a focus on the church as also playing a role in salvation.
the other four topics will have to wait for another time (2. view of the Lord's Supper, 3. deification or co-redeeming, 4. baptism, 5. role of tradition)
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
too many lines of thought...
i haven't written anything in awhile because i haven't been able to wrestle any ideas down that have been jumping around my brain. every day i think, "i have to write something to that blog because my brain is about to explode"...
yesterday, a discussion on art in the church led to 349384089340 thought lines...
i plan to finally bring some thoughts back to this blog very soon.
yesterday, a discussion on art in the church led to 349384089340 thought lines...
i plan to finally bring some thoughts back to this blog very soon.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
the truth
sports is an empty endeavor sucking the life out of all males who put their faith in teams that only serve to let them down...
(now try to argue against me that context has nothing to do with our view of life, God, and the world)
(now try to argue against me that context has nothing to do with our view of life, God, and the world)
Saturday, December 04, 2004
current snapshot
i have noticed a potential problem with Christians who seek to teach others from their experience. i particularly see this when the they teach on issues that have to do with sanctification, or the process of growing in holiness. the problem is that an individual naturally teaches from his or her point of view. more specically, an individual tends to share from his or her specific snapshot of the world at that point in time.
what do i mean by a snapshot? if all people were to take a mental, experience-based picture of their current lives (today, at this hour, at this minute, at this second), then they each would have a unique view of the world based on their experiences. this view pervades all aspects of life, including spiritual growth.
the role of this snapshot impacts an individual's teaching message more than many would like to admit. for example, a pastor can share a message that details how a person should deal with a specific sin. this message may include Biblical references, personal experiences, and, most likely, ways to apply the lesson.
do his specific application points apply to everyone who hears?
what happens if someone in the community is just starting on his or her journey with Christ?
how does the message strike a person who has been a follower of Christ for 60 years?
what is the impact of the application points on someone who tends to be more rules-focused than freedom-focused? or vice versa?
i have witnessed well-intentioned pastors teach convicting messages on sin and then provide very specific application points. this is what pastors are called to do, right?
sounds good, but how does a pastor's specific profile of experiences, lessons, and spiritual growth path impact his or her lesson to the community?
how does the pastor's life journey, including successes, failtures, disappointments, surprises, influence his or her perspective?
would a pastor's message be more effective if he or she included a description of a spiritual path in the sermon, lesson, or writing?
i have witnessed how some pastors share very specific applications which end up serving more as specific laws in the life of the hearers. these laws cause people to focus on the action instead of the attitude (and required maturity) behind the action.
one example i have seen is a pastor taught on immorality in the media and then made the specific call for all people listening to avoid all R-rated movies. this recommendation is a good one but does this simple recommendation undercut a listener's potential journey in coming to this conclusion through his or her spiritual growth over time? would listeners own the idea or behavior if they arrived at it through a process of seeing the harm of going to R-rated movies on their own?
where does this leave the pastor or teacher in terms of how to share specific applications of a message or the Word of God? am i suggesting that a pastor should avoid all references to specific "take home" points? i am not recommending a complete removal of the final 5-10 minutes of a sermon or lesson but i am recommending that these ideas be assessed in light of the specific teacher's personal experiences.
one potential way to account for the teacher and the listener's spiritual journeys in the communication of a lesson is for the teacher to share some (if not all) of the process that he/she went through to arrive at his/her conclusions or perspectives. this would provide the listener with an idea of how the teacher arrived at his or conclusions.
how much more would this reveal the power of God's Word in the process?
how much would this reveal the power of prayer in the process?
how much more would this reveal the power of community in this process?
in conclusion, a snapshot is just that - a single reference point that is understood most initimately by the individual who took the picture. however, the snapshot is best explained to other not by describing the content of that specific picture but the background information that led the individual to arrive at that point.
where did this idea come from? i have experienced the spiritual journey of Augustine through his classic book Confessions. i learned more from walking with him through his life as portrayed in the book then i would from sitting in an Augustine seminar which included the 7 Habits of St. Augustine...
what do i mean by a snapshot? if all people were to take a mental, experience-based picture of their current lives (today, at this hour, at this minute, at this second), then they each would have a unique view of the world based on their experiences. this view pervades all aspects of life, including spiritual growth.
the role of this snapshot impacts an individual's teaching message more than many would like to admit. for example, a pastor can share a message that details how a person should deal with a specific sin. this message may include Biblical references, personal experiences, and, most likely, ways to apply the lesson.
do his specific application points apply to everyone who hears?
what happens if someone in the community is just starting on his or her journey with Christ?
how does the message strike a person who has been a follower of Christ for 60 years?
what is the impact of the application points on someone who tends to be more rules-focused than freedom-focused? or vice versa?
i have witnessed well-intentioned pastors teach convicting messages on sin and then provide very specific application points. this is what pastors are called to do, right?
sounds good, but how does a pastor's specific profile of experiences, lessons, and spiritual growth path impact his or her lesson to the community?
how does the pastor's life journey, including successes, failtures, disappointments, surprises, influence his or her perspective?
would a pastor's message be more effective if he or she included a description of a spiritual path in the sermon, lesson, or writing?
i have witnessed how some pastors share very specific applications which end up serving more as specific laws in the life of the hearers. these laws cause people to focus on the action instead of the attitude (and required maturity) behind the action.
one example i have seen is a pastor taught on immorality in the media and then made the specific call for all people listening to avoid all R-rated movies. this recommendation is a good one but does this simple recommendation undercut a listener's potential journey in coming to this conclusion through his or her spiritual growth over time? would listeners own the idea or behavior if they arrived at it through a process of seeing the harm of going to R-rated movies on their own?
where does this leave the pastor or teacher in terms of how to share specific applications of a message or the Word of God? am i suggesting that a pastor should avoid all references to specific "take home" points? i am not recommending a complete removal of the final 5-10 minutes of a sermon or lesson but i am recommending that these ideas be assessed in light of the specific teacher's personal experiences.
one potential way to account for the teacher and the listener's spiritual journeys in the communication of a lesson is for the teacher to share some (if not all) of the process that he/she went through to arrive at his/her conclusions or perspectives. this would provide the listener with an idea of how the teacher arrived at his or conclusions.
how much more would this reveal the power of God's Word in the process?
how much would this reveal the power of prayer in the process?
how much more would this reveal the power of community in this process?
in conclusion, a snapshot is just that - a single reference point that is understood most initimately by the individual who took the picture. however, the snapshot is best explained to other not by describing the content of that specific picture but the background information that led the individual to arrive at that point.
where did this idea come from? i have experienced the spiritual journey of Augustine through his classic book Confessions. i learned more from walking with him through his life as portrayed in the book then i would from sitting in an Augustine seminar which included the 7 Habits of St. Augustine...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)