Theology for the Masses

I am cheating… I hope this allowed.

I would like to have some discussion on this post: Morality of Abortion over at my blog.

I often hear people discuss the need to “speak God’s truth.” This is often done in a way that is in contrast to meeting the physical needs of a person, which is often referred to as the “social gospel.”

I have seen this on friends’ blogs who have said that we meet the physical needs of a person in order to make others “comfortable” and us feel good and we ignore “God’s truth” because it makes us “uncomfortable.” I have also seen this in the comments on this blog, most recently here where a commenter questioned the validity of Christians protesting the war in Iraq because the “gospel” had not been preached.

But this is what I do not understand. The teachings of Jesus, and in turn the Gospel, clearly emphasizes the need to meet physical needs, not because it makes us feel good, but because when we are meeting physical needs of the poor we are meeting the physical needs of Jesus:

(34) Then the King will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (35) for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; (36) I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.”

Nowhere in this passage does Jesus say this:

“Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for you spoke ‘God’s Truth’ because the eternal life is more important than the earthly life.

While Jesus did speak of an eternal life, he did not only focus on such. He also focused on the temporal and the physical world. He spoke of meeting tangible needs like food, clothing, shelter, and friendship. And while he also spoke of the need to confess and stop sinning, he did not command us to do the same. We were not commanded to tell people to sin no more. We were commanded to give food to the hungry, offer a drink to the thirsty, give our bed to the stranger, clothe the naked, visit the sick, and go to the prison.

We also see this clearly in Jesus’ ministry. Of course, we see Jesus “preaching” about “truth” and “sin.” But it is also quite clear that Jesus spent time caring about “comfort” needs: healing the sick, feeding the hungry, etc. This care for the temporal was also not a secondary task, bot often a primary one. There are numerous examples of Jesus first meeting the physical needs, and then the spiritual needs. There are also examples of Jesus solely meeting the physical, or “comfort,” needs of those around him. Even in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Peter cut the Sanhedrin’s ear off, Jesus took the time to heal the man.

Do not get me wrong – I believe that there can be, and often is, a need to speak God’s truth. But I strongly believe that God’s truth goes a lot further than many see it as. God’s truth is meeting feeding the hungry. Part of God’s truth is standing up against unjust violence and war. God’s truth is befriending a prisoner on death row. God’s truth is showing love to those that are often difficult to love.

[cross posted at the mindful mission]

[Writers note: This is a post that I wrote over at my blog last year - sorry it is so long]

Smiles asked the following question on a post below:

First off, lets establish that the government has the Biblical and God ordained right to punish evil men(Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2). So the government does have the right to punish. Next as you have agreed with Roland that God set up a government in the OT that allowed for the death penalty. Add that to no command in the New Testament that says governments can’t condemn to death, would it not be logical to assume that the death penalty is an allowed penalty to those who break the law in a way that death would be a just punishment?

I decided to reply with a new post.

Lets actually take a look at these two passages. Here are the relevant verses from Romans 13:

1. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.
2. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval;
4. for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.
5. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.
6. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing.
7. Pay to all what is due them”taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
8. Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
10. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

Romans 13 says that we must submit to government authority. And in turn that a government has a right to punish those that break the law. I agree with you there. But if you continue reading the passage, it goes to say, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” I find it really difficult to claim that killing and loving your neighbor can be reconcilable.

Now…here are the relevant verses from 1 Peter 2:

13. For the Lord’s sake accept the authority of every human institution, F12 whether of the emperor as supreme
14. or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.
15. For it is God’s will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish.
16. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil.
17. Honor everyone. Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
18. Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.

1 Peter 2 says that government authorities were sent to punish “those who do wrong.” Of course, it goes on to say that slaves must submit to their masters. I am curious to hear if you think that slaves were wrong to attempt to escape slavery?

Neither passage talks about instituting death as the ultimate punishment.

If anything, the passages do not talk about punishment but instead talk about obedience to the government, correct?

Now…if we look at the Gospels, Jesus clearly shot down capital punishment. You can start with the “turn the other cheek” passage. While many say that this is an individual claim, such things did not really exist in the Ancient Near East. The “eye for an eye” command was part of Jewish law, which was the governing authority for the Jewish people of the day. And Jesus clearly said that that law was no longer valid.

The same can be said about the woman adulteress about to be stoned, when Jesus stopped the execution. We will never know what Jesus wrote in the dirt, but we do know that Jesus once again overturned a Jewish law mandating death. This passage is interesting in that he did not actually overturn the law, but he asserted that only the guiltless could institute such a penalty. And as we all know, “all have sinned,” meaning there is no such thing as “guiltless.”

Furthermore, what I would consider the essence of the teachings of the Gospels is to love God and love others. And “others” is not limited to those that do good or those that you like. Jesus is very clear that we are to love out enemies and show grace to them, forgiving them 70 times 7. Grace, forgiveness, and love are not reconcilable with the death penalty.

Now, it is important to look at the Old Testament, as this what you are mainly basing your argument on. The institution of the death penalty in the Old Testament is quite different than the way it is currently used in the United States. Lets take a look at some of the differences.

• Most scholars would agree that the OT principle of “eye for an eye” was not a requirement as much as a limitation. This was not a command saying that one must lose their hand if they steal. It is saying that one cannot lose more than their hand if they steal.
• The OT clearly has capital offenses that are not considered to such today, such as adultery, homosexuality, accidental manslaughter and rebellious teenagers (see Exodus 21). If you are going to base your argument on the OT allowance of the death penalty, would you not have to also allow it for these “lesser” crimes?
• There were more restrictions on the death penalty in the OT than exist today (though there were more instances where it was allowed).
• The OT mandates better evidence for a capital crime than exists today. In the OT there needed to be at least two witnesses for such crimes, where today no such requirement exists. At times this nation kills individuals when there are no eye witnesses to the crime.
• There is a clear sense of mercy in the OT. While the death penalty was allowed, there is also frequent theme through the OT that one should show mercy to an offender.

While the Old Testament does allow for the death penalty, it is a very different system than exists today, with both more capital crimes and more restrictions than exist today.

I think that the Gospels, along with the rest of the New Testament, are pretty clear about how we should treat out enemies. And it is not to kill them.

When Jesus said love you enemies, I don”t think he meant to kill them.

continue reading…

From Derek Webb’s I Repent:

i repent, i repent of my pursuit of america’s dream
i repent, i repent of living like i deserve anything
of my house, my fence, my kids, my wife
in our suburb where we’re safe and white
i am wrong and of these things i repent

I was listening to this song today – it is a song about repentance. It was given a long introduction (on the live CD) about how the American church needs to learn to be more open about their shortcomings and repent for their sin.

And then he starts the song with “I repent of my pursuit of America’s dream.”

Here is my question for you…

Is the one’s pursuit of the American Dream something that one should repent for?

Is the pursuit of the American Dream compatible with the pursiot of the life that Jesus has called us to?

[cross posted at Mindful Mission]

A recent Christian Century article opened with this paragraph:

Gatherings of the worldwide Anglican Communion have been contentious events in recent years. On one occasion, two bishops were participating in a Bible study, one from Africa, the other from the U.S. As the hours went by, tempers frayed as the African expressed his confidence in the clear words of scripture, while the American stressed the need to interpret the Bible in the light of modern scholarship and contemporary mores. Eventually, the African bishop asked in exasperation, “If you don’t believe the scripture, why did you bring it to us in the first place?”

Of course, much of the “contention” has resulted from the disagreements on the role that women and homosexuals play in the church, specifically in church leadership. But I am not going to directly address those issues, but instead address this quote:

If you don’t believe the scripture, why did you bring it to us in the first place?

This is an interesting question. Why bring scripture if you do not believe in it? This line of questioning is often directed to those that hold to a more liberal view of scripture. But “those that hold to a more liberal view of scripture” is a pretty vague grouping also – this covers a large range of people of varying levels of faith and belief in scripture.

With that said, I begin this discussion by saying this – not believe in the scripture does not equate with wanting/needing a better understanding (culturally, linguistically, academically, etc) of what a specific passage means in the current culture and society that we live in.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. But that does not mean that I always use the Bible as a literal tool for guidance. The Bible is a piece of literature, and just like any other piece of literature, it needs to be understood in the context of when it was written and who it was written to. Within these important contextual understandings one also needs to look at the language, the genre, the tone, and other related literary factors that will help us understand the true intent of a passage. So while the Bible may be the inspired word of God, we still cannot ignore the important contextual issues related to it as a piece of literature. Furthermore, it becomes even more important to understand the Bible culturally being that it is a religious text that offers guidance to how we live.

So what does all of this mean in terms of “believing the scripture?” It is clear that the Bible was not written in 2006 and it was not written to a technological society we all currently live in. In turn we need to understand both the Ancient Near East (the time/culture that the Bible was written in/to) and the current time/culture that we live in. This becomes even more difficult when we realize that we live in an incredible diverse world with a wide range of cultural understanding and mores.

Back to the original quote. I find it incredibly arrogant for someone to claim that others do not believe in the scripture simply because the want to understand what it means in our current culture. I also find it incredibly ironic that many that hold to a fundamentalist/literal view of the Bible only do it when convenient.

How many fundamentalists do you see wearing fancy clothes/make up?

How many women keep their head covered in church?

How many fundamentalists take Jesus’ teachings seriously to love your enemies? Or love the poor? Or be peacemakers?

I know very, very few Christians who take the entirety of the Bible literally. So why is that people are pick and choose (and sometimes rightfully so) what they take literally get angry at others who “pick and choose” differently?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not one to say that there are thousands of different interpretations of the same Biblical passages. But I do not frustrated with those who claim to take the Bible more seriously than I do simply based on a handful of controversial passages, even though they take other far less controversial passages much less seriously than I do.

I find it heart breaking that there are those who attack one’s belief in the Bible simply because they interpret things differently or look at the Bible through appropriate cultural lenses.

This takes back to the classic quote purported to be from John Wesley:

In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.

[cross posted at the mindful mission]

My look at the Emergent Church (EC) will be more of a sociological look. Kevin tells me that he will give more of a theological/ecclesiological look. I have a lot of loose connections with those involved in the EC, and am currently in the process of starting a service that will resemble some of the EC ideologies, so I have a little knowledge of the movement. I am by no means an expert, but more of an observer with similar thoughts about church.

The Emergent Church is both an organization and a movement, often confused but not always the same thing. But in reality they are connected in that they have similar ideals, similar visions, and similar philosophies.

Emergent Village (the organization) is the place to start in attempting to understand what they are doing:

Emergent is a growing generative friendship among missional Christian leaders seeking to love our world in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Our dream is to join in the activity of God in the world wherever we are able, so that God’s dreams for our world come true. In the process, the world can be healed and changed, and so can we.

In English, the word “emergent” is normally an adjective meaning coming into view, arising from, occurring unexpectedly, requiring immediate action (hence its relation to “emergency”), characterized by evolutionary emergence, or crossing a boundary (as between water and air). All of these meanings resonate with the spirit and vision of emergent. In other languages, names for regional networks will be chosen with similarly evocative meanings.

These churches tend to have a post-modern philosophy, and often are less (sometimes a lot less) conservative than most Evangelical churches.

One of the characteristics of “Emergent” churches that you are often hear is that they often attempt to “do church” differently. They do not like to be forced into a box that they must fit into. This looks differently for each church – worship may different, teaching tends to be more “irreverent,” dress is casual, etc. But in reality these churches are more focused on philosophical differences than in structural differences.

They believe that in the changing world that we live in, we must respond accordingly:

This complex and many-faceted transition calls for innovative Christian leaders from all streams of the Christian faith around the world to collaborate in unprecedented ways. We must imagine and pursue the development of new ways of being followers of Jesus … new ways of doing theology and living biblically, new understandings of mission, new ways of expressing compassion and seeking justice, new kinds of faith communities, new approaches to worship and service, new integrations and conversations and convergences and dreams.

In my mind this new movement has been in response to the growth of things like the Religious Right, the Church Growth Movement (CGM) (which they are ironically deeply connected with in a lot of ways), and the Seeker Friendly movement. People sat back and observed what they saw as problematic forms of the Christian church, and wanted to respond with something that they believed was more Biblically focused.

The EC is also deeply involved in culture. They believe that you must be culturally relevant. The difference between the EC and the Seeker/CGM churches is that the EC is more focused on authenticity. They don’t want church to be fun, they want it to be real. They don’t want to entertain, they want to worship in culturally relevant ways. They are also very experiential. They believe that the Christian life, and church, is about experience. They often look at ancient spiritual practices for this experiential aspect, including things like labyrinths, candles, communion, etc.

The last thing that you will hear about a lot regarding the EC is the “conversation.” They firmly believe in dialog. They do not pretend to have everything figured out. They are constantly referring to the conversation. They have Emergent Conversation conferences, where they genuinely desire to have conversations of God, theology, the church, and culture.

Honestly, the EC tends to be somewhat difficult define, as it is more of a movement than a denomination. It is a philosophy more than a doctrine. It is churches attempting to respond to a changing world.

For a better look at the Emergent Church and those who are “emergent”, check out the following blogs:

• Pomomusings
• Tall Skinny Kiwi
• Jordan Cooper
• the pagittBlog
• Urban Onramps
• Theoblogy