Theology for the Masses

Central to Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Abraham is the promises of land and offspring. The land is dealt with first in chapters 12-15, where it is clear the Canaanites will be removed from the land and it will be given to Abraham and his offspring (12:6-7); the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah being the first fruits of this promise. This explains Yahweh’s speech in 18:17-21, where He tells Abraham of his plans for these cities precisely because Abraham’s offspring will inhabit this land and will need to understand that holiness is essential to maintaining possession.

Though it is promised at the beginning of his story (12:1), it is not until the end that Abraham attains any portion of the land, and a small piece, even then, for his and Sarah’s burial (23:17-18) near the trees of Mamre (23:17).[1] That Abraham never fully realizes this promise is reinforced by the narrators’ repeated reference to the land as “Canaan,” though Abraham has lived there for years (12:5, 13:12, 16:3, 17:8, 23:2 & 19). However, it cannot be ignored that Abraham is staking a claim for himself and Yahweh through the land when he builds altars to Yahweh and calls on Yahweh’s name (12:8), and plants trees (21:33).

A second feature in Yahweh’s covenant is the promise of offspring, dealt with in chapters 16-24. The offspring promise evades fulfillment for a number of years after the initial promise is made. Yet Abraham righteously believes God will fulfill what He has resolved to do pertaining to the promise of progeny (15:16).

Offspring and ancestry play vital roles in the narrative as the means by which a person might live on after they die. Abrahamic religion has no concept of eternal glory or damnation; both are restricted to this life. His offspring, then, assist Abraham in seeing himself as part of a larger narrative Yahweh is developing; a narrative extending beyond him into a larger cosmic plan (12:3).

So, the promise of offspring also highlights the importance of family. The idea of an autonomous individual is entirely absent. Indeed, the text views independence and self-seeking as negative. The prime example of this being Lot’s self-serving decision to choose the beautiful plains of Jordan (13:10-11), which ultimately costs him his wife, his home and the purity of his family line (19:36).Yet even when he violates this norm, a sense of familial responsibility (12:17) and obligation (14:10-16) arises in the clan. Such family solidarity is not even not broken in death (25:8).[2]

———————————————————————–
[1] Trees appear frequently in these narratives, often in association with the building of altars (13:18) or an appearance of Yahweh (18:1). Though the mentioning of them is unexplained and ambiguous, they probably symbolizing permanence and ownership over a land where he roams as a transient nomad, a transience which can be endured, however, as the land is a promised, perpetual possession (17:8).

[2] I find it particularly interesting that Abraham goes to be with his fathers, when it was his fathers that he was originally called forth from. Abraham’s ancestors were probably polytheists, but whatever life-after-death theology there is in the Abraham narratives, it seems to include those who do not follow Yahweh. Unless, of course, this phrase is to be taken as idiomatic.

The other day I was speaking with a friend about the pessimism of our generation, how our Hermeneutic of Suspicion has so permeated every part of our lives that we are (at least I am) too skeptical even for the Holy Spirit. In an age when politicians have bombarded us with promises un-kept, when our preachers of holiness have had extra-marital lovers, and when our God seems increasingly distant, we do not feel we can trust anyone, especially the subjective “inner witness of the Spirit” which cannot be measured or counted by any kind of empirical method I know of.

Even we Postmodern’s who think truth transcends empirical verification struggle to discern the work of the Spirit precisely because we have no way of gauging it. We recognize, hopefully, that there are times when it seems the Spirit is leading us to do one thing, but then when all the chips fall we see that we regrettably misunderstood. Any college student who’s ever used the line “God is telling me to break-up with you” after previously saying “I think it is God’s will that we date” can testify to what this failure to discern looks like. But what are we supposed to do about this?

Paul tells us that if anyone has the Spirit of Christ then he belongs to Christ. But how do I know that I have the Spirit of Christ? He answers that we know this because the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we belong to God. But how is this witness sensed? Does this witness look the same for every person? What about when I don’t feel the witness of the Spirit or discern it in any way?

You see, I have trouble with this kind of reasoning – if feel that, in some way, Paul is leaving me to my subjective whims. One minute I may see the fingerprints of God on everything in my life, sensing the Holy Spirit in every footstep I take and every choice I make. The next minute (and this is far more prevalent), I feel abandoned, completely forsaken by any divine testimony, cold and wintry, alone. In fact, if I’m completely honest with you, often (especially recently) when I discern the work of the Spirit in my life, it seems like God is more of a Cosmic Sadist than a Lover wooing me to drink deeply of His Being.

In other words, there’s no consistency here. I have no objective means by which I can discern the witness of the Spirit from heart burn, upset stomach, indigestion, or….well, you get it. In the end, I lack the ability to empirically verify the work of the Spirit, and that’s the only way I know how to sense anything.

But even if I were able to discern the work of the Spirit through verifiable means – I surely couldn’t trust the statistics, could I? Often in our churches we have replaced genuine Holy Spirit movement with static’s about how many have attended or been baptized. Indeed, one clear sign that this isn’t a genuine witness of the Spirit’s presence is that, at least in my Southern Baptist circles, we have tended to lie about our numbers. So, empirical verification is out the window – too easily manipulated by our false-selves.

When we return to the subjective elements of this discussion, though, my skepticism goes deeper still. I wonder if maybe I don’t even want any kind of assurance or subjective witness of the Spirit. That is, when I look around at the comfortable Christianity lacing our pews, eating the greasy sermonic foods of pop-psychology and easy-believism I can’t help but wonder if inner witness and assurance make us fat. Maybe it is better that I never feel I am completely in the arms of God – for then, at least, I know I must continue to press toward the mark of attaining the resurrection of the dead. At least then I know I can’t sit comfortably in my pew assuming God is for me and not against me. Indeed, at least I cannot mistake false-assurance or false-witness for the real thing.

Interestingly, I hear people say things like, “God told me…” and I, sometimes, believe they are telling the truth. They are generally people I trust, who I know have a good relationship with God, so I have no reason to be critical of such a statement coming from them. But I wonder why there are so few times, if any at all, in my life when this has happened to me? Do I not read my Bible enough, fellowship enough, attend enough church activities, pray enough? Maybe I’m just not spiritual enough. Maybe I’m still fettered by Enlightenment rationalism and anti-experience. I just want God to tell me something – anything, that I can take and say, “Yeah, that was the witness of the Spirit, that was God telling me….” Unfortunately most of the time I feel He’s an Absentee Landlord.

I truly wish things weren’t this way. I wish I could write a much more positive and enlightening treatise on the Holy Spirit. Hopefully one day I will be able to. But for now – I can neither trust empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work, nor my subjective whims which may be the by-product of having eaten at Taco Bell 2 hours ago. I think I’m just too skeptical for the Holy Spirit – and this scares me.

One of the more disconcerting passages in all the Bible is the rape of Tamar, David’s daughter, by her half-brother Amnon (2 Samuel 13). As the narrative goes, Tamar is “loved” by her brother because he was tormented by her beauty. He feigns an illness to be alone with Tamar. When she brings him food to eat, he seizes her and rapes her despite her fervent resistance. After the rape, Amnon loathes his sister more than he ever “loved” her. He thrusts her away as a slave, a piece of property which was expended and now retains no value. To Amnon, she is no longer “Tamar,” she is now “this woman.” She is no longer a person who is “loved,” she is chattel to be discharged. [1]

Amnon learned this behavior from his father – that is, he learned to treat people, especially women, as property instead of humans created in God’s image. Just in the previous chapter David is finally confronted about his rape of Bathsheba and his clandestine execution of Uriah. People and their lives were mere objects to be consumed to David. He cared little for love, for family, for holiness. He cared only for consumption, and people are just another thing to be procured, retain, owned, and conquered.

What I find interesting in this whole matter is how intercourse and economics relate. As the narrative advances, we find Solomon, in the climax of his rule, with infinite wealth and thousands of sex-slaves. Women are objects to be owned – he too learned this from his father. Relationships, love, or devotion have no place in his world. Only objects exist, objects which are bought and sold, owned and operated, controlled and dominated. [2]

When economics and power become the chief agenda of a people, the objectification of others comes to dictate the landscape. This is particularly the case with sex. Sex becomes nothing more than, in our world, two consumers devouring one another, envision the other as an item whose individual purpose is to satisfy my desires without regards to the consequences of this behavior. That’s what consumerism is at its nastiest – a inexhaustible sport of stockpiling objects for one’s own agenda without considering the consequences of that consumption either for the earth, the other person, the community, or the world. It’s all about the ego.

Intercourse and economics – isn’t staggering how a person’s view on one stimulates certain assumptions about the other? When one views economics as merely a means of consumption and gaining wealth, power, and property, one will perceive sex the same way. But if economics is principally about honoring God through the giving away of one’s possessions, one will see sex differently as well. It is not about my desires, it is not about my consumption; it is about the other person, their will, their enjoyment, their desire. People are no longer objects to be owned and dominated (such as in pornography), they are people made in the Image of God! The denial of the ego in economic areas translates into the denial of the ego in the bedroom. This is why Paul lists greed right along side a bunch of sexual sins in Colossians 3. He realized the connection!

Its seems, then, that if we yearn for holiness, maybe our deity of covetousness and wealth ought to go first. If economics is linked to intercourse, imagine what else it is relates to – violence, anger, division, quarreling, pride! Maybe dispossession isn’t only about abnegation, [3] but about sanctification in all areas of life.

1. there is some credence to the thought that this objectification of women is inherent within the Torah. After all, women are listed among the property not to be coveted in the 10 Commandments. [↩]
2. Solomon’s disregard for others in favor of his own economic advancement is well documented among biblical scholars. This actually ends up splitting the kingdom after he dies, if you remember. [↩]
3. Thanks Theotica! [↩]

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.

This is probably not going to be the last post in this series, because I want to address the idea of “divine rape” in God’s effectual call and irresistible grace. This fifth post is going to be on Predestination and Prayer. In Part 4, I argued that Calvinism does not hinder prayer, but that God ordained that his saving, effectual call of his election comes through our preaching of the gospel in 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; and this calling of his elect is the joy of the entire Triune God in Luke 10:21-22–Father, Son, Spirit. In Part 3 I argued that Calvinism does not give license to live however but that it gives the foundation and confidence to live the life of holiness we are called to live for (Hebrews 12:12-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15; Ephesians 1:4; Philippians 2:12-13; 1 Corinthians 15:8-10). In Part 2, I argued that election is unconditional from Romans 9:11 and from 1 Corinthians 1:20-31 that Calvinism’s unconditional election and effectual call is designed to cut human pride out from under itself and give all glory and honor for salvation to God. In Part 1, I argued that many objections against Five-point Calvinism (TULIP) comes from people assuming it is the same as Hyper-Calvinism, it would be the same thing as assuming Arminianism is either Open Theism or Pelagianism; if this confusion would stop, many objections would cease, and so I tried to demonstrate the difference between the biblical Five-point and Hyper-Calvinism. So let us turn to Predestination and Prayer.

continue reading…

Today I want to discuss the next objection on my list, Election and Evangelism. Let me review the series so far. In the first post, I tried to distinguish historic, five-point Calvinism from hyper-Calvinism. In the second post, I showed that election in a Reformed soteriology is not a source of pride and arrogance, but is a humbling action of God that reveals his glory, from Romans 9:11 and 1 Corinthians 1:20-31. In the third post, I argued that election does not diminish our pursuit of obedience and holiness, but rather grounds our pursuit and gives us confidence that we will be obedience.

continue reading…

I want to begin a post series trying my best to answer some objections to the doctrines of Grace that I have encountered over the last two-plus years. The ones that I will attempt to answer are these: Election leads men to be proud and arrogant because they are “elect;” Why should I pray according to Calvinism; Why should I evangelize; Why should pursue holiness. I will take them in the order listed.

But before I get into the objection of pride because of election (I haven’t really heard this objection personally, unlike the other three, but I know it is out there), I to address an historical issue. Namely, the difference between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. The last three objections–prayer, evangelism, and holy living–stem out of an apparent failure to distinguish Hyper-Calvinsim. The following is based off of the discussion of Hyper-Calvinism at Theopedia.com.

continue reading…