Surface Christianity

I suppose dogmas have always been a part of the organizational church since the times of the Church Fathers. Though there is much controversy surrounding the formation and use of the following passage from Philippians, it is considered by many scholars to be one of the first hymns used in the early church, and may also have served as a type of creed:

6Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As a hymn, this is beautiful, and there is not much in it to ruffle the feathers of orthodox Christians. However, it is a product of Pauline theology, and it should be noted that Christ never promoted or suggested creeds of any kind. He usually taught in parables which were (and are) constantly subject to various interpretations. It seems that the teaching style of Christ, and most other teachers of his time, was designed to make people come to their own conclusions. I am not saying there was no point of truth in the teachings of Christ, but that the truth was multi-layered and relative to the hearer's progress on life's journey. Unlike Paul and other NT writers, Jesus rarely presented a statement of doctrinal truth as necessary belief. His whole ministry was designed to attract followers, not doctrinally correct theologians.

I think two portions of the gospels present this side of Jesus better than any others: Matthew 11:28-29, and John 21:15-19.

28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?" "Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." 16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep." 17The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." 18Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

Following Christ is the focus of the gospel. Some of his disciples did not really know who Jesus was. Matthew 16 tells the story of Jesus asking his followers who they thought he was. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, and some said Jeremiah. Peter eventually says that Jesus is Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses Peter for his answer, but does not scold the others for their answers. Though this passage is often used by preachers to proclaim the divinity of Christ (and I have no argument with that), a deeper point is that Jesus accepted followers who were not aware of his divinity.

So what about creeds and dogmas? What purpose do they really serve in light of Jesus' acceptance of followers not aware of his divinity? From a human standpoint, I think dogmas serve to massage the ego, to place certain people within a community, and to place others outside the community. It's really all about a reversion to law vs. grace. People with correct answers are in; people who are passionate disciples but don't believe the dogmas are out. This may be a Pauline way of doing things, but it certainly isn't a Jesus was of doing things. [Don't get me wrong, I love Paul, but I am a disciple of Christ]

Surface Christianity depends too much on right belief, and too little on right action. It seems that Jesus was more concerned with conversion as process (i.e. following him) than conversion as belief. When Christianity becomes a set of beliefs, a series of creeds, it diminishes into something Christ never intended. He desires zealous followers who love him, no matter what idenity they assign to him. No doubt, there are myriad more zealous "Christians" who've never heard the name of Christ, than those who claim the name "Christian" and have all the correct answers.

Peace & Blessings.

Limited Atonement?

Ever since my first encounter with the story of Christ, I have been a proponent of universalism. Even during the time I claimed to be atheist, I could not understand how Christians could limit the amazing grace that Christ offered through his death and resurrection. I use the word story intentionally, because I cannot view the gospel as a set of propositions. The way Christ lived his life on earth, the teachings that are likely his, and the passion he had for people all lead me to accept that his willing sacrificial example covers all faults and accepts every person.

As far as my Christology goes, I could not be more conservative. To me, Christ was God in the flesh. However, I do not see his sacrifice as atonement for sins. He did not die to appease an angry God, but to show us the way of love. In his death and resurrection, we see the true character of God - as a loving Father/Mother who accepts even the most vile person into the family. When I voice this opinion, most Christians respond by quoting scriptures referring to "the narrow way" or "substitutionary atonement." This is futile in my opinion, since scripture suggests many different views of God, Christ, and salvation. As a Quaker, I rely on the Spirit for truth, and the Spirit witnesses to the all-encompassing love and reconciliation of God in Christ.

I do not claim to know how this works out. How does Hitler get into the family? I am not concerned with a systematic theology that makes me feel better about the "justness" of universal salvation. I know my own faults, and I am overwhelmed by the grace of God in the face of these faults. The more evil a person is, the more powerful the grace of God is in accepting that person, and the more Her love shines. Often, the most senseless thing is true when speaking of God and Her character. Why should we understand such wonderfully mysterious workings?

The grace of Christ is knowledge of belonging. The salvation of Christ is the recognition of His presence within us. The true anathema of limited atonement is salvation for the few, whether by their choice or God's. As Christians, we have watered down the good news of universal salvation with rules, regulations, and propositions. We have, in effect, become "white-washed graves", full of our own theologies, and limiting the freedom available by with-holding the knowledge of Christ's work. How much more joyful communities of Christ would be if we only accepted the unlimited grace of our Savior for all people.

Peace & Blessings.

Good vs. Evil, Part 2

If you know anything about open theism, you already know the main points I'm going to flesh out: (1) God is not omnipotent, (2) God is not omniscient, and (3) God is engaged in real war. Of course, most of the open theists within evangelicalism tend to want to keep the traditional terminology while re-defining what that terminology means. I think it's better to just discard the terminology for the sake of clarity. I have claimed what I believe God is not. It follows that I should try to attempt to explain what God is, at least in my experience of Her. Let's take it point by point.

God is not omnipotent, but powerful.

Traditional Christians are scared silly when they see this sentence, which is why there is such an uproar in evangelical communities surrounding open theism. Of all the open theistic writers I've read, Clark Pinnock does the most justice to this idea. [Disclaimer: just because I mention Clark Pinnock doesn't mean he wants to be mentioned in the vicinity of my writings]. However, as I mentioned before, he tends to want to keep the traditional word while re-defining it. Omnipotence, in its traditional reference to God, means He is able to do anything that does not contradict His own nature. In other words, He is able to stop the rape of the afore-mentioned 9 year-old girl if He so chooses. For any thinking Christian, it is easy to see where the problem arises. If God is good, and also omnipotent, then why would She allow such horrible, senseless things to take place? Now, I use the word senseless for a very good reason. Most traditionalists would argue that there must be some unrecognized good purpose to come of the girl's rape. That is why God allows it. Can such a rationalization, as much as it grates against everything we know of God, be true? Wouldn't the Spirit give some kind of assent to that view if it was in fact, correct? What do we feel horrible when defending God with this excuse?

I think the answer lies in its inherent falsity. As Christians, we all know God is good by our experience of Her. She doesn't give a stone when we need bread. She loves us more than our earthly parents love us. Would any earthly parent allow their child to be raped? Is there any good future thing that could come of that? No. God is completely loving, and limited in Her actions. There are some things She simply cannot interfere with. This has nothing to do with man's free will, but everything to do with real spiritual warfare (see # 3).

God is not omniscient, but learning.

Traditionally, God's omniscience means that He is able to know everything in the past, present, and future. Current open theists re-define omniscience to mean that God knows everything that can be possibly be known, then proceed to discuss what can truly be known vs. what cannot be known. I do not see the sense in sticking with the term omniscience. It's just confusing. For too long, the term has been used to mean that God simply knows everything. In other words, before the girl's rapist was born, God knew he was going to be a rapist, yet went ahead and allowed his birth. If omnipotence and omniscience are true as traditionally believed, then God is directly responsible for the girl's rape because He had the power and knowledge to put a stop to it. How could a loving God, who is also all-knowing and all-powerful, not put a stop to it? Yeah, yeah - the free will thing. But if God had prevented the birth of the rapist, free will would not have even been an issue.

Therefore, along with omnipotence, I also believe omniscience should be discarded. Because God loves freedom, and freedom requires real choices, God creates the universe in a way that She cannot possibly know the real possibilities that can occur in Her universe. She has to work with the things that happen. The rapist could have been a humanitarian with good character, but he chose to be a rapist. This occurred from an infinite number of possibilities, none of which God knew beforehand. God only knows the present reality, and a limited amount of future choices which she deduces from the current actions of free beings. This is basically what current open theists teach, though most of them insist on keeping the tricky work, omniscience.

God is engaged in real war.

Though I've already discarded two major traditional Christian beliefs, I think this third point is the most important. It also satisfactorily answers (at least to many pre-modernists and postmodernists) why God cannot be omnipotent as traditionally believed. Satan is a real being, and he has legions of real demons that follow his rebellious lead. I dare you to tell a friend you believe Satan is a real personality, and see the response you get. It's not a popular belief in our modernist-entrenched culture. However, it fits well with the entire biblical story (not that that's a prerequisite for truth), and makes sense of evil.

Think about the facts of war in our physical reality. There is rarely a winner or loser at the outset, though certain factors may give a side some advantage. Fighting must occur, losses and wins experienced, for a victor to emerge. Why would it be any different in the spiritual realm? Why would biblical writers describe battles of evil and good forces with such detail and life likeness if there was not some truth to it? More to the point, why would a young girl be raped if there was not some evil force fighting off God's protective hand?

Evil exists, not because God is capricious or ordains evil, but because She is involved in a real battle with the forces of evil, with free creatures of immense strength who want nothing less than to rule this world. Scripture and the Spirit give us hope that good will eventually prevail, but in the meantime, we as humans are in the crossfire. Not only that, but we are also called to participate by bringing love and grace into our own relationships and communities.

All of this doesn't answer every question concerning the existence of evil. It may raise even more questions. However, it does give us a congruent feeling with the Spirit that God is pure love, and only wants the best for all Her children.

Peace & Blessings.

Good vs. Evil, Part 1

In my opinion, there are three options to make sense of the existence of evil in the universe: (1) there is no good deity; (2) there is an omnipotent evil deity; (3) there is a real war between a good deity and rebellious creations. I say in my opinion, because there are myriad ways within traditional Christianity that have been attempted to explain away the problem of the existence of evil. The most common of the three options is number 3, but the Christians proposing this option often do not take it to the obvious conclusion of all-out spiritual war.

That there is no good deity would pose a problem for the existence of goodness in the universe. The most often asked question among those who choose not to follow any god(s) is, "why is there evil in the world?" However, a more pressing question in the absence of a good deity would be "why is there goodness in the world?" The same objection is true for option number 2.

I often wonder about an extra option: perhaps there exists either a capricious deity, sometimes behaving well and sometimes not, or either a still morally-forming deity who sometimes makes bad choices. Of course, in the arena of metaphysics, all these options are just as good as the others unless one thing holds true for the individual: experience of a good, loving deity. But the problem of bringing experience into the equation often alienates those who claim only to rely on reason for judgments of truth. And, after all, some people experience the same event differently. Whereas I might experience a certain struggle to be the workings of a loving God vs the real forces of evil, others may identify that struggle as evidence that a good God is not omnipotent within that "evil" situation, or that nothing exists except the forces of nature.

Buddha (paraphrased) said, "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." Ultimately, how we address the problem of evil is a result of what we, as individuals, test and judge to be true. Our beliefs are the result of how we sift and process experiences. Therefore, my purpose is not to reason out an argument for the existence of evil. This has been tried, and better minds have only come to a standstill at best. I will only speak of what I have tried and tested, and why it makes sense to me. This is sure to make worshipers of reason nauseated.

I have never been able to fully understand how evil can exist without something opposite with which to compare it. In other words, how can something be evil unless its opposite can be good? The following question, then, is what is the source of good? By what (or whom) do we compare actions in order to call them good or evil? Although I can never completely understand what I choose to call God, my experience of Her is as a good and caring personality. Perhaps this is just because I need a crutch, or perhaps it's a relatively accurate picture of reality. The sure thing in my mind, however, is that my experience of God as good makes me strive to also be good in my relationships with others. I do not see God as good because some scripture tells me to, but because in the quietness of my moments with Her, I sense love and grace. Direct experience with God, without scriptural descriptions, is often richer and less filtered through other's experiences. Seeking God in scripture can produce schizophrenic pictures of Her character. That is why, in my opinion, many biblical literalists act less good than Christians for whom tradition and experience play a larger role.

So, my first assumption is that a good God exists, if for nothing else than my direct experience of Her. The problem then becomes, if a good God exists, and if She is omnipotent as traditionally thought, then why is there evil in the universe? I think it become necessary to re-work some traditionally held beliefs, because none of the positions currently held do the problem justice. Some say God is omnipotent, but has given us free-will to do evil. I would agree with this; however, I think "omnipotent" needs to be redefined (as open theists have begun so well), and "free-will" needs to be given the authority it deserves. Some say that God ordains everything that happens while maintaining that God is still good. Experientially (i.e. out of the realm of academia), this is ridiculous. If you want to believe that God ordains the rape of a nine-year old girl, go right ahead. But don't tell me that's a good God. So far in the academic discussion, I think open theists have done the most justice to the experience of a good God in a not-so-good world. In the next post, I will flesh out the version of open theism that most jives with my experience of God.

Peace & Blessings.

Quotable Quotes

I'm having a bad case of "mind-farts" today, so I'll let the experts speak for themselves:

I won't take my religion from any man who never works except with his mouth. - Carl Sandburg, US biographer & poet (1878 - 1967)

For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing. -H.L. Mencken, US editor (1880 - 1956)

Those who seek consolation in existing churches often pay for their peace of mind with a tacit agreement to ignore a great deal of what is known about the way the world works.
- Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, 1990

Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child.
-Waiter Rant, Waiter Rant weblog, 06-21-05

In reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists. By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia. - William Sloane Coffin

Toleration ought in reality to be merely a transitory mood. It must lead to recognition. To tolerate is to affront. - Goethe, Maxims and Reflections

Peace & Blessings