a lot has happened since i first started this little series. i began it to explore the tensions that often form between family and friends who have different religious and/or political views. i wanted to more deeply understand what perceptions about key philosophical and theological ideas under girded my view of God, humans, this world, jesus, heaven & hell, salvation, and the purpose of being a christian as opposed to those of family and friends. my hope was that i could pinpoint the differences in order to better and more simply explain my views and understanding.
the purpose of doing this is communication. the different perceptions at the root of these tensions do indeed incite the, sometimes ugly, squabbles families and friends may get into over the topics of religion and politics. but many times the real source of the most bitter arguments come from of a lack in effectively communicating ideas. in identifying key areas of disagreement i believe i can better communicate my views and create constructive dialogue rather than frustrating debates. thus, here is my list, a progression if you will, of the philosophical and theological differences that i believe fuel the tension between the christianity i practice and the christianity of my family and friends:
-a dualistic versus holistic understanding of the sacred and secular-->
-an intrinsically evil creation versus and intrinsically good creation-->
-a God who will ultimately scrap his creation for a new one versus a God who will ultimately restore and reconcile his creation he loves-->
-a future/post-mortem focus versus a here and now focus-->
-being a christian is primarily about escaping earth/going to heaven when one dies versus being a christian is about bringing the kingdom of God to earth through one's life (i.e. thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth...)
i understand that this is only part of the solution, and i would also point out that none of my above points violates any historic orthodox christian doctrines. so outside of these differing perspectives, there is much room for agreement. but the other part involves time.
when i first began spending time with my wife's family, i would have never made an attempt to discuss any of this with them, and not because i was afraid. one reason was because of what i outlined above. i didn't have a clear understanding of what we would be disagreeing over. however, the other is this: it is much easier to reject the ideas of someone you do not know, or barely know than someone you've come to know and love. i can reject all atheists as morons until i unknowingly befriend one who i find to be brilliant, loving, sincere and compassionate. once that bond is made it becomes more difficult to simply reject one's deeply held beliefs. you want to understand them. you don't want to simply toss that person aside. that atheist, conservative, democrat, buddhist, muslim or catholic becomes a person.
in the year since i started this series my wife has been lectured by a family member about our attending mars hill, and how we need to "be careful." the label of "emergent" finally came out when my wife was told by a different family member there are things she doesn't agree with us on because we're emergent. my high school best friend and i had a huge debate/discussion about the rapture and the end times. this political season brought about many awkward moments, most notably my aunt being heartbroken that i was voting for "that other guy." out of my wife's family though i have had the most fruitful conversations with her brother whom i find to be a kindred spirit. i have also had good casual discussions with my mom who reads this blog. she agrees that you just can't figure God out, and that you can't cram him into a box, which is the first step to all-out emergent heresy ;). we'll see what this christmas will bring. i'm most eager to see if people on my wife's side will finally just come out and confront me. we shall see. and i hope to continue to re-work and expand on some of my previous installments.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
tongue-talking, charasmatic, universalists. oh, and don't forget the gays!
i think this story is fascinating to say the least. i would love to hear thoughts.
Friday, November 28, 2008
love wins?
i originally was going to post on how i recently struggled to define the simple yet complex phrase "love wins" to a friend after church one day. but instead i want to ask a question.
my wife got into a discussion with family about christians disagreeing on political issues and the love of God. during the discussion a family member said things that amounted to "God doesn't love everyone, because then who would go to hell?" and basically that love just doesn't win. these statements are just so mind-numbingly frustrating for me to the point where i just become angry. for God SO LOVED THE WORLD; God IS love, and i could go on and on and on, because the bible is filled with verses about God's infinite love. what this person is doing is painting God in his/her own image, which we all do to a certain extent, but here's my question: how much can we underestimate the love of God to the point where we're worshipping a false God? to the point of blaspheme? to the point of heresy? i'm serious. usually heresy is reserved for denying the virgin birth, or the trinity or some other theological factoid. we don't usually charge people with heresy who deny God's love despite the fact that love is the very core nature of God.
my wife got into a discussion with family about christians disagreeing on political issues and the love of God. during the discussion a family member said things that amounted to "God doesn't love everyone, because then who would go to hell?" and basically that love just doesn't win. these statements are just so mind-numbingly frustrating for me to the point where i just become angry. for God SO LOVED THE WORLD; God IS love, and i could go on and on and on, because the bible is filled with verses about God's infinite love. what this person is doing is painting God in his/her own image, which we all do to a certain extent, but here's my question: how much can we underestimate the love of God to the point where we're worshipping a false God? to the point of blaspheme? to the point of heresy? i'm serious. usually heresy is reserved for denying the virgin birth, or the trinity or some other theological factoid. we don't usually charge people with heresy who deny God's love despite the fact that love is the very core nature of God.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
this is me
the results from this test describe me with incredible accuracy to the point where it answers questions about my learning style that i've wondered about for some time now.
chris, you show a slight right-hemisphere dominance with a moderate preference for auditory processing, an unusual and somewhat paradoxical combination of characteristics.
You are drawn to a random and sometimes nonchalant synthesis of material. You learn as it seems important to a specific situation, and might even develop a resentment of others who attempt to direct your learning down a specific channel.
Your right-hemispheric dominance provides a structure that is only loosely organized and one which processes entire swatches of reality, overlooking details. You are emotional in your reactions and perceptual more than logical in your approach, although you can impose structure and a language base when necessary.
Your auditory preference, on the other hand, implies that you process information sequentially and unidimensionally. This combination of right-brain and auditory modes creates conflict, as you want to process data more rapidly than your natural processes allow.
Your tendency to be creative and free-flowing is accompanied by sufficient ability to organize and be logical, allowing you a reasonable degree of success in a number of different endeavors. You take in information methodically and systematically which can then be synthesized rapidly. In this manner, you manage to function consistently well, although certainly less efficiently than you desire.
You prefer the abstract and are a theoretician at heart while retaining the ability to be practical. You find the symbolism in a great deal of what you encounter and are something of a "mystic."
With regards to your lifestyle, you have the mentality which would be good as a philosopher, writer, journalist, or instructor, or possibly as a systems designer or social worker. Perhaps most important is your ability to "listen to your inner voice" as a mode of skipping over unnecessary steps to achieve your goals.
ht joe
chris, you show a slight right-hemisphere dominance with a moderate preference for auditory processing, an unusual and somewhat paradoxical combination of characteristics.
You are drawn to a random and sometimes nonchalant synthesis of material. You learn as it seems important to a specific situation, and might even develop a resentment of others who attempt to direct your learning down a specific channel.
Your right-hemispheric dominance provides a structure that is only loosely organized and one which processes entire swatches of reality, overlooking details. You are emotional in your reactions and perceptual more than logical in your approach, although you can impose structure and a language base when necessary.
Your auditory preference, on the other hand, implies that you process information sequentially and unidimensionally. This combination of right-brain and auditory modes creates conflict, as you want to process data more rapidly than your natural processes allow.
Your tendency to be creative and free-flowing is accompanied by sufficient ability to organize and be logical, allowing you a reasonable degree of success in a number of different endeavors. You take in information methodically and systematically which can then be synthesized rapidly. In this manner, you manage to function consistently well, although certainly less efficiently than you desire.
You prefer the abstract and are a theoretician at heart while retaining the ability to be practical. You find the symbolism in a great deal of what you encounter and are something of a "mystic."
With regards to your lifestyle, you have the mentality which would be good as a philosopher, writer, journalist, or instructor, or possibly as a systems designer or social worker. Perhaps most important is your ability to "listen to your inner voice" as a mode of skipping over unnecessary steps to achieve your goals.
ht joe
Thursday, October 23, 2008
a merry schismatic christmas (part 6)- slightly re-worked
to anyone who may have read this earlier: i've tried to re-work some of this because i know i didn't communicate my thoughts very well. sometimes this stuff is hard to blog about without being lengthy, so i'm sorry if any of it is confusing.
this past new years, we hung out with some old friends. at one point i was talking to one of them about how i would be interested in adopting some day. he looked at me and told me flat out that i didn't want to do that. he said that he knew people who adopted, and that it was a big risk. i was kind of taken a back. he went on to say that when you adopt you bring all of that child's problems into your home, and that child can infect your family. now, to be fair, he has had experience knowing people who take in troubled children, and he didn't realize i was talking about adopting an infant, not an abused child. but this still struck me. "infect." as if a child is a virus or bacteria.
jesus came to call israel to repentance, and begin a community who is the true, renewed israel ushering in God's kingdom. jesus came to establish God's kingdom here and we are to continue his work. the christianity most american evangelicals follow doesn't teach this. as i've already pointed out in previous posts, it teaches that the church is about gathering people onto a big cosmic life raft before God destroys the ship (earth) or sends people to hell.
the idea of acquiring a get-out-of-hell free pass, and just living one's own life fit's american culture nicely. think about it, what does the stereotypical american evangelical family look like? usually they look just like a stereotypical american family, only they go to church, don't swear, shop at family christian stores and might be involved in a ministry. to many christians, after they've gotten their free pass, it becomes all about an image, and i would argue that it's more about caesar's image than Christ's. christianity and america have become emeshed. this emeshedness is obvious when we see images of the flag and the cross paired together, but christian theology has been influenced by america in profound ways as well. the focus is getting out of hell rather than ridding the world of hell. and this is why my friends, who are the poster family for american evangelical christianity, can compare the least of these to a bacteria or virus. because getting involved with the messy parts of the world, the parts jesus and the apostles got involved with, isn't part of living the nice, shiny, suburban life (christian) americans strive to live. it's just not part of the image.
what did i say to this friend, whom i love dearly, but who represents a completely different understanding of what it means to be a christian? well, there wasn't much i could say because what he thinks christ came to do is so radically different than from what i think, it's a herculean task to carry on that discussion. and this is what always happens: nothing; just a change in the subject. the theological differences have created walls that i'm still trying to learn how to tear down. there are enormous pre-suppositions that have to be tackled first, but i do think there's hope.
this past new years, we hung out with some old friends. at one point i was talking to one of them about how i would be interested in adopting some day. he looked at me and told me flat out that i didn't want to do that. he said that he knew people who adopted, and that it was a big risk. i was kind of taken a back. he went on to say that when you adopt you bring all of that child's problems into your home, and that child can infect your family. now, to be fair, he has had experience knowing people who take in troubled children, and he didn't realize i was talking about adopting an infant, not an abused child. but this still struck me. "infect." as if a child is a virus or bacteria.
jesus came to call israel to repentance, and begin a community who is the true, renewed israel ushering in God's kingdom. jesus came to establish God's kingdom here and we are to continue his work. the christianity most american evangelicals follow doesn't teach this. as i've already pointed out in previous posts, it teaches that the church is about gathering people onto a big cosmic life raft before God destroys the ship (earth) or sends people to hell.
the idea of acquiring a get-out-of-hell free pass, and just living one's own life fit's american culture nicely. think about it, what does the stereotypical american evangelical family look like? usually they look just like a stereotypical american family, only they go to church, don't swear, shop at family christian stores and might be involved in a ministry. to many christians, after they've gotten their free pass, it becomes all about an image, and i would argue that it's more about caesar's image than Christ's. christianity and america have become emeshed. this emeshedness is obvious when we see images of the flag and the cross paired together, but christian theology has been influenced by america in profound ways as well. the focus is getting out of hell rather than ridding the world of hell. and this is why my friends, who are the poster family for american evangelical christianity, can compare the least of these to a bacteria or virus. because getting involved with the messy parts of the world, the parts jesus and the apostles got involved with, isn't part of living the nice, shiny, suburban life (christian) americans strive to live. it's just not part of the image.
what did i say to this friend, whom i love dearly, but who represents a completely different understanding of what it means to be a christian? well, there wasn't much i could say because what he thinks christ came to do is so radically different than from what i think, it's a herculean task to carry on that discussion. and this is what always happens: nothing; just a change in the subject. the theological differences have created walls that i'm still trying to learn how to tear down. there are enormous pre-suppositions that have to be tackled first, but i do think there's hope.
rethinking forgiveness and repentance
not too long ago i wrote that i do not believe the bible teaches a transactional relationship between forgiveness and repentance. instead, the bible teaches that forgiveness should be freely given and repentance is an act of forsaking a previous way of living for a new one. they are two different issues. thus, God doesn't forgive only if one repents, as if we have to buy God's forgiveness with our repentance; God just forgives. i backed this up by referring to places where the bible teaches us to simply forgive, as well as, jesus' words on the cross, "father, forgive them for they know not what they do." after all, how can there be repentance if someone knows not what he or she does?
joe and i have- at a leisurely pace- been going through the book of acts together. weeks ago we went through chapter three. in verse 19 it says: repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out... "crap!" i thought. this seemed to throw a wrench in what i had been thinking. so i went on biblegateway did a search on "forgive." once again, i found a whole slew of verses that seemed to say there are conditions to forgiveness.
this is frustrating and confusing for me, because while i tell people the bible isn't so cut and dry, and black and white there are times where i fall into that same way of thinking. in the story of the prodigal son, for example, isn't the God character's ( the father) posture toward the prodigal son a posture of unconditional forgiveness? i know that the son represents israel in the story, but can't we also place ourselves in the story? and therefore, isn't God's forgiveness given with condition of repentance? maybe not. i don't know. maybe it's not an either/or issue of transaction versus no transaction, but something else. turning from sin means living in right relationship with God, others and creation. it means giving up our own and this world's agenda, and taking up God's. josephus tells the story of how he and some romans came upon some jewish revolutionaries. josephus, working for rome, tells the revolutionaries to "repent and believe." by repent and believe josephus didn't mean for the revolutionaries to drop to their knees and beg for forgiveness, but to give up their agenda of revolt and join rome. in doing so, rome would accept them, and let them live.
i believe that this story from josephus which i've read from n.t. wright is a much better picture of forgiveness and repentance than a transaction. the idea is that God is waiting for us to join his kingdom which is currently being established. all we have to do is give up our agenda. it's not so much of a transaction, but a change of allegiance from the losing side to the winning side. the two do have a relationship; they are not separate issues.
maybe i'm just getting all worked up over metaphors and semantics, but i thought i would just clear that up.
joe and i have- at a leisurely pace- been going through the book of acts together. weeks ago we went through chapter three. in verse 19 it says: repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out... "crap!" i thought. this seemed to throw a wrench in what i had been thinking. so i went on biblegateway did a search on "forgive." once again, i found a whole slew of verses that seemed to say there are conditions to forgiveness.
this is frustrating and confusing for me, because while i tell people the bible isn't so cut and dry, and black and white there are times where i fall into that same way of thinking. in the story of the prodigal son, for example, isn't the God character's ( the father) posture toward the prodigal son a posture of unconditional forgiveness? i know that the son represents israel in the story, but can't we also place ourselves in the story? and therefore, isn't God's forgiveness given with condition of repentance? maybe not. i don't know. maybe it's not an either/or issue of transaction versus no transaction, but something else. turning from sin means living in right relationship with God, others and creation. it means giving up our own and this world's agenda, and taking up God's. josephus tells the story of how he and some romans came upon some jewish revolutionaries. josephus, working for rome, tells the revolutionaries to "repent and believe." by repent and believe josephus didn't mean for the revolutionaries to drop to their knees and beg for forgiveness, but to give up their agenda of revolt and join rome. in doing so, rome would accept them, and let them live.
i believe that this story from josephus which i've read from n.t. wright is a much better picture of forgiveness and repentance than a transaction. the idea is that God is waiting for us to join his kingdom which is currently being established. all we have to do is give up our agenda. it's not so much of a transaction, but a change of allegiance from the losing side to the winning side. the two do have a relationship; they are not separate issues.
maybe i'm just getting all worked up over metaphors and semantics, but i thought i would just clear that up.
Monday, October 6, 2008
interpretting the creation story
this is good, good, good, stuff. john ortberg spoke at our church this past sunday. if you're someone who has trouble understanding how one can believe in evolution and also believe the creation story is true, then you need to go here and watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
