Tuesday, January 27, 2009

James--Practical Theologian

I have been meditating and studying James for a couple of weeks in preparation for our upcoming series. Recently, I have begun seeing James' ability to apply theology to his hearers. Practical theology is best not thought of as a list of dos and don'ts, but as theology that aims to be formative; beliefs about and from God that shape our practices--often dos, but sometimes don'ts--in order to shape our character.

Let me give one example of James' practical theology. James is writing to Jewish believers scattered throughout the Roman empire--a phenomenon called the diaspora. As a result of this scattering, some Jews are poor and without land, while some are wealthy, owning land away from Jerusalem. James starts to address this disparity not by telling all his hearers to share and be nice, but by pointing out the benefit of trial. Trials produce perseverance and perseverance leads to maturity and completeness! As a result, James encourages the poor brother to take pride in his high position--a position that enables maturity to be developed.

James continues by charting the course of the rich: the rich should take pride in their low position. They should do this because without a change of attitude, their doom is foretold: they will pass like a plat scorched by the heat. James has taken and applied Jesus' parable of the sower to the wealthy people in this congregation. Just as Jesus said that those seeds which fell in rocky soil were scorched, so James is warning that without a reversal of attitudes, so will the rich of these churches die and be forgotten. The choice is theirs and James makes sure they realize it: "Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you."

Notice that James does not give a road map to solving their problems. Rather, he combines the parable of Jesus ("planted") with the OT law in order to lay out for them their choice. How they live out the word is up to them, but James has made all the connections and challenges. He has redrawn the world appealing to their law--taking care of widows and orphans--and by warning them as Jesus had once warned his listeners.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Is Obama the Anti-Christ?

Watching yesterday's extravagant, elegant, exciting, enduring, exhausting--take your pick--inauguration brought to mind a question I'd heard a couple of times through the campaign: Is Obama the anti-Christ? The question is often posed with suspicions of his religious background or just his overwhelming and (in my opinion) puzzling international popularity. I remain quite neutral toward the man, aside from my critiques of his stance on abortion and stem-cell research. But on to the question this post's title poses: Is Obama the anti-Christ?

Wrapped up in this question is a belief that just prior to the return of Jesus a leader will emerge (often from Europe) who will draw many people to himself, accepting forms of worship, and demanding that people receive some sort of mark that reveals their allegiance to him. This person, the anti-Christ, is also called the Beast in Revelation. His overwhelming power and blasphemy will prove bad news for Christians as they refuse to take his mark (sometimes thought of as a computer chip or another form of embedded code). Times will deteriorate for a period of seven years until Christ returns. Some believe Christians will be rescued from this time of horrid persecution (called the "Tribulation") before it starts; others at the mid-point; others right at the very end. Of course, some Christians hold various parts of this narrative without holding the whole thing. The Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins has expanded and dramatized this narrative, fleshing it out over a series of popular books and movies.

It may surprise some North American Christians that this narrative of end-times is not universally held either in this time or throughout history. Let's take a quick look at the passages which talk about the anti-Christ. The name itself, of course, simply means against the Christ, against Jesus. The word is only found in the Bible five times, all in the letters of John. Here are the passages:

1 John:
2.18: Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

2.22: Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

4.2-3: This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

What immediately stands out is that John is more concerned the spirit of antichrist and the work of antichrist rather than identifying a specific person. He says that many antichrists have come; he says that any person who denies the presence of Jesus or his kingship is antichrist. He is also concerned with the perseverance of the church to whom he writes. There has been a church split of sorts that forces John to write (2:19, 26-27) and he wants those who have stayed to remain faithful to the kingship of Jesus. We do well to remain faithful in our day, as well, when the world tries to live by any King or politician opposed--in word or deed--to Jesus.

But what about Revelation and the beast John describes? What about the number 666? First we have to remember that John is a symbolic writer. Revelation 13 gives an initial description of the beast, one having elements of a leopard, lion, and bear. John takes this description from Daniel's description of four beasts in Daniel 7, combining all these elements to make this beast the worst of any before. In my opinion the beasts are connected with different political reigns that Daniel has seen and is seeing in the history of Israel. When John picks up these pictures he is describing a political power worse than any of those Daniel saw. Second, we must see that John has included clues to the identity of the beast because, as he tells us, if anyone has insight, he can figure out who he is talking about (Revelation 13:18).

So, what clues has John given? First, John tells us that the beast has seven heads and ten horns (13:2). Rome was known as the city settled on seven hills and John connects these seven heads with the seven hills (17:9). Perhaps John is alluding to Rome. Let's keep reading. Second, John tells us that one of the heads has a fatal wound (13:3), but that it had been healed. If John is talking about Rome, does this make sense? Consider that John also says that the beast itself had a fatal wound (13:12). In some way this head on the beast that suffers a fatal wound is both part of the seven-headed monster and yet captures its essence in itself. Is this a clue from John? Yes. In the first century, the first major persecutor of the church was the Emperor Nero who had Paul and Peter executed. Nero exemplified the concern that power had with the early Christians who often acted in countercultural ways, like treating slaves as brothers and meeting with other people around the worship of another King. Nero also suffered a head wound and died, but there was a belief that he had come back to life--that's how scary the early Christians considered him. But all of this isn't quite yet convincing that the beast of Revelation is Nero, although it's certainly a good fit. Is there another clue? Yes, in fact, the clearest one. John tells us that the beast is a man and that his number is 666 (13:18). It used to be common practice that numbers would be assigned to letters of the alphabet. (For example, A=1, B=2, etc.) This was called "gematria." Nero Caesar written in Hebrew letters come out like transliterated like this: nron qsr. The numerical value assigned to these letters is, respectively, 50, 200, 6, 50, 100, 60, 200. Those added up equals to 666. Of course, this is also a symbolic number of being just prior to the number of perfection(7), tripled, like when God is proclaimed as Holy, Holy, Holy. Not only has John identified this beast of a man, but has used these same numbers to describe his beastly mockery of perfection.

So, is Obama the antichrist? No. I believe the beast of Revelation was a real man, Nero, who exhibited the spirit of antichrist by his persecution of Christians and rebellion against Jesus. Obama, just like any one of us, is confronted with this same spirit of antichrist and we as Christians must pray for him and his leadership and offer, in addition to our words of prayer, our words of thoughtful, constructive criticism when we believe he is going astray. Christians owe this to all leaders whose political reigns mirror, however imperfectly, the Kingdom of our Lord and of His King (Rev. 11:15).

Monday, January 19, 2009

Gearing up for James

Hi everyone. Today's post comes from Kurt Hoover, a member of our church currently studying at Cornerstone University in Michigan. It's a reflection on a passage from James 1, mixed with what God is doing in his life. Thanks for writing, Kurt!

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27

I find this passage from the letter from James to be particularly important for Christians to not only read but to ponder and put into action. It seems like today many people are questioning what the church should teach, how they should teach, what we should believe, and how we should go about doing things. Some, myself included, have even questioned the purpose of the church; whether or not it should continue to exist or whether or not we should continue to support it as we know it.

I have just completed the first semester of my freshmen year of college. I attend a Christian university in Grand Rapids Michigan as most of you know and my experience at this school has driven my thinking in a direction that I would never have expected it to be driven before I left home. God is showing me many things regarding the existence of the church through my relationships with people at school, through classes, and through my own study of the scriptures.
I had an experience (I believe a divine experience) early on in the semester that acted as a catalyst of sorts for a whole universe of thinking that was brand new to me. This experience started with my work at a Christian non-profit organization in Grand Rapids called Sabaoth. This organization ministers to poor, urban children who are for the most part Hispanic. I have been volunteering there since the beginning of September and I have heard and seen some things from the children and from the volunteers at this place that had a great impact on me. I would hear stories of how some kids would go home at night to abusive homes, I heard stories of how some kids had cousins or brothers who were in gangs and some even had died from being in them. I heard one story about one of the kids who went home one day to see all of their brothers and sisters on the front porch. When this child asked what was going on the others told him that immigration came for their mother and after that their father packed his bags and left without making sure the kids would be taken care of.

These stories had and still have an immense impact on my heart. At some point a thought occurred to me, “How can the church allow this to happen?” and “Where is the church when this happens?” These questions stuck with me for a while. They have a way of eating at you, especially if you feel you can’t escape the situation. I started to get very frustrated at the Christian church. It seemed and still seems to me that there is immense pain and suffering in this country and yet we remain silent as a whole, we are content to live our lives apart from those who suffer, apart from those who have real need.

This thought sparked some more thinking on my part. I started thinking about how to solve this problem and I tried to pinpoint problems and solutions. At an evening worship event on a Sunday night at school I felt God tug at my heart and tell me something. He told me that I should try and start my own church. The idea as it was in my own head was that it wasn’t really a church at all like we are used to today in this country. After words, I was walking back to my dorm with some good friends and I mentioned this idea and two other guys said they felt the same thing. This only confirmed it for me that this is what I was supposed to do.
We started to come up with ideas on what it should be about, what we should do, how it should look. I started to realize that anything we did was not going to be a real big jump from what we do in church anyway. I struggled with this thought because I wanted to make something different, something to solve a problem that I saw. The problem being poverty and suffering and hurt and I thought the modern church had failed at addressing these issues. My friends wanted the same so we toiled to make it work, to force it to work which is obviously never a good idea. We had our first service sometime in October. It was just me, my friends who helped on the project, and some other good friends of ours who showed up. The day turned out to be a real letdown for me.

With the help of a good friend from home, I started to think about why I was disappointed with what had happened. I had expected God to move in a huge way and that everything would change from that point on. I had expected God to do one thing, but he did something totally different. He moved in a huge way but not how I or my friends had expected Him to. I foolishly thought He would change the world through this angst-fueled, hair-brained scheme when all He wanted to do is show me why things are the way they are. He has used these experiences to show me the real solution to poverty, to godlessness, to pain, to suffering. It’s not going to be an unusual church group, it won’t be a brand new building, it won’t be a massive organization, and it most certainly won’t happen next year. It’s going to be choices that I make everyday starting today. It’s going to be how I decide to spend my money, how I spend my time, my energy today.
To bring it all back, how then should the church act? What should we teach? What should we do? How should we live? I think the answer is very clear in James. A religion that is faultless before the One who we worship would be the religion that takes care of those who have none to care for them. The religion that takes care of those who cannot even take care of themselves; the religion that keeps itself pure from the ways of this world such as greed, social advancement, and a pick yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Can humans become perfect?

Jesus said, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). The phrase is in connection with loving even your enemies. Jesus said that pagans greet their brothers and so the mark of being different, the mark of God himself, is loving those who do not love you. The only other time the word perfect--complete--comes up in Matthew is in Jesus' words to the rich man who wants to follow him. Jesus says to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matt. 19:21).

Interesting that the commands to be perfect as God is perfect is connected with love and kingdom. Perhaps we could boil down Jesus' words in these passage to say that perfection is completion in love and in commitment to the Kingdom. (Interesting, then, to say that if we don't believe humans can become perfect that we are always people who have divided hearts, who display preferential treatment.)

A few things jump out at me from these passages. First, I do not believe that Jesus would give a command he considered unattainable. Second, Jesus' offer to the rich young ruler was to come with Jesus; Jesus would be with him in his journey of kingdom commitment. Third, this call to perfection is really good news. In the first passage, Jesus is expanding the family category, as it is in the context of being sons (and daughters) of God, which means brother- and sisterhood with those who are not blood relatives. We must also note that the Kingdom Jesus preaches is one that is consistently pushing the boundaries of inclusion outward. (It is not one that has no boundaries, as evidenced by the rich man walking away.)

So, how can we answer this question of perfection from Matthew? First, that our ability to become like God in loving all is without limit. Jesus has told us to be perfect in love as God is perfect. Second, our progress in this journey is not one that achieves God's favor, but that is made possible only by God's favor and Jesus' partnership with us. Consider the glorious implications: 1. We can become even more loving towards those we already love. 2. This love we have for our natural relations can be expanded to include all--even those who hate us. 3. We can live by a different set of rules than the world--the rules of God's Kingdom.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Are humans "free"?

This is a tough question because "freedom" has different contexts. Political freedom is often tied to democratic, representative governments, free press, and market capitalism--people are in control of themselves in their nations to a great extent. Personal freedom is tied to independence--perhaps having a car or means of transportation and a sense of autonomy. Religious freedom is connected with an opportunity to discern and pursue different religious avenues. Yet Christians could affirm that one who is lacking political, personal, and religious freedom could still be spiritually free. By this Christians mean that this person is free to respond to their circumstances as Jesus would respond, empowered by his Spirit. This person is free to love, be joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and in control of their reactions. In short, they are free to choose their response.

But don't we think that everyone is free to choose what they do? Christians traditionally have said No. People are not free to choose what they do--they do not have "free will" because humans have an inward bent--they are "depraved." "Depraved comes from a Latin word that means to bend or make crooked. Humans, each and every one of us, are bent toward ourselves. Christians have not only affirmed this depravity, but a total depravity, meaning that every part of us is bent toward ourselves. John Drury says that total depravity does not mean that "we are as bad as we possibly could be, but rather there's no 'safe' part of us that we can count on as innocent and good over against our fallen parts." This means that humans are not free to choose; we choose what's best for ourselves because we are bent inwards.

This sounds like a bad situation, but by God's grace, it's not. While humans are not free in themselves, because God is at work in the world, we see elements of selfless activity. We see people sacrifice their own time, money, strength, life for others without thought of their own well-being. What does this mean for our discussion of freedom?

John Wesley affirmed that freedom is restored to humanity by the grace of God. Were it not for God's empowering grace, human freedom is completely lost. Yet God's grace enables the "first faint desire" (John Wesley) we have for God--and for others. Any sign of love is a sign of God's grace.

Notice what this means, then. It means that one can only choose to sin when God's Spirit is at work in that person. If God's Spirit is not at work, then one doesn't choose to sin; one acts in their slavery to sin. The only time we choose to sin is by the power of God enabling that choice in the first place. So, why does God graciously enable people in whom his Spirit is at work to sin? Because it's in that graciously restored freedom that God works with us to conform our wills to the good, to God. That's the free response of love that God is wanting and which he makes possible.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Where does theology come from?

Where do you find out about God? Does knowledge of God come from books? Does it come from parents? Does it come from thinking really hard? Does it come from reflecting on our own life and experiences? Wesleyans have answered this question with a Yes. Theology comes from all these things--Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This means that we know about God from our Bibles, Christian history, thinking and reflection, and life experience. They are all "sources."

But what about when these sources are in conflict? What if my experience of God is different from yours? What judges between our beliefs? Wesleyans affirm that Scripture is a theological "norm." This means that Scripture is the judge of all other sources of theology. If my experience of God is out of step with Scripture (like feeling God is a Cowboys fan), then I submit to Scripture.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Thoughts on Tithing

1. Tithing isn't magic. Too often we read Malachi 3:10 as a promise that a gift of 10% of our income is an investment with quantifiable returns. A gift of $10 to God brings back $100! Well, no. (The context of the passage is about return of crops and protection from pests.) While we all know stories of people who began tithing and their businesses earned double and triple in the next year, I also know stories of people who gave and gave and gave and never made an extra dime. That God blesses some people some of the time in financial ways is to be expected. That it is only sometimes is proof that tithing isn't magic.

2. Tithing at a local, institutional church should be tied to that church's mission. If you cannot support the mission and work of an institutional church that you attend, then you're missing out on one of the privileges God's gift of the institutional church offers. I think belonging to an institutional church is a tremendous aid in the Christian life, but that it is not even close to the support needed and community available to friends of Jesus. The institutional church is not the whole of the Church. At times the institutional church can be a step to that support and into that community; at times it can be a hindrance. Still, tithing at an institutional church is one of the most important ways to achieve your own buy-in to its mission. You start to add your voice; your hands and feet; your prayers to its life when your money is there. As Jesus said, where your money is, there your heart will be also. If your church's mission is not one you can support, then consider finding one you can! Don't settle for less!

3. Tithing is about character. By this I don't mean that people who don't tithe don't have strong character, because there are times when people must stop tithing for financial reasons. By saying "Tithing is about character" I mean that the practice itself--whether it is given to an institutional church, a Christian mission, families / individuals in need--is about practicing who you want to become. A standard gift from the top has enabled me to become better with the following 90% because of a change in character in two specific ways. First, I have become more devoted and joyful in a simple lifestyle. The other 90% of my money simply goes further because of what I now (don't) desire to spend it on. Second, I have become more generous. I don't mean I give away more money; I mean that I want to give away more--of my time, of my food, of my books...of me.

4. Bad thoughts on tithing have abused people, heaping needless feelings of shame and guilt, even from well-meaning people, onto many people. Sometimes those who have given over and again, even when they didn't have it to give, are precisely those who the church should be helping with the tithes and offerings of others. As such, I think tithing is best taught on as a privilege and opportunity.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Review: The Shack

The Shack, William Young's tale of Mack, his family tragedy, and his divine encounter, has become the NY Times number one best selling trade paperback fiction. Perhaps not exactly what Young was expecting, but certainly a hopeful sign that average people are still captivated by theology. Even good theology.

The Shack is the spiritual story of Mackenzie Allen Phillips (Mack), written by his friend Willie. On a camping trip with three of his children, Mack's youngest daughter, Missy, is kidnapped. All that is found is her bloody dress in an old shack. Missy is presumed dead and Mack returns home under the weight of what he calls, The Great Sadness. His relationship with God, already strained by his own father's abusive ways, becomes one of bitterness and anger. One day, Mack receives a note, inviting him to the shack--the shack--where his daughter was found, signed by none other than God.

When Mack arrives at the shack, God is not who he would expect. The Father, Papa, is a large African-American woman who loves to cook. Jesus is a Jewish laborer who wears work gloves. The Holy Spirit is a small Asian woman, Sarayu, dressed as a gardener. Not exactly who Mack would expect! As Mack interacts with each of them he hears of their internal relationship, their passions and hobbies, and how his own theological beliefs fall dreadfully short. Mack's weekend at the shack, leads to his experience of the full love of God, forgiveness with his father, and the beginning of forgiveness of the man who killed his daughter.

The Shack is better theology than fiction, which is not necessarily a significant critique as its theology is considered and thoughtful. However, the prose felt a little forced at times, trying very hard to be descriptive and detailed, which bogged the story down. Young's Trinitarian theology is solid. While God appears as two women and one man, Papa assures Mack that the Father and the Spirit are neither male nor female, though both sexes are derived from God's nature. God has created humanity to relate interdepently as sexes, woman originally coming from the rib of man (Eden having been a real place), and every man and woman now coming through women.

I would contend with three of Young's belief, however, (at least) two of which stem from his frustration with the institutional church. First, Young commits the heresy of patripassionism. Papa bears wounds on his wrists, just as Jesus does. Mack comments to Papa that he is sorry that he had to die (103), though it is specifically Jesus who dies. Papa never abandoned Jesus on the cross, though it felt like that. While some will wonder why this matters, it is important to maintain the Trinitarian relations that Young has skillfully described. If the Father has the same experience as the Son, then these two persons are in danger of being collapsed into each other. Further, part of atonement is Jesus entering the situation of estrangement from God and being brought back. If the Father has not abandoned the Son (at least politically), then the Son has not entered the fallen state of humanity.

Second, Young's Old Testament theology lacks a concept of covenant. God comments that the 10 Commandments are about teaching people they cannot live righteously. While the law does this on a national level and Paul affirms that the law was powerless to transform people, one must always consider the law as God's gift, evidence God has set Israel aside. But not only evidence, the gracious means of God's setting aside, intimately connected to the story outsiders enter to become Jews. Young emphasizes the relationship God wants with people that is not marked by rules and expectations, but by expectancy and love. However, the New Testament is full of commands, as well, which Young leaves unaddressed.

Finally, Young lacks a solid political theology. Young's Jesus says, "I don't create institutions--never have, never will." Jesus is not fond of economics, politics (179), preferring relationship. Here Young has failed to take seriously that economics and politics--institutions, markets, cities--are relational. They are fallen relationships, but relationships, nonetheless. To remove Jesus from the creation of institutions also removes Jesus from the powers which emerge from such institutions, which is Manichean and certainly against Paul's words in Colossians that thrones, powers, authorities are created by Jesus. Further, if Jesus is not involved in the creation of institutions, then is he not involved in the creation of orphanages? Hospitals? Universities? Publishing houses?

(One might also point out the personification of God's wisdom Sophia, which indicates a fourth 'person' of God. Better had Young somehow worked this into Jesus and how his story reflects the story of wisdom, but I'll leave that to New Testament scholars. As a theologian, I am uncomfortable with a 'personification' or enfleshment of anything in God except God's Word. All enfleshing is in him.)

In the end, I believe Young's work is worth reading and reflection. It would serve as a good text for church small groups to the extent that it raises a number of important issues in forming church. I appreciated Young's creativity and fearlessness in addressing preconceived notions of God. Even in the above criticisms to a partial extent, Young's work is critical and thoughtful. He has not written this work sloppily and would likely have strong and thoughtful responses to my critiques. In the end, my critiques are disagreements and not necessarily points that Young would see the need to change or sharpen. Finally, Young's book is a significant story that could form the imagination of people in need of reconciliation or forgiveness in their own tragedies. It paints a nice picture of God's involvement in this blue-green ball in black space and God's love for it and all its inhabitants.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Don't eat sand

If you listen to the same radio stations I do, then you've heard an advertisement about using teachable moments in the lives of children. The ad presents a young woman at the beach with her child, talking about the water, the sand, and what makes them different. The mother says, "Oh, no, that's sand. We don't eat sand." (That's good advice no matter how old you are.) The ad finishes by saying something like, "Children are naturally curious. Take advantage of this attitude to create teachable moments in everyday living."

Yesterday Pastor Gary talked a little about childlike faith and that children are naturally trusting. Part of this is simple necessity because children are so completely dependent on others in authority. However, as the ad states, children are naturally curious; their trusting attitude is not one that asks no questions, but that asks *many* questions.