The traditional mantra of evangelical Christianity since the Protestant Reformation has been sola scriptura, or scripture alone. Whether or not the original intention of this idea was to make an idol of the Bible, that has too often become the case in modern evangelicalism. Truth, as an objective reality, has been equated with the actual words of the Bible. Was this ever the intention of God, or has Christianity become a book-based spirituality rather than a person-based spirituality?
Whenever I think of Truth, I think of it in terms of relationship, not in terms of propositions and doctrines. To me, Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, how can we possibly understand the many verses of scripture referring to Jesus (a person) as the truth? Take a look at the following verses while trying to reconcile the modern idea of truth as right propositions.
"For me, to live is Christ."
"I am the way, the truth, and the life."
"I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
"You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
To live is Christ. How can this make sense in any other context than truth as relationship? It makes much less sense to say, "To live is the virgin birth." People do not live by propositions, but by relationships. Everything that is anything is bound up in a series of relationships, without which there really is no meaning. I ... am the truth. This is the most plain biblical statement of the person of Jesus being equated with actual truth. Christ does not precede "the truth" with statements of dogma - He begins the sentence with a proper noun, Himself. There is no full truth outside the person of Jesus. A book cannot be perfect truth. Only a Person can accomplish that. The third verse gives Christians a clear view of what the Bible is: a witness to the Truth. Jesus encoutnered the same problem in his day, with religious people wanting to make the scriptures the end all of truth. Life is found not in religious texts, but in a personal relationship with Christ.
Robert Webber asks a relevant question: "Do we believe in a book or a person?" It is an either/or question. Either there is one, perfect true direction of worship, or there is not. Only God can be perfect, and perfection deserves our worship. Leonard Sweet has written a wonderful book dealing in part with this subject:
http://www.randomhouse.com/waterbrook/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781578566471
Peace & Blessings.
9.12.2006
9.11.2006
Beyond Gender
Most of us are aware, particularly our gay, lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters, of the church's track record on the issue of homosexuality and other trans-barrier sexualities. Instead of being welcomed into the family of God as vitally contributing participants, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons have traditionally been ostracized and vilified as perverts - those not capable of entering into the kingdom of God. The letters of Paul (assuming traditional authorship assignments) have been central in this program of vilification. Conservative readings of the opening chapters of Genesis, and legalistic readings of Leviticus, have also played a major role in the pogrom.
Most traditional biblical scholars and church leaders have proclaimed that Jesus was silent on the issue of trans-barrier sexualities. However, a new insight from Matthew 19:12 has recently come to the fore in biblical scholarship circles. For those not familiar with the passage in question, Jesus speaks of the acceptance of eunuchs, both natural and self-made, into the kingdom of heaven:
12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Because of cover-ups in interpretation stemming from traditional ideas of man/women gender roles, the revolutionary aspect of Jesus' words have long been lost to the Church. In order to dilute the powerful message of Jesus in this passage and continue in the promulgation of traditional gender roles, biblical scholars have felt the need to view the eunuch as a non-sexual creature. After all, if sexual roles were divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pro-creation, what sexual role could a eunuch possibly have? The sexual options available to eunuchs are unthinkable to those entrenched in traditional heterosexist gender roles.
History, however, has a different story to tell concerning the sexualities of eunuchs. Any surface reading of ancient histories will show that eunuchs were not only servants of imperial courts, but enjoyed a wide-spread reputation as sexually active participants in a variety of roles with men and women. Because the phallus was of utmost importance during ancient times in conferring the status of manhood (i.e. personhood), eunuchs were despised as well for their state of castration. In other words, though they were politically powerful, they were moral and social outcasts. As is the case with all phobias, "eunuch-phobia" was a result of fear toward something not understood (or understood all too well). Men feared eunuchs because of the sexual and social power they exhibited in spite of their lack of phalli. Men of the time felt the need to vilify eunuchs because their power was derived from non-heterosexist gender roles: eunuchs performed the bottom role (i.e. being mounted) traditionally assigned to women and slaves.
It is in this context of ostracism that Jesus spoke acceptance to eunuchs, and to modern persons of trans-barrier sexualities. It is interesting to note that Jesus prefaced Matthew 19:12 with the words, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." Times have not changed so much. Certainly, everyone has not received this saying with the openness in which Jesus himself said it. Hence, the divisions in many denominations centering on controversies of sexuality. How much more beautiful the body of Christ would be if every person were accepted with the grace and love of Christ Himself.
Peace & Blessings.
Most traditional biblical scholars and church leaders have proclaimed that Jesus was silent on the issue of trans-barrier sexualities. However, a new insight from Matthew 19:12 has recently come to the fore in biblical scholarship circles. For those not familiar with the passage in question, Jesus speaks of the acceptance of eunuchs, both natural and self-made, into the kingdom of heaven:
12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Because of cover-ups in interpretation stemming from traditional ideas of man/women gender roles, the revolutionary aspect of Jesus' words have long been lost to the Church. In order to dilute the powerful message of Jesus in this passage and continue in the promulgation of traditional gender roles, biblical scholars have felt the need to view the eunuch as a non-sexual creature. After all, if sexual roles were divinely instituted for the sole purpose of pro-creation, what sexual role could a eunuch possibly have? The sexual options available to eunuchs are unthinkable to those entrenched in traditional heterosexist gender roles.
History, however, has a different story to tell concerning the sexualities of eunuchs. Any surface reading of ancient histories will show that eunuchs were not only servants of imperial courts, but enjoyed a wide-spread reputation as sexually active participants in a variety of roles with men and women. Because the phallus was of utmost importance during ancient times in conferring the status of manhood (i.e. personhood), eunuchs were despised as well for their state of castration. In other words, though they were politically powerful, they were moral and social outcasts. As is the case with all phobias, "eunuch-phobia" was a result of fear toward something not understood (or understood all too well). Men feared eunuchs because of the sexual and social power they exhibited in spite of their lack of phalli. Men of the time felt the need to vilify eunuchs because their power was derived from non-heterosexist gender roles: eunuchs performed the bottom role (i.e. being mounted) traditionally assigned to women and slaves.
It is in this context of ostracism that Jesus spoke acceptance to eunuchs, and to modern persons of trans-barrier sexualities. It is interesting to note that Jesus prefaced Matthew 19:12 with the words, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." Times have not changed so much. Certainly, everyone has not received this saying with the openness in which Jesus himself said it. Hence, the divisions in many denominations centering on controversies of sexuality. How much more beautiful the body of Christ would be if every person were accepted with the grace and love of Christ Himself.
Peace & Blessings.
9.10.2006
Rediscovering Christus Victor
Christus Victor is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulen's groundbreaking book first published in 1931 where he drew attention back the early church's Ransom theory. In Christus Victor, the atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Aulen argues that the classic Ransom theory is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes,
"The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil" (Gustav Aulén, Christus Victor p 20).
The Ransom Theory was predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history and supported by all Greek Church Fathers from Irenaeus to John of Damascus. To mention only the most important names Origen, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. The Christus Victor view was also dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period including Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Caesarius of Arles, Faustus of Rhegium, and Gregory the Great. A major shift occurred when Anselm of Canterbury published his Cur Deos Homo around 1097 AD which marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church and subsequently the Protestant Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to the Ransom or Christus Victor view. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus, called "recapitulation". (see below and Theosis)
As the term Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeus called this "Recapitulation" (re-creation). As it is often expressed: "Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is".
Peace & Blessings.
9.08.2006
Biblical Mantras
Sometimes, I think it would be good to borrow methods from other faith traditions in the ways of spiritual discipline. I live in Korea, and am surrounded by many Buddhist co-workers. On a recent visit to a Buddhist temple, I was drawn into the chants of the monks, though I had no idea what they were actually saying. What drew me were not the words, but the rhythm and level of concentration. From that experience, I have developed a method of scriptural meditation that works really well for me - I call it "Biblical Meditation." There are some methods, such as Lectio Divina, that implement certain scriptural meditation practices along with other personal or communal rituals. The type of biblical mantra ritual I have developed consists solely of breathing techniques for relaxation and repeating a certain scriptural passage out loud in a "Buddhist"-type tone.
As an example, today I took the biblical reference, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will receive the kingdom of God." I developed a personal sing-song tone and rhythm, and after practicing controlled breathing for about 5 minutes, I simply chanted that passage for about 15 minutes. Why do I practice this type of biblical meditation rather than simply reading the Bible as a daily routine?
There are two reasons I do this: (1) in my experience, repeating a scriptural passage over and over again allows the meaning of that passage to seep deep into my subconscious, so that I continually think about that meaning throughout the day without consciously calling it to remembrance; (2) concentrating on a single, simple passage of scripture instead of an entire chapter, allows a powerful point to make mental and spiritual impact on me, rather than trying to receive many useful points within a wider, longer passage.
If you are interested in trying this form of biblical meditation, here's how I do it. I hope you can get some ideas here and re-arrange them to your circumstances for maximum effect:
As an example, today I took the biblical reference, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will receive the kingdom of God." I developed a personal sing-song tone and rhythm, and after practicing controlled breathing for about 5 minutes, I simply chanted that passage for about 15 minutes. Why do I practice this type of biblical meditation rather than simply reading the Bible as a daily routine?
There are two reasons I do this: (1) in my experience, repeating a scriptural passage over and over again allows the meaning of that passage to seep deep into my subconscious, so that I continually think about that meaning throughout the day without consciously calling it to remembrance; (2) concentrating on a single, simple passage of scripture instead of an entire chapter, allows a powerful point to make mental and spiritual impact on me, rather than trying to receive many useful points within a wider, longer passage.
If you are interested in trying this form of biblical meditation, here's how I do it. I hope you can get some ideas here and re-arrange them to your circumstances for maximum effect:
- I always do the meditation at a particular time of the day at which I am most aware and awake.
- The environment must be comfortable and quiet. No disturbances should interrupt this time of meditation.
- I choose a short passage (no more than 15 words) concerning something I want to improve in my life, or something God has moved me to implement.
- Before the meditation, I develop a chant rhythm and tone, so that I do not have to experiment with this during the actual meditation time.
- After I am ready to begin, I take 5 minutes to breathe in and out deeply, calming the mind, and attempting to empty it as much as possible.
- When I feel relaxed and receptive, I begin chanting the scripture I chose beforehand.
- I stop chanting whenever the Spirit moves me, or lacking that feeling, whenever I feel the passage is sufficiently implanted into my subconscious mind.
I would encourage you to try this type of scriptural meditation. It may feel strange at first, as most of us are not used to treating scripture in this way. However, I assure you the effects from this spiritual exercise will bless and strengthen you.
Peace & Blessings.
9.07.2006
Almost Orthodox +
I am so tired of theological labels, "emerging" included. I don't really mind them as a reference point, but it irritates me when the first question a person asks within a religious discussion is "are you conservative or liberal?" Labels seem to be used to box people into one point of view, and a person adopting a certain pre-made label feels constricted in the amount of room they have to maneuver. Even if a "conservative" wanted to hold a "liberal" belief, they would feel hemmed in by their conservative friends and communities. Likewise for a "liberal."
Maybe I dislike labels so much because there's not one for me, except "emerging" of course, but "emerging" implies a destination at some point in the future. Most of us in the emerging conversation don't like to think about that, but it's an obvious assumption. However, our labels will be something new, neither liberal nor conservative. I imagine we'll have to create some kind of new vocabulary to define ourselves, if we even want to define ourselves. No matter how "emerging" I am, I always have an innate desire to identify my beliefs. This is at least necessary for genuine conversation to occur between two persons.
So my new self-designed theological identity is "Almost Orthodox +." I know it sounds clumsy and contradictory, but it at least gives a framework for others to work with in approaching conversations. In all my theological questioning and re-adjusting, I've surprised myself in coming almost full circle back to near orthodoxy. I believe in the virgin birth, the perfect life, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. I believe in the Trinity. But..... I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, that Christ's death was substitutionary, or in a literal heaven or hell. I know it's strange to see a self-proclaimed emergent identifying himself theologically. It's so systematic! But we all believe something, and not being upfront about that doesn't erase the fact. There have to be things to converse about.
So, I believe almost enough to make me orthodox, not quite enough to be considered conservative, and then there's a +. The "+" is the most important part of my label. I believe in the virgin birth, perfect life, the resurrection of Christ, and the Trinity + I believe a person doesn't have to believe in those things to be a Christian. I don't believe in inerrancy, the substitutionary atonement, or a literal heaven or hell + I believe you can believe those things and still be a Christian. In other words, my new label isn't a one size fits all label. It leaves room for the other that isn't quite or at all like me.
I suppose the biggest problem I have with labels is their exclusivity. Traditionally, according to labels, a person is either in or out of the club. I am tired of man-made barriers to building the kingdom of God on earth. Are you an inerrantist? Fine by me - partner with me to welcome people into the Kingdom. Do you believe in a literal hell? Whatever - partner with me to welcome people into the Kingdom. It's natural to build communities around likenesses. It's supernatural to build them around differences.
Peace & Blessings.
Maybe I dislike labels so much because there's not one for me, except "emerging" of course, but "emerging" implies a destination at some point in the future. Most of us in the emerging conversation don't like to think about that, but it's an obvious assumption. However, our labels will be something new, neither liberal nor conservative. I imagine we'll have to create some kind of new vocabulary to define ourselves, if we even want to define ourselves. No matter how "emerging" I am, I always have an innate desire to identify my beliefs. This is at least necessary for genuine conversation to occur between two persons.
So my new self-designed theological identity is "Almost Orthodox +." I know it sounds clumsy and contradictory, but it at least gives a framework for others to work with in approaching conversations. In all my theological questioning and re-adjusting, I've surprised myself in coming almost full circle back to near orthodoxy. I believe in the virgin birth, the perfect life, and the bodily resurrection of Christ. I believe in the Trinity. But..... I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, that Christ's death was substitutionary, or in a literal heaven or hell. I know it's strange to see a self-proclaimed emergent identifying himself theologically. It's so systematic! But we all believe something, and not being upfront about that doesn't erase the fact. There have to be things to converse about.
So, I believe almost enough to make me orthodox, not quite enough to be considered conservative, and then there's a +. The "+" is the most important part of my label. I believe in the virgin birth, perfect life, the resurrection of Christ, and the Trinity + I believe a person doesn't have to believe in those things to be a Christian. I don't believe in inerrancy, the substitutionary atonement, or a literal heaven or hell + I believe you can believe those things and still be a Christian. In other words, my new label isn't a one size fits all label. It leaves room for the other that isn't quite or at all like me.
I suppose the biggest problem I have with labels is their exclusivity. Traditionally, according to labels, a person is either in or out of the club. I am tired of man-made barriers to building the kingdom of God on earth. Are you an inerrantist? Fine by me - partner with me to welcome people into the Kingdom. Do you believe in a literal hell? Whatever - partner with me to welcome people into the Kingdom. It's natural to build communities around likenesses. It's supernatural to build them around differences.
Peace & Blessings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
