Theology for the Masses

But the basic religious economic premise was not just about being nice to poor folks. It was about the flow of God’s abundance that must move through the whole society, not get stuck in the pockets of the rich.

Read the rest: Let’s Try Biblical Economics from On Faith by Arthur Waskow

Religion Overthrowing Heresy and Hatred by Legros the Younger

I know I ask this ‘bout once a year, but what do you do with the category of “heresy?”  I keep wondering about the distinction between someone having a wrong doctrine and someone being cut off from fellowship and naming by other Christians.

On the one hand, I think my reformed sisters (and brothers) are wrong about a great many of things. This wrongness that I assign to them (and them to me) cuts deep, it pertains to matters as important as the nature of God and the process of salvation.  But I still name them Christians and fellowship with them as much as they allow (which can vary greatly, let me tell you). 

On the other hand, I think of some of my Latter-Day Saints brothers (and sisters) are wrong about a great many things.  This wrongness that I assign to them (and them to me) cuts deep; it pertains to matters as important as the nature of God and the process of salvation.  Because of this, I refuse to name them Christians (unless I am talking about how they self-identify) and fellowship with them in terms of our common humanity and not on the basis of a shared faith.

I’ll name the one set of wrongness “heresy” and the other I’ll brand “disagreements."  These may seem to be obvious examples, but where do you draw the line between them?  I’m not interested in dead men’s formulations being quoted ad nauseum,  I wanna hear about how you all deal with such things on the ground, in real life. 

Also, I get the sense that Christians, here and throughout time, have been quick to name, reject, and delegitimize views different than our own, as if they no longer had anything meaningful to say to us.  Do you get this sense?  Is it just me?  I am reminded of countless blog posts, conversations, readings of Church fathers, and Christian columnists summarily dismissing an idea, movement, or everything a figure had to say on the basis of a boxed, wrapped, and delivered heresy that we assign to them.  I will recognize the value of striving for truth and truth alone, but I wonder how useful this approach is – or when this approach is useful and when it is counter-productive to the growing of the kingdom of God.

When we stifle opposing voices, we turn them off and turn them away.  Our truth cannot be conquered by a lie and it need not worry itself (nor do we need to worry ourselves) concerning this.  Additionally, it may just be the case that people with certain wrong views can teach me a great deal – maybe it is God’s will for me do learn from them.  But it can’t happen if I reject them wholesale.  Additionally, if we set ourselves up as a community that ostracizes at the hint of dissenting, then we risk stifling doubt and risk cast people who might have such doubt along their journey towards the Father out, thereby alienating them from God’s community. 

Anyway, this is just some ramblings from a tired person who can afford to question such things at the moment.  What do you do with such things? 

Good morning peoples.  I am relatively unschooled in the issues of Hebrew Bible literary formation.  Danny, over at Personman, references a History Chanel documentary which claims a rather uninspiring view of book and canon formation in hist post entitled :: The Bible Unearthed.

I felt like I had good things to say over there about issues surrounding the edge of history and the edge of faith, but am ignorant as to the claims made in the documentary.

If you are knowledgeable in these areas and wish to comment, please do over there. (And I am pretty much asking/begging you to).

I have had a terrible approach to the study of scripture since the great fracture of 2002 (my adventures at Central Christian College of the Bible). As I am reapporaching my faith in the wake of that experiance, I am looking for good ways to reapproach the Bible. One of my convictions is constructing a book by book Biblical theology. Another one that I am looking to start is paraphrasing the Bible, one chapter at a time. Basically, all it would/has entail[ed] is the translation of a passage of scripture into my own vernacular. I think this helps one see the curves of the narrative of the passage, but this paraphrase would be an excellent item to revisit the next time you go to approach the same text.

What do you all think? Does this idea sound fruitful? Do any of you utilize this approach in your study of the Word of God?

The latest Christian Carnival (CCXVI) is up over at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet. Check it out.

Christian Carnival CCXVI–At Crossroads Today

Here are some of the highlights:
John 18:1-4 – Getting Christological Perspective – A good post on the dangers of looking through scripture with a singular, forced perspective from Deep Bible Study. (Hint: the danger is heresy)

Why This Friday is so Good – As Good Friday approches, Brain Cramps for God looks 50 fifty reasons the Bible gives for Jesus’ coming to die. (We’ll forgive the use of Piper! ;) )

A different view of Scripture by Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength – A “||” reading of scripture.

Faith lived out.

H/T: Scott Parsons.

This comes from my favorite blogger, April DeConick of The Forbidden Gospels Blog

The question of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is a fine example of this as we have discussed on this blog and others in the past. As a historian, this is not a historical event because dead bodies don’t rise. It is a faith event. Even the second century Valentinians seem to have understood this. What did the Valentinian teacher tell Rheginus about this? He said quite bluntly, “For, my child, ‘the dead shall rise!’ belongs to the domain of faith, not of argument.”

I don’t want to give it all away here, so go there: What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? My perspective

Came across this excellent link today via while reading novus lumen :: The Redemption of “I Am Legend”, that listed 10 ways to “deconstruct” your faith. I know some of them are excellent ways to refresh or re-examine the way you orient yourself towards God and fellow humans. I can’t vouch for the readings on the list, but I am sure that they are at they are at least worth reading and considering. I really liked #3, 5, and 10.

10 Ways To Deconstruct Your Faith

The sometimes funny WuzzaDem looks at Hitchens’ reply to Romney’s Mormon speech: Shocker: Christopher Hitchens Bashes Mitt Romney Speech.

According to the admittedly very contradictory scriptures of the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth warned his disciples and followers that they should expect to be ridiculed and mocked for their faith. After all, how likely was it that God had decided to reveal himself to only a few illiterate peasants in a barbarous backwater?

What better way to make this point than by mocking and ridiculing Christians?

I think what I like the most about this quote from Hitchens (the first part) is that he is completely anthropomorphizing God here; something the new atheists are always complaining about theists doing (and rightly so!). God must act in the ways that Hitchens thinks that God should act, or the God that others posit does not match Hitchen’s imagined God and therefore does not exist (is there a man of straw in there somewhere?).

C/P at Hundiejo.com

Mine is…

If we accept, which I do, Tom’s rejection of the soteriology of the State, how should Christians interact with the government? I don’t see a scriptural imperative, as the situation of a participatory government as we Americans have currently did not exist during the writing of our set of sacred texts. Given that lack of an imperative, do Christians vote, run for office, try to legislate the tenants of our faith?

Do we wash our hands of participation in government and focus solely on the work of the Kingdom of God, the whole while reaping the benefits of this country’s contradicting history of domination and freedom? Do we actively engage it, using it as a tool to bring God’s distributive and or retributive justice to the people that we can bring it to?

I don’t know, but with the November of 2008 slowly approaching debate by debate, I am giving increasing thought. I’d like to hear yours.

As of yesterday, the latest Christian Carnival is up over at Lingamish, a blog by a Bible translator living in Africa.

The Christian Carnival is a great way to a) find some of the best posts on Christianity/theology out there and b) find some of the best Christian blogs. It is a weekly publication consisting of author submissions that are Christian in nature.

Christian Carnival 193: Lions in Africa edition

Some of the highlights:

• Our Tom on I Timothy 2 and the Artemis Cult
• Fighting Despondency with Faith by Light Along the Journey considers modeling Jesus’ way of dealing with despondency.
• Common prayer is far too uncommon by Lingamish – on the corporate worship that is common prayer

Ok, so the play on early 90’s rap did not work so well. However, I think that on the surface, this quiz encapsulates my current ways of thinking about Christ, theology and the Bible.

You scored as Neo orthodox

You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God’s most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.