Since I'm just kind of jumping around anyway, I thought this might be an interesting topic. There are two basic camps for this basic question of "who will be saved?" Although, truth be told there are probably as many different nuances as there are people. The two basic camps are the following 1. God determines who will be saved before the creation of the world and 2. People are allowed to choose whether they will accept God's salvation or not.
Now, those may be the two basic groups, but there are a lot of other groups as well. Some would say that the only way a person can be saved is if they call explicitly on the name of Jesus Christ and admit that he is the only way to salvation. Some would disagree and say that if someone has never heard of Jesus Christ, but honestly and sincerely seeks the "creator God" and trusts him for her salvation, then she will be saved. Then some would say that God's grace will be given to all in the same way that Adam's sin was attributed to all.
Pretty much everyone who falls into the first group, will also advocate the exclusiveness view, and the universal view. If God has ordained who will be saved, then he has also ordained who will hear the gospel. Or he would have ordained that it didn't matter who hears the gospel, he will unilaterally save them anyway. There are scriptures that seem to support all of this.
However, I believe that the overall witness of the scripture supports view #2 and the view that God can forgive someone for not having the opportunity to hear of his providence. I think the ultimate revelation of who God is is in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus makes it pretty clear that the main issue for following him is commitment, not knowledge. Otherwise Peter would have been disqualified quite a bit, as well as every other disciple. This does not mean that disciples should give up on orthodoxy, but as they will not truly achieve it, it is not requisite to be saved.
In addition, the scriptures that indicate that God desires all to be saved stand in direct opposition to the belief that God has chosen who will be saved and who won't. In addition, the life of Jesus himself flies directly in the face of all that. Jesus was not selective about who could know him and who couldn't.
Obviously there is tons of disagreement on this. There are volumes upon volumes on each side of the aisle. I think the main thing is that I cannot honestly conceive of Jesus choosing some to be sent to heaven and some to be sent to hell. Some can, but to steal a line from Dr. Olson, "I have a hard time distinguishing between God and the devil if God chooses some for eternal punishment."
1.25.2009
1.18.2009
Omniscience and Omnipotence
I wanted to do a few on what I think about scripture, the bible, etc, but if I wanted to be stuck doing that for long blocks of time I would try to write a book (which I would like to do, but I would also like to win the lottery, so you know...). Anyway, I dunno if it was a request to discuss these two loaded words or just a thought about something that we might overlook a lot, but I think those two words are very worth discussing.
Oftentimes in our churches in the twentieth and now twenty-first century we often ascribe to God the qualities of being both omniscient and omnipotent. The problem with that, is that neither word is found in our scriptures. Sure, the basics of the ideas may be there, but not as clearly as many would like us to believe. So again, this is mostly a place for me to think my thoughts through and a place to get some feedback from friends and internet theologians. Feel free to contribute. Or not.
Omniscience: The general idea here is that God knows everything. The typical belief within Christianity, at least in American Christianity as I can't speak for the rest of the world, is that God knows everything including what will happen, what could happen, and what would happen. I think that if we are going to call God "omniscient" we need to nuance that word a little bit. The problem is that we are ascribing to God something that he does not really make clear in the scriptures he has given us.
Let me explain. First of all, I don't think God knows things that are not true. Second I don't think that God knows exactly what a free-agent will do in a general circumstance. Let me put it this way, God does not know the DNA of a unicorn. He cannot know it. There is no such thing, so there is no reason for God to know it. God only knows fact. God does not lie and there is no lie in him. God can know the lie that someone tells, and if someone wrote a book describing the DNA of a unicorn, God could know that too, but that does not mean that God would know the actual DNA of a unicorn, just the speculative one. I dunno if that makes any sense, but it did in my head.
Second, in the same way, I don't think it is possible to know what free creatures will do before they have chosen it. If we are truly free to do either A or B, then I think it would be impossible for God to know. He may know which is more likely, but I don't think he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are some exceptions. I think God does sometimes take away our free will and force us to decide certain things. I think he never does this in the case of salvation, meaning, I think God always allows us to chose our eternal destiny. But I do think if God wants me to go to Arby's tomorrow, God will make me go to Arby's tomorrow. There are tons of places in scripture that seem to indicate that God does not know how a people will choose, when God changes his mind, or God hoped something would happen but it did not. There are other places that seem to disagree. A person must give priority to one or the other, then interpret the one he or she didn't choose in light of the one with priority.
So I think God knows everything that is possible to know, but God does not know those things that are impossible. (Cue the Calvinist argument that I am putting God in a box)
Omnipotence: We also often have a difficult time understanding this word. In principle, I agree that God is omnipotent. God is all-powerful. I think God can do anything he wants to do (so long as it is possible). But that is all too often taken to mean that God is the ultimate micro-manager. God has decreed when I will die, when I will eat next, even when this blog will end. That is not, however, the God that you find in the bible. God allows people to have choice, to do meaningful things, to matter.
So, since this blog is too long as it is, I will stop for today by saying that God could micro-manage in that way, the scripture seems pretty clear that God does not. God is both omnipotent and omniscient, just not in the way all too many people ascribe to him.
Oftentimes in our churches in the twentieth and now twenty-first century we often ascribe to God the qualities of being both omniscient and omnipotent. The problem with that, is that neither word is found in our scriptures. Sure, the basics of the ideas may be there, but not as clearly as many would like us to believe. So again, this is mostly a place for me to think my thoughts through and a place to get some feedback from friends and internet theologians. Feel free to contribute. Or not.
Omniscience: The general idea here is that God knows everything. The typical belief within Christianity, at least in American Christianity as I can't speak for the rest of the world, is that God knows everything including what will happen, what could happen, and what would happen. I think that if we are going to call God "omniscient" we need to nuance that word a little bit. The problem is that we are ascribing to God something that he does not really make clear in the scriptures he has given us.
Let me explain. First of all, I don't think God knows things that are not true. Second I don't think that God knows exactly what a free-agent will do in a general circumstance. Let me put it this way, God does not know the DNA of a unicorn. He cannot know it. There is no such thing, so there is no reason for God to know it. God only knows fact. God does not lie and there is no lie in him. God can know the lie that someone tells, and if someone wrote a book describing the DNA of a unicorn, God could know that too, but that does not mean that God would know the actual DNA of a unicorn, just the speculative one. I dunno if that makes any sense, but it did in my head.
Second, in the same way, I don't think it is possible to know what free creatures will do before they have chosen it. If we are truly free to do either A or B, then I think it would be impossible for God to know. He may know which is more likely, but I don't think he knows beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are some exceptions. I think God does sometimes take away our free will and force us to decide certain things. I think he never does this in the case of salvation, meaning, I think God always allows us to chose our eternal destiny. But I do think if God wants me to go to Arby's tomorrow, God will make me go to Arby's tomorrow. There are tons of places in scripture that seem to indicate that God does not know how a people will choose, when God changes his mind, or God hoped something would happen but it did not. There are other places that seem to disagree. A person must give priority to one or the other, then interpret the one he or she didn't choose in light of the one with priority.
So I think God knows everything that is possible to know, but God does not know those things that are impossible. (Cue the Calvinist argument that I am putting God in a box)
Omnipotence: We also often have a difficult time understanding this word. In principle, I agree that God is omnipotent. God is all-powerful. I think God can do anything he wants to do (so long as it is possible). But that is all too often taken to mean that God is the ultimate micro-manager. God has decreed when I will die, when I will eat next, even when this blog will end. That is not, however, the God that you find in the bible. God allows people to have choice, to do meaningful things, to matter.
So, since this blog is too long as it is, I will stop for today by saying that God could micro-manage in that way, the scripture seems pretty clear that God does not. God is both omnipotent and omniscient, just not in the way all too many people ascribe to him.
12.24.2008
Scripture: Inerrancy
As I am trying to think about what I want to say about scripture, I am realizing this may have to be a three or four post process. There is little in the Christian bubble of our world that causes more strife and contention than the nature of scripture, and I guess I understand, it is a pretty important topic.
I guess the place I have to start is by saying what I think scripture is not. There is a word that gets thrown around a lot today that is no where in scripture and in my opinion is supported no where in scripture and that word is "inerrant." People divide over this word and some are labeled as "heretics" because they reject this word. Well I guess I should be labeled the same.
There are several different reasons that I don't buy inerrancy, but I think its important to first discuss what people mean when they claim the bible is inerrant. The opinions on inerrancy are anything but unanimous. Some would say the bible is inerrant because the original manuscripts (the first handwritten texts by the authors) were inerrant, every word, jot and scribble was exactly as God intended and perfect in fact and message. However, over time there were copying errors and pieces lost and added etc, and so since we no longer have any of the original manuscripts, we no longer have it exactly as it was. However, the message is still innerant according to most of those.
Then there are some, albeit probably many fewer and less well-read, that would say that every word and punctuation of today's bibles are exactly as God intended. Some would even go so far as to say that the King James Bible is the only Bible, but I guess no one could read the real Bible before the 1600s...
All that to say, there is some disagreement as to what exactly "innerant" means. However, I would say the majority of Christians in the United States cling tightly to that word. I have some ideas why, but I think that is a discussion for another post. I should probably just say what I think about it and why as quickly as possible and expand on that some later.
Probably my biggest issue with inerrancy is this: God has shown a pattern of working through and with weak people. God has shown a propensity to entrust his treasure to jars of clay. The only place I see God using a perfect agent to get his message to the world, was in the person of Jesus Christ (who is called the word in John 1, and I think he should be understood primarily as "the word" rather than scripture). God shows his greatness by having relationship with flawed people in a flawed world with flawed ideas.
Do I think God could have written a perfect book filled with stories about his relationships with people? Yes. He could have. But do I think he did? Not at all. If it was important to God that scripture be inerrant, if it was so important that his words to people contained no error so much so that he verbally dictated to humans what he wanted written, where he wanted punctuation etc, that he wrote an "inerrant" scripture to begin with, then he would clearly be capable of preserving it in its inerrant state. But the scripture we have in Greek and Hebrew is full of typos and discrepancies, we have a multitude of texts, some very different. I think God is more than capable of preserving a perfect, inerrant text if he wanted to, but since he obviously didn't, then I have to conclude that God thinks people can be saved without an inerrant scripture. Am I missing something?!
Further, the other mistake I believe people make is thinking that the bible is just one big book. It is anything but. There are 66 books in our bible, but those books could have been written at countless times (and I mean countless when you think that Isaiah was probably written in three parts, the Chronicles and Kings were probably compiled over generations, Genesis has four major sources, not to mention the Psalms have 150 chapters, and Psalm 119 could have several authors on its own...) so to think that these books are all homogenous in some way is pretty shortsighted to me. That doesn't even mention all the books that were left out of the canon, but were fairly close to making it in... which I guess I should write about canon at some point...
So, sure there are places in the bible that say things like "all scripture is God breathed" but to pretend that that pertains to all of our bible is borderline dishonest. One of the most basic rules of hermenuetics (bible study) is that a verse means first and foremost what it meant to its original hearers. The early Christians would not have considered Paul's epistles, the gospels and Revelation to be "scripture" yet. They would have considered "scripture" to be the Old Testament. So while we can affirm today that the New Testament is "God breathed" that wouldn't likely have been the original intent. And even then, does that mean that scripture is inerrant? I think not. Not because of any error by God, but because God chose to use fallible humans to be his medium. God worked through people and those people make errors.
Let me say it like this. Say my boss at work says to me, "Chris, we need you to run downtown and get the skid of bananas and take it to the Crossing," and then I turn around and say "Craig, we need to go to DRML and get the bananas and take it to Holly street." I got the same message across, but didn't repeat it exactly as my boss said. That doesn't mean the message is wrong, but it does mean that I didn't convey my boss said without error. He used different words. I think the bible we have today contains God's message for humans. I think it is full of mistakes and errors and some of the historical facts may not be accurate. But I don't think God is all that worried about all that (again, if he was, he would have seen to it that it was preservered without error). I think God is concerned that his basic message gets across. Go pick up the bananas and take them somewhere else. We can get that message even if Noah was only in a boat for 39 days or something like that.
I realize this is woefully incomplete, but I am going to add on to these thoughts and keep this general topic going for awhile. I may have said something in a way I didn't intend, forgive me, correct me, whatever, but I think this is an extremely important topic to consider and mull over. Again, I am probably wrong about a lot of things I think, I just don't know which I'm wrong about and which I'm not. What do you think about inerrancy?
I guess the place I have to start is by saying what I think scripture is not. There is a word that gets thrown around a lot today that is no where in scripture and in my opinion is supported no where in scripture and that word is "inerrant." People divide over this word and some are labeled as "heretics" because they reject this word. Well I guess I should be labeled the same.
There are several different reasons that I don't buy inerrancy, but I think its important to first discuss what people mean when they claim the bible is inerrant. The opinions on inerrancy are anything but unanimous. Some would say the bible is inerrant because the original manuscripts (the first handwritten texts by the authors) were inerrant, every word, jot and scribble was exactly as God intended and perfect in fact and message. However, over time there were copying errors and pieces lost and added etc, and so since we no longer have any of the original manuscripts, we no longer have it exactly as it was. However, the message is still innerant according to most of those.
Then there are some, albeit probably many fewer and less well-read, that would say that every word and punctuation of today's bibles are exactly as God intended. Some would even go so far as to say that the King James Bible is the only Bible, but I guess no one could read the real Bible before the 1600s...
All that to say, there is some disagreement as to what exactly "innerant" means. However, I would say the majority of Christians in the United States cling tightly to that word. I have some ideas why, but I think that is a discussion for another post. I should probably just say what I think about it and why as quickly as possible and expand on that some later.
Probably my biggest issue with inerrancy is this: God has shown a pattern of working through and with weak people. God has shown a propensity to entrust his treasure to jars of clay. The only place I see God using a perfect agent to get his message to the world, was in the person of Jesus Christ (who is called the word in John 1, and I think he should be understood primarily as "the word" rather than scripture). God shows his greatness by having relationship with flawed people in a flawed world with flawed ideas.
Do I think God could have written a perfect book filled with stories about his relationships with people? Yes. He could have. But do I think he did? Not at all. If it was important to God that scripture be inerrant, if it was so important that his words to people contained no error so much so that he verbally dictated to humans what he wanted written, where he wanted punctuation etc, that he wrote an "inerrant" scripture to begin with, then he would clearly be capable of preserving it in its inerrant state. But the scripture we have in Greek and Hebrew is full of typos and discrepancies, we have a multitude of texts, some very different. I think God is more than capable of preserving a perfect, inerrant text if he wanted to, but since he obviously didn't, then I have to conclude that God thinks people can be saved without an inerrant scripture. Am I missing something?!
Further, the other mistake I believe people make is thinking that the bible is just one big book. It is anything but. There are 66 books in our bible, but those books could have been written at countless times (and I mean countless when you think that Isaiah was probably written in three parts, the Chronicles and Kings were probably compiled over generations, Genesis has four major sources, not to mention the Psalms have 150 chapters, and Psalm 119 could have several authors on its own...) so to think that these books are all homogenous in some way is pretty shortsighted to me. That doesn't even mention all the books that were left out of the canon, but were fairly close to making it in... which I guess I should write about canon at some point...
So, sure there are places in the bible that say things like "all scripture is God breathed" but to pretend that that pertains to all of our bible is borderline dishonest. One of the most basic rules of hermenuetics (bible study) is that a verse means first and foremost what it meant to its original hearers. The early Christians would not have considered Paul's epistles, the gospels and Revelation to be "scripture" yet. They would have considered "scripture" to be the Old Testament. So while we can affirm today that the New Testament is "God breathed" that wouldn't likely have been the original intent. And even then, does that mean that scripture is inerrant? I think not. Not because of any error by God, but because God chose to use fallible humans to be his medium. God worked through people and those people make errors.
Let me say it like this. Say my boss at work says to me, "Chris, we need you to run downtown and get the skid of bananas and take it to the Crossing," and then I turn around and say "Craig, we need to go to DRML and get the bananas and take it to Holly street." I got the same message across, but didn't repeat it exactly as my boss said. That doesn't mean the message is wrong, but it does mean that I didn't convey my boss said without error. He used different words. I think the bible we have today contains God's message for humans. I think it is full of mistakes and errors and some of the historical facts may not be accurate. But I don't think God is all that worried about all that (again, if he was, he would have seen to it that it was preservered without error). I think God is concerned that his basic message gets across. Go pick up the bananas and take them somewhere else. We can get that message even if Noah was only in a boat for 39 days or something like that.
I realize this is woefully incomplete, but I am going to add on to these thoughts and keep this general topic going for awhile. I may have said something in a way I didn't intend, forgive me, correct me, whatever, but I think this is an extremely important topic to consider and mull over. Again, I am probably wrong about a lot of things I think, I just don't know which I'm wrong about and which I'm not. What do you think about inerrancy?
12.18.2008
God
I've been thinking a lot about the direction I want to go with this, to begin with, and I think the most important place to start is with God. I considered the bible, but I think for me, I want to start with God. A lot of what I believe about God begins in the bible, but some of it does not come from the bible. I am having a little trouble crystallizing in my head how and why I think this is most important, but here goes.
If we believe that God inspired the bible, then we must also believe that God is trustworthy. If God is not trustworthy, then it wouldn't matter if he inspired the bible or not, because he could just do something else. So, if God is trustworthy, then he is also good. If God is good, then we can know some things based merely upon his character, such as, God will not do things that go against his nature. In a manner of speaking, God has a certain code that he himself knows and he upholds. God refuses to do those things that violate that code.
In addition, God adheres to simple laws of logic. I am not sure how it works, but it must. If not then God could not be trustworthy. I am not sure if God follows those laws because he must or because he chooses to. What I do know, is if God does not follow rules of logic then God cannot be trusted. What I mean is this. (I believe this is called the law of noncontradiction) God cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. What that means, is God cannot both love and hate someone in the same time and in the same sense. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a black thing white at the same time and in the same sense. I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth grasping (not that I have really done anything to grasp it, but I did learn at the feet of Wallace Roark, who is about a billion times better at explaining this than I am).
Anyway, this may seem like common sense, and it may seem very obvious, but as I think through the rest of what I think about theology, I find this simple principle even more important and even further taken for granted by some. God is trustworthy, and God is logical. This means that our concept of God should be trustworthy and logical.
I realize the common attacks against this point of view. Why would you say that God cannot do something? I guess my response would be "Could God be evil?" or "Could God lie?" There are certain limitations within God, whether chosen by him or inherent in his nature. I believe logic is one such limitation. The other common objection is that sometimes we don't know God's point of view about things, so while it may seem like a contradiction to us, it isn't to God. While most of the time I think that is a cop-out, I guess sometimes it holds some weight. My problem with it is that it becomes a catch-all for anything that could disrupt someone's picture of God. People will say with a straight face that God has done or wants certain things done while also affirming that his character is against them. It seems at that point a person must question his view of God. But many times this is simply a way for people to affirm what they want to affirm without any logical consistency. In some rare occurences, I think its right that God works in ways and does things that we don't understand. However, I don't think it is often. God has given us incredible reasoning capabilities and has explained who he is and how he works a good deal of the time.
I realize the majority of the five of you that read this won't really like this post, but I think Grant will probably have a few things to say about it. Also, I realize this isn't riveting stuff, but I think it becomes really relevant as we move to certain other discussions.
If we believe that God inspired the bible, then we must also believe that God is trustworthy. If God is not trustworthy, then it wouldn't matter if he inspired the bible or not, because he could just do something else. So, if God is trustworthy, then he is also good. If God is good, then we can know some things based merely upon his character, such as, God will not do things that go against his nature. In a manner of speaking, God has a certain code that he himself knows and he upholds. God refuses to do those things that violate that code.
In addition, God adheres to simple laws of logic. I am not sure how it works, but it must. If not then God could not be trustworthy. I am not sure if God follows those laws because he must or because he chooses to. What I do know, is if God does not follow rules of logic then God cannot be trusted. What I mean is this. (I believe this is called the law of noncontradiction) God cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense. What that means, is God cannot both love and hate someone in the same time and in the same sense. God cannot make a square circle. God cannot make a black thing white at the same time and in the same sense. I realize this is a difficult concept, but it is worth grasping (not that I have really done anything to grasp it, but I did learn at the feet of Wallace Roark, who is about a billion times better at explaining this than I am).
Anyway, this may seem like common sense, and it may seem very obvious, but as I think through the rest of what I think about theology, I find this simple principle even more important and even further taken for granted by some. God is trustworthy, and God is logical. This means that our concept of God should be trustworthy and logical.
I realize the common attacks against this point of view. Why would you say that God cannot do something? I guess my response would be "Could God be evil?" or "Could God lie?" There are certain limitations within God, whether chosen by him or inherent in his nature. I believe logic is one such limitation. The other common objection is that sometimes we don't know God's point of view about things, so while it may seem like a contradiction to us, it isn't to God. While most of the time I think that is a cop-out, I guess sometimes it holds some weight. My problem with it is that it becomes a catch-all for anything that could disrupt someone's picture of God. People will say with a straight face that God has done or wants certain things done while also affirming that his character is against them. It seems at that point a person must question his view of God. But many times this is simply a way for people to affirm what they want to affirm without any logical consistency. In some rare occurences, I think its right that God works in ways and does things that we don't understand. However, I don't think it is often. God has given us incredible reasoning capabilities and has explained who he is and how he works a good deal of the time.
I realize the majority of the five of you that read this won't really like this post, but I think Grant will probably have a few things to say about it. Also, I realize this isn't riveting stuff, but I think it becomes really relevant as we move to certain other discussions.
12.14.2008
Orthodoxy
I have been thinking for awhile that I would like to do some posts about basic theology. The main reason is because I no longer write papers for school. I think sometimes that causes my brain to get a little soft. I would like to sharpen it up a bit more. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of getting some feedback on my beliefs. I will try to write in a balanced way, but of course I will support what I believe the best I can. I also am not writing this for a grade, so it isn't going to be as polished as some would prefer. I probably won't go to the trouble of supporting everything I write with specific scripture. So, feel free to stumble through my thoughts with me, feel free to comment, I have begun to moderate comments for awhile to hopefully eliminate ridiculousness. Its ok to disagree with me, its not ok to believe that you are the final authority on what is scriptural and what is not.
So, all that to say, this first post will be sort of introductory. Again, I don't think I am teaching a class or anything like that, but really trying to get my own thoughts together.
So, I was trying to think of where to go with all of this, where to begin and whatnot, and I think the best place to start is to consider "orthodoxy." Now, typically that word means something like "right thinking" or "correct doctrine" or something along those lines. There are a lot of different ways people define orthodoxy, and there are a lot of different doctrines that become a part of it. There is no singular set of beliefs that all of Christendom has agreed on, in fact, there is a good deal of disagreement among Christians about what is orthodox and what is not. Of course, a large contingent here in the United States (and I would guess abroad too, but can't say because I don't live there) that believes that they alone are orthodox.
This can become problematic, however, because nearly everyone disagrees on certain aspects of theology. Even if a person hasn't clearly thought through all of their own theology, they might be full of inner contradictions. So what should we do? Just continually split churches and denominations until we are all alone in our "orthodox" single person churches? I think not. So what is the answer? Where do we go when we disagree on important aspects of theology?
I think scripturally, and throughout church history, we see one prevailing thing about orthodoxy, it is less important than "orthopraxy." I think, here I should explain a little more what orthopraxy is. Orthopraxy is simply right practice, or doing the right thing. There are a few disagreements on what is permissible and what is not among Christians, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the major aspects of living a right lifestyle. Things like being generous, helping the poor, love, fidelity, faithfulness, kindness are all things that are clearly good. So, I think when we look at the Christian church, orthodoxy should take a backseat to orthopraxy.
Jesus talks a lot more about what things a person ought to do, what things they ought not to do, how they should live etc, than he talks about right belief. Of course, we should strive for both, but I think our entrance into the kingdom of God is much more contingent upon our orthopraxy than our orthodoxy. God knows himself exhaustively, and since we are very finite, we can only know him in part. He does not expect us to have a perfect and correct knowledge of him, he does expect us to live in obedience. This all relates to faith really. Faith is not so much believing the right thing, but trusting in it and doing something about it.
Of course, to those who wrote the bible and those who originally read it, there could have been no distinction. They did not acknowledge something with their minds and deny it with their lives. Theology to the early Christians was first about practice and second about belief. But they were intertwined, they were inextricable. To many today, we acknowledge God with our minds and mouths, but our hands and feet deny him.
I don't know how well I put my thoughts out here, but I don't feel like rewriting it all right now. Feel free to blog, I will publish it unless it is rude or something like that.
So, all that to say, this first post will be sort of introductory. Again, I don't think I am teaching a class or anything like that, but really trying to get my own thoughts together.
So, I was trying to think of where to go with all of this, where to begin and whatnot, and I think the best place to start is to consider "orthodoxy." Now, typically that word means something like "right thinking" or "correct doctrine" or something along those lines. There are a lot of different ways people define orthodoxy, and there are a lot of different doctrines that become a part of it. There is no singular set of beliefs that all of Christendom has agreed on, in fact, there is a good deal of disagreement among Christians about what is orthodox and what is not. Of course, a large contingent here in the United States (and I would guess abroad too, but can't say because I don't live there) that believes that they alone are orthodox.
This can become problematic, however, because nearly everyone disagrees on certain aspects of theology. Even if a person hasn't clearly thought through all of their own theology, they might be full of inner contradictions. So what should we do? Just continually split churches and denominations until we are all alone in our "orthodox" single person churches? I think not. So what is the answer? Where do we go when we disagree on important aspects of theology?
I think scripturally, and throughout church history, we see one prevailing thing about orthodoxy, it is less important than "orthopraxy." I think, here I should explain a little more what orthopraxy is. Orthopraxy is simply right practice, or doing the right thing. There are a few disagreements on what is permissible and what is not among Christians, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the major aspects of living a right lifestyle. Things like being generous, helping the poor, love, fidelity, faithfulness, kindness are all things that are clearly good. So, I think when we look at the Christian church, orthodoxy should take a backseat to orthopraxy.
Jesus talks a lot more about what things a person ought to do, what things they ought not to do, how they should live etc, than he talks about right belief. Of course, we should strive for both, but I think our entrance into the kingdom of God is much more contingent upon our orthopraxy than our orthodoxy. God knows himself exhaustively, and since we are very finite, we can only know him in part. He does not expect us to have a perfect and correct knowledge of him, he does expect us to live in obedience. This all relates to faith really. Faith is not so much believing the right thing, but trusting in it and doing something about it.
Of course, to those who wrote the bible and those who originally read it, there could have been no distinction. They did not acknowledge something with their minds and deny it with their lives. Theology to the early Christians was first about practice and second about belief. But they were intertwined, they were inextricable. To many today, we acknowledge God with our minds and mouths, but our hands and feet deny him.
I don't know how well I put my thoughts out here, but I don't feel like rewriting it all right now. Feel free to blog, I will publish it unless it is rude or something like that.
11.17.2008
Politics: Marriage
I realize that some of my past topics have been a bit controversial, and I have full confidence that this one will be even more so. I expect that those on both sides of this one will be unhappy with what I say here, so might as well dive right in.
Currently, same-sex marriages are not legal in the overwhelming majority of states. The question, I think, for Christians is, how should we vote on this particular issue? I am going to put off answering that until the end, for fear that people would cease listening to everything else I say (which happens in any forum at any time anyway, but maybe we can prevent some of it here).
I think, to start off, we should talk about what constitutes an acceptable sexual relationship. Biblically, I don't see any bones about the only time sex is acceptable is in a marriage relationship. This is consistent and I think pretty clear throughout the bible. God has said that sex is good and he wants us to enjoy it, in a loving, committed relationship. I think it is also clear that God has designed sex to occur between a man and woman. God sees that as the only acceptable marriage. I think as Christians, that becomes pretty clear.
I do believe that some are born homosexual. I think the only option for those people, if they want to follow God's will, is to live in celibacy. It is difficult, and I don't say that glibly. But after my own research and reading on the topic, that is the only conclusion I can come to. (I am not saying that everyone who is homosexual was born that way, I am just saying that some are)
So, for Christians I think it is clear, marriage should be between a man and a woman. If someone is homosexual, they should live in celibacy. Just as, someone who is not married should live in celibacy. That is what should happen in Christian communities. However, the United States is not a Christian community. I think as Christians, we should vote for equal marriage rights under the law for same-sex couples. I think there are quite a few arguments that support this.
I find it strange that some would say we should not legislate morality, then turn around and say that gay partners should not be able to share health care, or have visiting rights in the hospital. Seems to me like legislating morality. In addition, just because the law says it is ok, does not mean that we are saying God wants it to happen. Back to the topic of abortion, I think legally we should allow it, but ethically and morally we should condemn it. We should not practice it as Christians, but should allow it as a nation. Back to gay-marriage. I think ethically there is nothing wrong with giving equal legal rights to a same-sex couple as my wife and I enjoy. I think they should be allowed health care, I think they should be able to make decisions for each other, I think they should get inheritance.
I am not 100% on the arguments against it, none have made much sense to me so far, I'm sure someone reading can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed. I know one common argument is that it cheapens marriage. With a divorce rate above 50% in the church, we have no ground to argue about anything cheapening marriage. If our divorce rate was 10% or so, maybe, but I still don't think so. As Christians, the sanctity of marriage comes from God. If someone does not believe in God, then they will have different rules. (This may not make sense, if so let me know and I'll try to clarify)
Another argument is that some people would take advantage of this rule by saying they were married so that they could get benefits from it. But no one would ever do that with a man and a woman would they?!! I think this argument is absurd. Its not our job to try to make sure no one can live a fradulent life style. We just can't do that.
I see this issue as pretty clear cut. I think the gay community should have the same legal marriage rights as the straight community. I don't think God sees homosexuality as a good life-style, but that is an issue to be handled in the church, not on capitol hill. I'm not sure how great of a case I made, but I'm not sure how great of one needs to be made. Just because something is legal in our country does not mean that God wants it in his church. We should be loving and welcoming to the homosexual community. We should affirm them as people, just as we should affirm those who struggle with lust or greed or gluttony. But we should help them to see that God's plan for them is sex only in a marriage between a man and a woman. Bumper stickers and protest signs do not count.
Currently, same-sex marriages are not legal in the overwhelming majority of states. The question, I think, for Christians is, how should we vote on this particular issue? I am going to put off answering that until the end, for fear that people would cease listening to everything else I say (which happens in any forum at any time anyway, but maybe we can prevent some of it here).
I think, to start off, we should talk about what constitutes an acceptable sexual relationship. Biblically, I don't see any bones about the only time sex is acceptable is in a marriage relationship. This is consistent and I think pretty clear throughout the bible. God has said that sex is good and he wants us to enjoy it, in a loving, committed relationship. I think it is also clear that God has designed sex to occur between a man and woman. God sees that as the only acceptable marriage. I think as Christians, that becomes pretty clear.
I do believe that some are born homosexual. I think the only option for those people, if they want to follow God's will, is to live in celibacy. It is difficult, and I don't say that glibly. But after my own research and reading on the topic, that is the only conclusion I can come to. (I am not saying that everyone who is homosexual was born that way, I am just saying that some are)
So, for Christians I think it is clear, marriage should be between a man and a woman. If someone is homosexual, they should live in celibacy. Just as, someone who is not married should live in celibacy. That is what should happen in Christian communities. However, the United States is not a Christian community. I think as Christians, we should vote for equal marriage rights under the law for same-sex couples. I think there are quite a few arguments that support this.
I find it strange that some would say we should not legislate morality, then turn around and say that gay partners should not be able to share health care, or have visiting rights in the hospital. Seems to me like legislating morality. In addition, just because the law says it is ok, does not mean that we are saying God wants it to happen. Back to the topic of abortion, I think legally we should allow it, but ethically and morally we should condemn it. We should not practice it as Christians, but should allow it as a nation. Back to gay-marriage. I think ethically there is nothing wrong with giving equal legal rights to a same-sex couple as my wife and I enjoy. I think they should be allowed health care, I think they should be able to make decisions for each other, I think they should get inheritance.
I am not 100% on the arguments against it, none have made much sense to me so far, I'm sure someone reading can tell me why it shouldn't be allowed. I know one common argument is that it cheapens marriage. With a divorce rate above 50% in the church, we have no ground to argue about anything cheapening marriage. If our divorce rate was 10% or so, maybe, but I still don't think so. As Christians, the sanctity of marriage comes from God. If someone does not believe in God, then they will have different rules. (This may not make sense, if so let me know and I'll try to clarify)
Another argument is that some people would take advantage of this rule by saying they were married so that they could get benefits from it. But no one would ever do that with a man and a woman would they?!! I think this argument is absurd. Its not our job to try to make sure no one can live a fradulent life style. We just can't do that.
I see this issue as pretty clear cut. I think the gay community should have the same legal marriage rights as the straight community. I don't think God sees homosexuality as a good life-style, but that is an issue to be handled in the church, not on capitol hill. I'm not sure how great of a case I made, but I'm not sure how great of one needs to be made. Just because something is legal in our country does not mean that God wants it in his church. We should be loving and welcoming to the homosexual community. We should affirm them as people, just as we should affirm those who struggle with lust or greed or gluttony. But we should help them to see that God's plan for them is sex only in a marriage between a man and a woman. Bumper stickers and protest signs do not count.
11.10.2008
Economics (continued)
I had no idea I had more than three people that read this, so I will have to try to think my posts out a little better. I think I have been lazy some in connecting dots in my head without connecting them in writing, so, sorry everyone. I will do better on that. I think my last post was a little sloppy in some ways, so I need to write more about that. Lyle, thanks for the thoughts, I will try to address those here too.
I mainly started the topic of economics because I am sick of hearing that Obama is a socialist. Now, there are several reasons this bothers me, the major one being that it is a fear tactic. Of course, he does have some "socialist tendencies." But that does not a socialist make. He has some plans and some things he would like to do which may be "socialistic." However, I think that is forcing a false dichotomy. Things are not either "socialist" or "capitalist." We do not live in a truly capitalistic society. Otherwise Walmart could do whatever they wanted and Bill Gates would not have had several huge anti-trust lawsuits. So, yes, the left is closer to socialism than the right, but that is like saying Colorado is closer to Spain than Utah. Neither is really all that close. Obama was not advocating that the American government solve everyone's problems, just as McCain was not advocating that the government let everyone do whatever they want with their money. I am obviously on the left side of things economically, but no one was madder than me when the bank-bailout happened. That happened under a Repub president. I don't see us turning into Soviet Russia because Obama was elected.
Further on that same topic, I did not grow up when the USSR was a large threat, at least when I was cognizant of it. Socialism was not an evil in my world growing up, nor was it an evil for most people under 30. We just don't remember it all. Our government did a great job of painting socialism as evil and capitalism as good during that time. Good or bad, that is the world many grew up it. So they of course continue to see socialism as an enemy and capitalism as a friend. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it becomes obvious when you look votes based on age. Another thing to consider, it is very easy to advocate for capitalism when compared with the rest of the world, you are very rich. Americans have every reason to think capitalism is great, look what its done for us. I wonder if we will be so cavalier about capitalism if it continues to hurt us as it has lately?
I understand the concern about Obama's charity, or lack thereof, but that appears to me to be a gross ad hominem argument. I have not looked at his totals of charity, nor do I need to. If a person who was clearly promiscuous told me that it is better to be in a married, monogamous relationship, would that take away the validity of their statement? Or if an abusive parent told me it is better to love and nurture your children, would that take away from their statement? I think not. I am certainly disappointed, if those numbers are accurate, but that does not change the validity of their opinions. I think we all think things are right that we do not necessarily practice. Furthermore, does that disqualify Paul or Jesus from speaking on marriage, because neither was married? I think not. Barak Obama is clearly neither, but the principle holds.
Now, I made the statement, or something close that "if we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all. let someone else do it." My point in that statement was not that socialism was good, but that was an obvious downfall of socialism. Just as the obvious downfall of capitalism is that the rich can do whatever they want. In a perfect society, everyone would work hard because that is a good thing to do. God wants us to be useful. However, Lyle I do question your reference about work in the garden. I just looked over Gen 1 and 2 and did not find a reference to work before the fall. I may be missing it, but I didn't see it.
There is in fact quite a bit in scripture that advocates socialism. Outside of the obvious New Testament church which was a de facto communist society, the Old Testament was the law of the land. It made it clear that part of the job of those with money was to help those without money. Again, the OT prophets compared not helping the poor to murder. There was no distinction between church and state at the time. When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went. People were required to give a certain portion to both the church and to the poor. But I guess the constitution of the United States is more inspired than the OT? Na. We would never think that. Now, I do think there are certain levels of morality that must be legislated. We would not put up with it if our government said murder or stealing was OK. Further, when Christ said we would always have the poor, he was not resigned to that fact. In fact, most of the scholars I have read on it believe he is referencing the fact that the Jews were not obeying the command in Deuteronomy to help the poor.
I would also like to speak to the idea that God wants some to be poor and some to be rich. That would seem to me like favoritism, and James seems pretty clear that God does not practice favoritism. In addition, if we follow the logic that says that some are poor because they are irresponsible or do not work hard we would seem imply that God desires them to sin. Does God want anyone to sin?!! Now, the Bible certainly teaches self-responsibility, so much so that when Peter asked Jesus "What about John?" Jesus told him to worry about himself and follow him! If we are followers of Jesus, it is not our job to ask if people deserve handouts or not. It is our job to give handouts.
I feel this post getting long in the tooth, so I think I need to try to wrap it up. I do not think Socialism is inherently Christian. But I would say it is more Christian than capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government, and no political system is Christian per se. I just see that we are called to help the poor, and capitalism does not do that overtly. I realize that this is not incredibly well-thought out, but I am not getting graded on this. Its just a blog. So, I appreciate the dialog, and please continue it. I hope this can be a learning opportunity for me as well.
The last thing I want to respond to is this quote. "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." I think this particular quote has an inherent bias built into it. Of course religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals! The only reason any of us should have to help others is religion! If someone is secular, they have no reason to be charitable. Again, the best way to help the poor is debatable. Some say we need to help business and then business will help the poor, some say we need to give to them. Biblically, we don't see any "help businesses" type of thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help, but the only Biblical input we have is that it is our job to help the poor. For me, that includes voting for those that will increase government spending for the poor.
I mainly started the topic of economics because I am sick of hearing that Obama is a socialist. Now, there are several reasons this bothers me, the major one being that it is a fear tactic. Of course, he does have some "socialist tendencies." But that does not a socialist make. He has some plans and some things he would like to do which may be "socialistic." However, I think that is forcing a false dichotomy. Things are not either "socialist" or "capitalist." We do not live in a truly capitalistic society. Otherwise Walmart could do whatever they wanted and Bill Gates would not have had several huge anti-trust lawsuits. So, yes, the left is closer to socialism than the right, but that is like saying Colorado is closer to Spain than Utah. Neither is really all that close. Obama was not advocating that the American government solve everyone's problems, just as McCain was not advocating that the government let everyone do whatever they want with their money. I am obviously on the left side of things economically, but no one was madder than me when the bank-bailout happened. That happened under a Repub president. I don't see us turning into Soviet Russia because Obama was elected.
Further on that same topic, I did not grow up when the USSR was a large threat, at least when I was cognizant of it. Socialism was not an evil in my world growing up, nor was it an evil for most people under 30. We just don't remember it all. Our government did a great job of painting socialism as evil and capitalism as good during that time. Good or bad, that is the world many grew up it. So they of course continue to see socialism as an enemy and capitalism as a friend. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it becomes obvious when you look votes based on age. Another thing to consider, it is very easy to advocate for capitalism when compared with the rest of the world, you are very rich. Americans have every reason to think capitalism is great, look what its done for us. I wonder if we will be so cavalier about capitalism if it continues to hurt us as it has lately?
I understand the concern about Obama's charity, or lack thereof, but that appears to me to be a gross ad hominem argument. I have not looked at his totals of charity, nor do I need to. If a person who was clearly promiscuous told me that it is better to be in a married, monogamous relationship, would that take away the validity of their statement? Or if an abusive parent told me it is better to love and nurture your children, would that take away from their statement? I think not. I am certainly disappointed, if those numbers are accurate, but that does not change the validity of their opinions. I think we all think things are right that we do not necessarily practice. Furthermore, does that disqualify Paul or Jesus from speaking on marriage, because neither was married? I think not. Barak Obama is clearly neither, but the principle holds.
Now, I made the statement, or something close that "if we were socialists, no one would have any incentive to work hard, or really to work at all. let someone else do it." My point in that statement was not that socialism was good, but that was an obvious downfall of socialism. Just as the obvious downfall of capitalism is that the rich can do whatever they want. In a perfect society, everyone would work hard because that is a good thing to do. God wants us to be useful. However, Lyle I do question your reference about work in the garden. I just looked over Gen 1 and 2 and did not find a reference to work before the fall. I may be missing it, but I didn't see it.
There is in fact quite a bit in scripture that advocates socialism. Outside of the obvious New Testament church which was a de facto communist society, the Old Testament was the law of the land. It made it clear that part of the job of those with money was to help those without money. Again, the OT prophets compared not helping the poor to murder. There was no distinction between church and state at the time. When Israel was first a country, there was no king, it was simply a theocracy. God was the boss and people did what he wanted, or so the plan went. People were required to give a certain portion to both the church and to the poor. But I guess the constitution of the United States is more inspired than the OT? Na. We would never think that. Now, I do think there are certain levels of morality that must be legislated. We would not put up with it if our government said murder or stealing was OK. Further, when Christ said we would always have the poor, he was not resigned to that fact. In fact, most of the scholars I have read on it believe he is referencing the fact that the Jews were not obeying the command in Deuteronomy to help the poor.
I would also like to speak to the idea that God wants some to be poor and some to be rich. That would seem to me like favoritism, and James seems pretty clear that God does not practice favoritism. In addition, if we follow the logic that says that some are poor because they are irresponsible or do not work hard we would seem imply that God desires them to sin. Does God want anyone to sin?!! Now, the Bible certainly teaches self-responsibility, so much so that when Peter asked Jesus "What about John?" Jesus told him to worry about himself and follow him! If we are followers of Jesus, it is not our job to ask if people deserve handouts or not. It is our job to give handouts.
I feel this post getting long in the tooth, so I think I need to try to wrap it up. I do not think Socialism is inherently Christian. But I would say it is more Christian than capitalism. There is no such thing as a perfect government, and no political system is Christian per se. I just see that we are called to help the poor, and capitalism does not do that overtly. I realize that this is not incredibly well-thought out, but I am not getting graded on this. Its just a blog. So, I appreciate the dialog, and please continue it. I hope this can be a learning opportunity for me as well.
The last thing I want to respond to is this quote. "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." I think this particular quote has an inherent bias built into it. Of course religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals! The only reason any of us should have to help others is religion! If someone is secular, they have no reason to be charitable. Again, the best way to help the poor is debatable. Some say we need to help business and then business will help the poor, some say we need to give to them. Biblically, we don't see any "help businesses" type of thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't help, but the only Biblical input we have is that it is our job to help the poor. For me, that includes voting for those that will increase government spending for the poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
