I am reactivating this blog for a journey that I am going on in 2018.
More to come soon, but this post is a placeholder to mark the fact that since I last posted here, much has changed, and yet nothing has changed.
Again.
More on this later.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Why I still call myself a Calvinist
Just as in physics there is a debate about material determinism vs. human free will, so rages the same debate in theology. To label the arguments, it is known as Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
The discourse
I will risk oversimplifying here for the purposes of clarity. Know that this topic has actually been discussed, debated, and argued about for over a 1000 years, so there is no way for me to reduce it all down to one blog post in a manageable way without oversimplifying.
Calvinism
Calvinism is a theological position of determinism. It asserts that God is sovereign over all existence, that He is all-knowing, and that therefore He must know all things, past, present, and future - including all future outcomes of the present.
Put another way:
P1: God is all-knowing.
P2: To be all-knowing, God must therefore know everything that has happened, that is happening, and that will happen.
C1: If God knows everything that will happen, then He must know who will turn to Him and who will not.
The Calvinist (or Reform Theologian) will go on to assert that, therefore, God chose and elected those who would come to Him beforehand. There are a number of Scriptural passages they use to defend this position but I'll let you do your own homework with that.
Arminianism
Arminianism is a theological position of free will or free choice. It asserts that Humankind has a certain free will granted by God to either choose to believe in Him and accept the gift of grace that He offers through Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross... or not.
The position was declared heretical in early Christianity but never died because of how attractive it is philosophically to assert the free will of human beings.
It is seen as a contradiction to call myself progressive/post-modern and be a Calvinist.
For reasons as to why this is, you should check out this blog post.
But despite all of the self-reflection and deconstruction that I've been doing, I still would call myself a Calvinist. I do not see it the way Benjamin L. Corey does.
Reason 1: Reformed Theology's focus is on what God does in the world.
I consistently hear from critiques of Calvinism that it creates an image of an evil God who picks his favourites. But a careful look at Reformed Theology in no way supports this assertion at all - leading me to believe that critics have been unknowingly fed a straw man that they can easily refute.
Reformed Theology focuses on the idea of God's sovereignty over the whole universe and the plan that He generated to ensure that ALL of us could be saved. On that point, Calvinists and Arminianists agree. But because SOME Calvinists believe that God hand picks who goes to heaven AND hell, Arminianists argue that CALVINISM therefore states this. If you're the type to be reading my blog, I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain where that breaks down.
Reason 2: Reformed Theology is focused on how God is the SOLE SOURCE of salvation, the SOLE CENTRE of theology.
As much as I would love to believe that I'm so important that my decisions complete the act of my salvation, I cannot but agree with the assertion of the depravity of humanity and our general inability to save ourselves. Humanity has given me no reason to trust that, as a whole, we have any idea what we're doing in this universe or that we'll figure it out.
Reformed Theology provides a coherent, Scriptural basis for establishing the mechanism of this salvation and access to it. Our understanding of the nuances continue to develop as we learn that we got some parts of Reform Theology wrong or realize that some parts of Reform Theology should be discarded because we're starting to understand that everyone's been misinterpreting this thinker or that passage. It does not stand to follow that because it is sometimes wrong, it is therefore never to be trusted. I find no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Further, I find the heretical danger of the Arminian position to be that such Christians believe that one can, after having received the gift of grace, then lose it. I find that denominations that centre themselves around this idea become so concerned with NOT losing their faith that they establish convoluted systems or rules of behaviour so that your faith will not be in jeopardy. They fall into the trap of putting HUMANS at the centre of theology when GOD is supposed to be at the centre. (Example: In the Pentecostal Church, a very popular Arminian denomination, it is often said that if you do not "speak in tongues" that you must not be a Christian.)
Reason 3: Reformed Theology produces far more vigorous methodologies when analyzing Scripture.
Because of the Reformed Theologians obsession with "getting the theory RIGHT", I find reading and studying Reform Theologians far more intellectually stimulating and objectively useful. Post-evangelicals have a terrible habit (IMO) of trying to attach good feels to all the theory, but the reality of Scripture is that Christianity is really not a religion of good feels.
The bare bones truth of Scripture is that reality as we know it is terribly depressing. The Earth is the realm of Satan, human beings are stuck, trapped, often even UNABLE to see or detect the spiritual battle in play over the souls of humanity.
And if it stopped there, yes. Nobody should follow this religion. Why would you?
The REASON we call God good is because instead of just leaving the created situation as is, throwing His hands up in the air, and saying "Fine Satan. Take the damn pottery creations with you", he instead put into play a Grand Plan - to reincarnate the Son as God-Man, who lived a literal perfect life, who did NOT need to die to be saved, but died anyway so that the requirements of the law may be fulfilled and that our relationship with him may be restored.
Unfortunately for us, God does not see fit to explain too much of this. In fact, he subtly, in a number of different places, suggests to us that we wouldn't understand it even if we tried because of our mortal and physical limitations.
Kevin Smith suggests that our head might just explode if God tried. ;)
Redux: What Calvinism means for me:
For me, Reform Theology reminds me that God is good and that I am not. Reform Theology reminds me that God is powerful, and that I am powerless. Reform Theology reminds me that I NEED Jesus, and not that I can choose Jesus because hey I'm a self-defining existential being thank-you-very-much.
Reform Theology shreds any pride or arrogance that I can have about being a Christian for I have done nothing to have received the gifts and understandings that I have. And, contrary to asserted belief, Reform Theology makes room for you to believe that you can receive these gifts and understandings as well!
Final thoughts and sympathies:
I believe in a Sovereign God. Where I have to choose between keeping any shred of my self-importance and trusting in this Sovereign God, the man with the plan (as it were), I trust God and not myself.
In Arminianism, I see a subtle pride. A pride that allows the Christian to say, "I'm important because I got to be a part of my salvation process."
However, when I see people get down on Reform Theology and Calvinism, I get it. I really do. I really do understand the arguments that are put into play (Corey's blog post articulates them very well).
Yes, many Calvinist preachers come across as toxic and self-righteous. Why? Because Calvinist preachers will ALWAYS remind you of how sinful you are. The truth is not about feelings. The truth doesn't bandy about with emotions. It just says it like it is. So the challenge that I would put to the subject that feels put down upon when encountering a Calvinist: Are you really just projecting your revulsion against being told you are a bad person on your critic?
Yes, many Calvinists pat themselves on the back for being "the elect", "the Chosen", etc. It's all garbage and pomp and EVERYONE is right to get down on such people. They are not that way because of their Calvinism... their Calvinism merely enables their narcissism.
Yes, many Calvinists and Reform Theology proponents harp on and on about rules and right living being determined by a practice of self-shame and emotional self-flagellation. It stems from the absolute importance that Reform Theology puts on the Goodness of God and the utter Depravity of Humanity. Like any good theology, if you don't stop to consider how you are putting your theories into practice, you're going to go down a weird path.
So the next time you think "My God a Calvinist, I want to gouge my eyes out," perhaps one needs to stop and think, "Why do I feel so angry about this?"
I might suggest that it is because from theory to application, as in any philosophical discipline, people are going to take the theory in different directions and you're not going to like a lot of it. And Calvinism as a theology has a number of inherent heretical tendencies that come into play if you don't stop to think about how you are living out your faith as a result of how you think about your faith.
The discourse
I will risk oversimplifying here for the purposes of clarity. Know that this topic has actually been discussed, debated, and argued about for over a 1000 years, so there is no way for me to reduce it all down to one blog post in a manageable way without oversimplifying.
Calvinism
Calvinism is a theological position of determinism. It asserts that God is sovereign over all existence, that He is all-knowing, and that therefore He must know all things, past, present, and future - including all future outcomes of the present.
Put another way:
P1: God is all-knowing.
P2: To be all-knowing, God must therefore know everything that has happened, that is happening, and that will happen.
C1: If God knows everything that will happen, then He must know who will turn to Him and who will not.
The Calvinist (or Reform Theologian) will go on to assert that, therefore, God chose and elected those who would come to Him beforehand. There are a number of Scriptural passages they use to defend this position but I'll let you do your own homework with that.
Arminianism
Arminianism is a theological position of free will or free choice. It asserts that Humankind has a certain free will granted by God to either choose to believe in Him and accept the gift of grace that He offers through Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross... or not.
The position was declared heretical in early Christianity but never died because of how attractive it is philosophically to assert the free will of human beings.
It is seen as a contradiction to call myself progressive/post-modern and be a Calvinist.
For reasons as to why this is, you should check out this blog post.
But despite all of the self-reflection and deconstruction that I've been doing, I still would call myself a Calvinist. I do not see it the way Benjamin L. Corey does.
Reason 1: Reformed Theology's focus is on what God does in the world.
I consistently hear from critiques of Calvinism that it creates an image of an evil God who picks his favourites. But a careful look at Reformed Theology in no way supports this assertion at all - leading me to believe that critics have been unknowingly fed a straw man that they can easily refute.
Reformed Theology focuses on the idea of God's sovereignty over the whole universe and the plan that He generated to ensure that ALL of us could be saved. On that point, Calvinists and Arminianists agree. But because SOME Calvinists believe that God hand picks who goes to heaven AND hell, Arminianists argue that CALVINISM therefore states this. If you're the type to be reading my blog, I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain where that breaks down.
Reason 2: Reformed Theology is focused on how God is the SOLE SOURCE of salvation, the SOLE CENTRE of theology.
As much as I would love to believe that I'm so important that my decisions complete the act of my salvation, I cannot but agree with the assertion of the depravity of humanity and our general inability to save ourselves. Humanity has given me no reason to trust that, as a whole, we have any idea what we're doing in this universe or that we'll figure it out.
Reformed Theology provides a coherent, Scriptural basis for establishing the mechanism of this salvation and access to it. Our understanding of the nuances continue to develop as we learn that we got some parts of Reform Theology wrong or realize that some parts of Reform Theology should be discarded because we're starting to understand that everyone's been misinterpreting this thinker or that passage. It does not stand to follow that because it is sometimes wrong, it is therefore never to be trusted. I find no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Further, I find the heretical danger of the Arminian position to be that such Christians believe that one can, after having received the gift of grace, then lose it. I find that denominations that centre themselves around this idea become so concerned with NOT losing their faith that they establish convoluted systems or rules of behaviour so that your faith will not be in jeopardy. They fall into the trap of putting HUMANS at the centre of theology when GOD is supposed to be at the centre. (Example: In the Pentecostal Church, a very popular Arminian denomination, it is often said that if you do not "speak in tongues" that you must not be a Christian.)
Reason 3: Reformed Theology produces far more vigorous methodologies when analyzing Scripture.
Because of the Reformed Theologians obsession with "getting the theory RIGHT", I find reading and studying Reform Theologians far more intellectually stimulating and objectively useful. Post-evangelicals have a terrible habit (IMO) of trying to attach good feels to all the theory, but the reality of Scripture is that Christianity is really not a religion of good feels.
The bare bones truth of Scripture is that reality as we know it is terribly depressing. The Earth is the realm of Satan, human beings are stuck, trapped, often even UNABLE to see or detect the spiritual battle in play over the souls of humanity.
And if it stopped there, yes. Nobody should follow this religion. Why would you?
The REASON we call God good is because instead of just leaving the created situation as is, throwing His hands up in the air, and saying "Fine Satan. Take the damn pottery creations with you", he instead put into play a Grand Plan - to reincarnate the Son as God-Man, who lived a literal perfect life, who did NOT need to die to be saved, but died anyway so that the requirements of the law may be fulfilled and that our relationship with him may be restored.
Unfortunately for us, God does not see fit to explain too much of this. In fact, he subtly, in a number of different places, suggests to us that we wouldn't understand it even if we tried because of our mortal and physical limitations.
Kevin Smith suggests that our head might just explode if God tried. ;)
Redux: What Calvinism means for me:
For me, Reform Theology reminds me that God is good and that I am not. Reform Theology reminds me that God is powerful, and that I am powerless. Reform Theology reminds me that I NEED Jesus, and not that I can choose Jesus because hey I'm a self-defining existential being thank-you-very-much.
Reform Theology shreds any pride or arrogance that I can have about being a Christian for I have done nothing to have received the gifts and understandings that I have. And, contrary to asserted belief, Reform Theology makes room for you to believe that you can receive these gifts and understandings as well!
Final thoughts and sympathies:
I believe in a Sovereign God. Where I have to choose between keeping any shred of my self-importance and trusting in this Sovereign God, the man with the plan (as it were), I trust God and not myself.
In Arminianism, I see a subtle pride. A pride that allows the Christian to say, "I'm important because I got to be a part of my salvation process."
However, when I see people get down on Reform Theology and Calvinism, I get it. I really do. I really do understand the arguments that are put into play (Corey's blog post articulates them very well).
Yes, many Calvinist preachers come across as toxic and self-righteous. Why? Because Calvinist preachers will ALWAYS remind you of how sinful you are. The truth is not about feelings. The truth doesn't bandy about with emotions. It just says it like it is. So the challenge that I would put to the subject that feels put down upon when encountering a Calvinist: Are you really just projecting your revulsion against being told you are a bad person on your critic?
Yes, many Calvinists pat themselves on the back for being "the elect", "the Chosen", etc. It's all garbage and pomp and EVERYONE is right to get down on such people. They are not that way because of their Calvinism... their Calvinism merely enables their narcissism.
Yes, many Calvinists and Reform Theology proponents harp on and on about rules and right living being determined by a practice of self-shame and emotional self-flagellation. It stems from the absolute importance that Reform Theology puts on the Goodness of God and the utter Depravity of Humanity. Like any good theology, if you don't stop to consider how you are putting your theories into practice, you're going to go down a weird path.
So the next time you think "My God a Calvinist, I want to gouge my eyes out," perhaps one needs to stop and think, "Why do I feel so angry about this?"
I might suggest that it is because from theory to application, as in any philosophical discipline, people are going to take the theory in different directions and you're not going to like a lot of it. And Calvinism as a theology has a number of inherent heretical tendencies that come into play if you don't stop to think about how you are living out your faith as a result of how you think about your faith.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
On Duck Dynasty, homophobia and the Church
Acknowledgments for editing and critical review: (alphabetical)
Leemarc Lao
Peter Thurley
Val Malik Wikblad
An opening disclaimer:
If you read this and ask yourself, but I'm not like that! I'm not a homophobe! Great! This post is not about you (not exactly anyway). There is still hopefully a solid challenge for you at the end.
If you are queer, then this post, hopefully, is DEFINITELY for you.
And if you are a homophobe, then read with an open mind and think about the harm you do.
A merited introduction AKA who are you to tell me how to think about my sexuality and how it relates to the Church?
Simply put I am nobody. I am a wailing in the wind to be ignored or listened to at your whimsy. I pretend to know very little, but what I do know, hopefully I know very well. I am open to criticism and critique and thoughtful discussion. Please post in the comments if you have thoughts to share!
I've really been struggling with this post. I don't know how to go about with this in the "right way." Part of me suspects that there is no "right way" to do this. Part of me thinks that's kind of stupid. Welcome to the post-modern journey.
I really struggle with this post, first and foremost for very subjective reasons. I've been struggling with determining appropriate defining posts for my own sexual and gender identity. To my great "relief", I find that I am more straight than gay, more sexually normative than sexually other. This provides me access to a label known as "straight male Christian" that allows me to hide behind a great deal without having to subjectively experience anything at all.
This is not the God that I follow. The God I follow sent His Son so that He would subjectively experience life, temptations, and sin, bear all these things, then die on the Cross so that by the act of one, many would be redeemed.
It is from this rather confused place that I begin this post.
Duck Dynasty! Aka Phil Robinson is kind of an adorable idiot AKAhe's our adorable idiot. Back off.
This whole essay began as a result of a friend posting on Facebook the following article.
https://socialreader.com/me/content/kUum4?chid=75975&_p=trending&utm_source=wp&utm_medium=Widgets&utm_campaign=wpsrTrendingExternal-1-opt
In a fit of hilarious irony, though the focus of this article was supposed to be on the fact that Millienial's who have left the church are no better than our racist forebears (who also influenced the Robinsons), the internet comments section on Facebook sparked a raging debate about homosexuality, sexual immorality, and the Church's response to this very contemporary issue.
The General Issue:
Soteriology - the study of religious doctrines of salvation.
Sexual immorality - a specific category of sin.
The Bible, according to Phil Robinson, states that ones soteriological position in relation to God is impacted by the choices and decisions of a free-thinking being. That is to say, that if you make choices that lead you to live a life of sin (aka sexual immorality), then your salvation is at stake.
So let's deconstruct the assumptions of this assertion.
P1: Salvation, according to Paul, paraphrased by Phil Robinson, is dependent upon moral choices.
P2: Salvation is gained, according to Jesus and Paul, through an acceptance of the grace of God.
P1 Proof: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
P2 Proof: Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:3-21
The law of non-contradiction states that either P1 is correct, P2 is correct, or that both are incorrect. Or that if the entire paradigm of P1 and P2 can be unseated, then really what we have is two passages talking about two different things.
Let us tackle this thorny issue first.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
If we put this passage into context, we can see that Paul is rather upset with the Corinthians. They've allowed a sexual deviant amongst their midsts! So let's pull back the magnifying glass to Chapter 5 and 6 in it's totality.
Woah! Woah! Woah! So Paul got that upset because of...... adultery/incest?
What was the specific sin that Paul was railing against here? He was not talking about homosexuality. He wasn't even talking about sexual sin within a non-normative context. He was talking about that ever present sin of adultery/incest as between two heterosexual individuals.
And he was INCENSED. He wanted that man OUT of the church. OUT and GONE.
It was kind of his style. (http://www.wickedshepherds.com/PaulPeterControversy.html)
And in his fire and his passion, he slipped in that interesting line that is the centre of our controversy:
Definitional questions that then arise:
So who then, is saved? What is a Christian? These are deep questions that deserve whole essays of their own (and much ink/joint fluids has been spilt on this issue.)
Let it suffice to say that at it's essential core, the act of BECOMING a Christian is not a question of whether one did all the right things, followed all the right rules, or adhered very closely to all the "right doctrines." If that were so, then Pharisees of Jesus time were assured of their salvation. Jesus insists that this is not the case. (Matthew 9:10-17; Mark 2:15-22; Luke 5:29-39)
Paul is even more insistent on the point. (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Phil/Issue-Circumcision-Gentiles) (Romans 8:1-17)
It is true that he also argues that those who continue to sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But that is a question of whether salvation can be lost. And that isn't entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. For the moment, the basic understanding of salvation has nothing to do with works and acts. That's about sanctification, and you are only sanctified when you are saved.
Does sexual immorality put my faith at peril?
There are general questions and specific questions that apply to this particular question.
Is there a sin SO unforgiveable that my salvation is risked by committing such sin?
Jesus gives us some indication that such an unforgiveable sin DOES exist. He indicates that "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 12:31-32, Parallelled in Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:10) is this sin. You'd be very hard-pressed to find any theologian or practitioner who would argue that sexual immorality fits in this category.
There's a big debate about this. It also deserves a post of it's own. Let us suffice it to say, for argument's sake, that once again, salvation being kept or lost is still a "thought" thing and not an "act" thing.
And really now? There is some nuance here. For example, this is a thing:
So then what's the big whoop?
If homosexuality and sexual immorality in general is condemned as a whole (1 Corinthians 6:18), then we must take this issue very seriously and make sure that we are instituting proper ecclesiastical and practical theology setups that recognize the sinfulness of all people while also recognizing the theoretical theology models of "ordered sin" (in other words, some sins are worse than other sins but there is only one unforgivable sin.)
The REAL tension: Orthodoxy vs. orthopraxis
As a Christian, I am commanded to be sanctified in Christ. (2 Timothy 2:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:23, John 17:17, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Galatians 2:20)
Let us remember the songs that Galatians 2:20 inspires. This is more contemporary. There is also a more traditional hymn (I am crucified with Christ, therefore I no longer live, Jesus Christ now lives in me.)
Sanctification demands that I reject all things unholy in order to be set apart for God's good work in this world. Thus I must reject homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality as the acts of an unsanctified person (arguably, a non-Christian. Let's not get hung up on terminology right here.)
I am also commanded and taught by Christ that the two Greatest Commandments are as follows:
Leemarc Lao
Peter Thurley
Val Malik Wikblad
An opening disclaimer:
If you read this and ask yourself, but I'm not like that! I'm not a homophobe! Great! This post is not about you (not exactly anyway). There is still hopefully a solid challenge for you at the end.
If you are queer, then this post, hopefully, is DEFINITELY for you.
And if you are a homophobe, then read with an open mind and think about the harm you do.
A merited introduction AKA who are you to tell me how to think about my sexuality and how it relates to the Church?
Simply put I am nobody. I am a wailing in the wind to be ignored or listened to at your whimsy. I pretend to know very little, but what I do know, hopefully I know very well. I am open to criticism and critique and thoughtful discussion. Please post in the comments if you have thoughts to share!
I've really been struggling with this post. I don't know how to go about with this in the "right way." Part of me suspects that there is no "right way" to do this. Part of me thinks that's kind of stupid. Welcome to the post-modern journey.
I really struggle with this post, first and foremost for very subjective reasons. I've been struggling with determining appropriate defining posts for my own sexual and gender identity. To my great "relief", I find that I am more straight than gay, more sexually normative than sexually other. This provides me access to a label known as "straight male Christian" that allows me to hide behind a great deal without having to subjectively experience anything at all.
This is not the God that I follow. The God I follow sent His Son so that He would subjectively experience life, temptations, and sin, bear all these things, then die on the Cross so that by the act of one, many would be redeemed.
It is from this rather confused place that I begin this post.
Duck Dynasty! Aka Phil Robinson is kind of an adorable idiot AKAhe's our adorable idiot. Back off.
This whole essay began as a result of a friend posting on Facebook the following article.
 |
| Copyright on this photo due where credit due. |
In a fit of hilarious irony, though the focus of this article was supposed to be on the fact that Millienial's who have left the church are no better than our racist forebears (who also influenced the Robinsons), the internet comments section on Facebook sparked a raging debate about homosexuality, sexual immorality, and the Church's response to this very contemporary issue.
The General Issue:
Soteriology - the study of religious doctrines of salvation.
Sexual immorality - a specific category of sin.
The Bible, according to Phil Robinson, states that ones soteriological position in relation to God is impacted by the choices and decisions of a free-thinking being. That is to say, that if you make choices that lead you to live a life of sin (aka sexual immorality), then your salvation is at stake.
So let's deconstruct the assumptions of this assertion.
P1: Salvation, according to Paul, paraphrased by Phil Robinson, is dependent upon moral choices.
P2: Salvation is gained, according to Jesus and Paul, through an acceptance of the grace of God.
P1 Proof: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
P2 Proof: Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:3-21
The law of non-contradiction states that either P1 is correct, P2 is correct, or that both are incorrect. Or that if the entire paradigm of P1 and P2 can be unseated, then really what we have is two passages talking about two different things.
 |
| Is this you right now? Don't worry. Theology and philosophy are confusing. If I've lost you by now, you should probably go read something else right now. I engage in a lot of sophistry. |
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
If we put this passage into context, we can see that Paul is rather upset with the Corinthians. They've allowed a sexual deviant amongst their midsts! So let's pull back the magnifying glass to Chapter 5 and 6 in it's totality.
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. (1 Corinthians 5:1-2)In a somewhat angry and furious tone (at least to my reading), Paul goes on:
When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Cor. 5:4-5)Not only that! But to do this.
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church[b] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c]those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Cor. 5:9-13)
Woah! Woah! Woah! So Paul got that upset because of...... adultery/incest?
What was the specific sin that Paul was railing against here? He was not talking about homosexuality. He wasn't even talking about sexual sin within a non-normative context. He was talking about that ever present sin of adultery/incest as between two heterosexual individuals.
And he was INCENSED. He wanted that man OUT of the church. OUT and GONE.
It was kind of his style. (http://www.wickedshepherds.com/PaulPeterControversy.html)
And in his fire and his passion, he slipped in that interesting line that is the centre of our controversy:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous[e] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[f] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 5:9-11)
Definitional questions that then arise:
So who then, is saved? What is a Christian? These are deep questions that deserve whole essays of their own (and much ink/joint fluids has been spilt on this issue.)
Let it suffice to say that at it's essential core, the act of BECOMING a Christian is not a question of whether one did all the right things, followed all the right rules, or adhered very closely to all the "right doctrines." If that were so, then Pharisees of Jesus time were assured of their salvation. Jesus insists that this is not the case. (Matthew 9:10-17; Mark 2:15-22; Luke 5:29-39)
Paul is even more insistent on the point. (http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Phil/Issue-Circumcision-Gentiles) (Romans 8:1-17)
It is true that he also argues that those who continue to sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But that is a question of whether salvation can be lost. And that isn't entirely irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. For the moment, the basic understanding of salvation has nothing to do with works and acts. That's about sanctification, and you are only sanctified when you are saved.
 |
| Am I weaseling my way out of a tough philosophical spot? Not really. If you insist, I'll write a scintillating post about soteriology, salvation, and the various theological components of that as it relate to Christianity. Be careful what you wish for. ;) |
Does sexual immorality put my faith at peril?
There are general questions and specific questions that apply to this particular question.
Is there a sin SO unforgiveable that my salvation is risked by committing such sin?
Jesus gives us some indication that such an unforgiveable sin DOES exist. He indicates that "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 12:31-32, Parallelled in Mark 3:28-30 and Luke 12:10) is this sin. You'd be very hard-pressed to find any theologian or practitioner who would argue that sexual immorality fits in this category.
There's a big debate about this. It also deserves a post of it's own. Let us suffice it to say, for argument's sake, that once again, salvation being kept or lost is still a "thought" thing and not an "act" thing.
And really now? There is some nuance here. For example, this is a thing:
 |
| ... But I thought... the babies... the sex.... right!!! The STORKS! |
So then what's the big whoop?
If homosexuality and sexual immorality in general is condemned as a whole (1 Corinthians 6:18), then we must take this issue very seriously and make sure that we are instituting proper ecclesiastical and practical theology setups that recognize the sinfulness of all people while also recognizing the theoretical theology models of "ordered sin" (in other words, some sins are worse than other sins but there is only one unforgivable sin.)
But what makes homosexuality "sexual immorality"?
This question deserves a whole post of its own as well. Suffice it to say for our present purposes, Romans 1:18-32 is pretty instructive, and almost unequivocal on the point. There is a big debate surrounding the original language that is very interesting (read very boring) and is way beyond the scope of this essay.
Let us, assume, for arguments sake that this argument is irrelevant to asking whether ACTS or THOUGHT are the defining measure of our faith, and shows that it is still an irrelevant topic for our present purposes.
As a Christian, I am commanded to be sanctified in Christ. (2 Timothy 2:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:23, John 17:17, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Galatians 2:20)
Let us remember the songs that Galatians 2:20 inspires. This is more contemporary. There is also a more traditional hymn (I am crucified with Christ, therefore I no longer live, Jesus Christ now lives in me.)
Sanctification demands that I reject all things unholy in order to be set apart for God's good work in this world. Thus I must reject homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality as the acts of an unsanctified person (arguably, a non-Christian. Let's not get hung up on terminology right here.)
I am also commanded and taught by Christ that the two Greatest Commandments are as follows:
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40) (Paralleled in Luke 10:27)
The hard questions:
Where is the love in telling a gay man that he is forever condemned to being a "second class citizen" in our earthly church models? Analogously, where is the love in telling a woman she is to be forever a "second class citizen" in an earthly church model?
Some might suggest the following line of argumentation:
"But can't we be firm in truth and be Jesus to those around us? Jesus wasn't permissive. He loved the people around him yet also challenged them to right doctrine and right practice. I'm not entirely sure if you're thinking it's one or the other, but both can co-exist together. Right doctrine should lead to right practice." (Leemarc Lao)
Christ gave us a different example because, as mentioned earlier with the comments about the sick and the healthy, the Pharisees of Jesus time thought so as well. But only Jesus was willing to break the Sabbath rules. And only Jesus was willing to make himself "unclean" by touching lepers and fellowshipping with sinners.
He demonstrated His love for us. And then He commanded us to do the same. And then He died for us, demonstrating what His love REALLY meant.
The cart before the horse
Therefore, I would argue that a concern with RIGHT DOCTRINE before RIGHT PRACTICE is the troublesome situation of trying to put the cart before the horse. While we were still yet sinners, Christ died for us, and demonstrated His love for us in this. (Romans 5:6-11).
Paul goes on to remind us that the law existed to make us aware of our trespass. It was not like sin did not exist before we knew the law. Verily it was that sin always existed after the Fall, but by becoming aware of it in the law, things just got worse. (Romans 5:12-21)
Anyone that then gets themselves all riled up about salvation as it relates to rules is fundamentally missing the point of the existence of rules in the first place!
That is NOT to say that rules are entirely useless and should therefore be discarded from all developments of good Christian PRACTICE. But it is a firm reminder to us that "rules" do not "save." Only Christ, the God/Man, and acceptance of the gift of grace that entails saves.
What then, is good orthopraxis?
I like to refer anyone that asks this question to Romans 14. Paul speaks both to the rules oriented person and the purposive oriented individual... unfortunately laying before us yet another paradox. It is actually impossible to be both of these people at the same time. Likely, you are one or the other (or some continuum of both). The question you should be asking yourself is WHO ARE YOU at the point in time that you read Romans 14 and WHO DO YOU SEEK TO BECOME as defined by sanctification and a description of holiness from Scripture.
You may find yourself asking, “but what if
someone gets it wrong?” even in the context of Rom 14. One's mind then starts wondering about questions of
justice – slavery, poverty, exploitation, and other social injustices while others might start to
wonder about rightness of doctrine – trinity, virgin birth, transubstantiation,
salvation by grace or by works. It really just boils down to the XKCD comic “Someone’s wrong on the internet!”. (Peter Thurley)
 |
| http://xkcd.com/386/ |
And to remember that struggling with that question does NOT put your faith in peril. Arguably, if you had no faith, there would be no good reason for you to be struggling with this question in the first place.
So why struggle with the question? Why not just leave those Church jerks by the wayside and join the dark-side of chaos and post-modern flubdubbery?
I believe that the whole endeavour of human life is an attempt to make the unknowable knowable. I believe that the Church exists as a grand rehearsal of what we are to experience once new creation is established and evil is done away with. I believe the Church is the bridegroom of Christ, being perfected and sanctified for the eventual coming of that day.
Is Church not a grand rehearsal for heaven? And if Church is just a reflection of the same hate and misogyny of our contemporary culture (because let's be real here, the church does NOT have the corner on hate and misogyny), then how are we exactly rehearsing for heaven?
My final challenge (and pat on the back if you made it this far into my essay):
If you are straight, and you are troubled by the sexual immorality of your otherwise defined brothers and sisters in Christ, then here are some things for you to consider.
1) As a straight person, you are privileged in the same way that white people and men are privileged in our society. At the end of the day, we hide behind our label to condemn the sin of others, and then go home and have sex with our husbands and wives because we have a socially normative place to express our sexuality. The gay man/woman/trans person doesn't have that privilege and is forced to be a "second class citizen" on earth forever. That's hardly a godly imposition. That's a man-made imposition that can be done away with in favour of a more loving model of the Church.
It behooves me at this point to deal with 1 Corinthians directly. That is certainly ONE model of the church. But is it the ONLY one? How about 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12? (TROLL: number one on that list is to avoid sexual immorality as well >_< ) How about Acts 4:32-37 (social justice orientation)?
My point is that there is not ONE model of the church to follow here and not ONE answer to this question of how can we be a "loving church."
How can you, this week, go out and break bread and fellowship with "sinners" to show them that they are loved? That there is a gift of grace and freedom granted to them? (Maybe I'll get into the question of "freedom from what" in some other post.)
It behooves me at this point to deal with 1 Corinthians directly. That is certainly ONE model of the church. But is it the ONLY one? How about 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12? (TROLL: number one on that list is to avoid sexual immorality as well >_< ) How about Acts 4:32-37 (social justice orientation)?
My point is that there is not ONE model of the church to follow here and not ONE answer to this question of how can we be a "loving church."
How can you, this week, go out and break bread and fellowship with "sinners" to show them that they are loved? That there is a gift of grace and freedom granted to them? (Maybe I'll get into the question of "freedom from what" in some other post.)
Can you sit and mourn with your gay/trans/other sexual orientation friend who is also Christian that this world and this life is as messed up as it is? And are you willing to travel with them on their journey towards the irreverent and hateful questions that God answers in a whirlwind of dust, pomp, and righteous indignation?
If you self-identify as queer, gay, trans, or any other label that is presently being formed within the realm of queer theory, then here are some things for you to consider.
2) For the sexually orientated other struggling with faith, are you courageous enough to look God in the eye and demand answers to your questions? Are you courageous enough to accept that you might not be able to understand the answer to your question? And are you willing, as Job did, to fall in humility before God and cry out
2) For the sexually orientated other struggling with faith, are you courageous enough to look God in the eye and demand answers to your questions? Are you courageous enough to accept that you might not be able to understand the answer to your question? And are you willing, as Job did, to fall in humility before God and cry out
“Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further.” (Job 40:3)
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further.” (Job 40:3)
Are you willing to say to the Almighty:
Then Job answered the Lord and said:
2 “I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent[a] in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:2-6)
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent[a] in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:2-6)
And remember what happened to Job after that. (I'm not a prosperity gospel guy. I swear by Beelzebub! ;) )
3) For me, this means that, even if look like a far out lefty pot smoking hippy, I embrace my brothers and sisters in Christ with non-normative sexual orientations, overlook them as they overlook my sins, and decide that quarrelling over fine theological points is actually entirely UNbiblical and remember the two Greatest Commandments.
Are you willing to put your "boxed" image of the Church on a cross and crucify it, to watch Christ and the Holy Spirit resurrect it into an image darkly of that which is to come?
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
The BASTARD is born! (Otherwise known as Matthew 1:18-25)
What did he just call Jesus? HERETIC!
That's right. I went there.
Now that I have your attention let me note for the record that I do believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.
And the imagination part begins
Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, is writing an account of his glorious time with Jesus. He's trying to think, "how am I going to get the attention of my audience? How am I going to convince them that He is the one that the prophets spoke of when they spoke of the Messiah."
He thinks, "ok well we got the genealogy part down." (TL:DR Your lineage was KEY in Jewish culture at Jesus time and was necessary to prove prophecy fulfilled.)
The conception of Christ AKA say what now?
"Hmmm, I know! We'll talk about how He was conceived! That's it! Right... how was he conceived again?"
AWWWWKKKKKWWWWAAAARRRRRD. As it were.
"But seriously guys! He's the Son of God! Guys? Guys?"
Matthew was trying to convince his audience that Jesus, that crazy rabbi that everyone heard about, was actually the Son of God come to save the world! Y'all think we're crazy for believing this stuff now, imagine what people back then were saying when they heard any of this?
The skepticism of those in the time period AKA Yeah right, cuckold.
"Pffffftt, yeah right. Holy Spirit my patootie. She got raped and you just don't want to admit it."
You actually don't think that people were thinking that back then too? Matthew probably knew it, but he was either oblivious or didn't care. Oblivious is not likely. Matthew was a tax collector before he started following Jesus, a serious Roman bureaucrat who had spent many years embroiled in the muckery of Roman bureaucracy. He plowed on with the story.
Joseph's side of the story AKA Now you're a CRAZY cuckold, not just a cuckold.
So Matthew goes he does, "I know! It was an ANGEL FROM THE LORD! That will get people's attention. That's why Joseph didn't divorce her."
An angel from the Lord comes and tells you to live out the rest of your life as an alleged cuckold (because again, realistically, you think people then bought this Holy Spirit stuff? I kind of doubt it, but anyone is free to correct me). This is NOT a small life-decision for Joseph at this point. The shame he's going to have to walk around with? The cut eyed looks and the rumours and the whispering, and the hushed titters? Private divorce sounds good to me, from that perspective. And he didn't even get to NAME the freaking bastard (irreverence making you cringe yet some of my right leaning folks?)
The faith equation AKA I don't care if you think I'm crazy I know what I saw.
But Joseph chose a more difficult path. He chose to face the potential sully on his honour because the Angel was right. He chose to believe that something special was going on and that he was going to be a part of it, even if it meant a lifetime of shame.
Now if I was trying to hornswaggle my readers, I definitely would not have written in a crazy ass cuckold who justified himself with a speech from an Angel from the Lord. I doubt the skeptics of the time would have let it go that easily. (Note that I think it's kind of pretentious of us to think that skeptics DIDN'T exist back then.) Why would I make my story WORSE by making my character witnesses to the Virgin Birth a sullied bride who got raped and a crazy cuckoo who heard voices from angels? All that does is feed the rumours that were already spreading at that time that he was just the bastard son of a Roman soldier.
But there it is. Matthew decided to put it in anyway. Whatever for, I don't know, but I'm skeptical of a view that suggests that such a defamatory statement against Christ's nature would make it into a fabricated account that is attempting to establish His Deity through false premises.
And thus, we have the origin story of Jesus according to Matthew, trying to convince his very Jewish readership that this bastard born and fathered by this crazy guy who thought he was special and privy to prophecy (spoken to by an Angel) was the Messiah to whom Isaiah prophesied, whom all the Teachers of the Law and the Rabbis taught would be a militaristic saviour come to free them from the Romans (or as was a popular Messianic view of the time).
(See Matthew 1:22-23 for his stated reasons as to why he was telling the story this way.)
Good one Matthew. Well chosen.
Again, a facetious remark to draw your attention to just how unconvincing this story really is. But Matthew wrote it out anyway. He even died for it. Or even if he didn't it was someone that believed it and likely probably suffered greatly for believing it as well. (History of Christianity 101. If you have any questions, consult a basic history text on early Christianity right after the time of the death of the last apostle but before the Romanification of the Church.)
The conclusion
With all this wild meandering, I want to conclude with this. This story is a skeptic's dream come true as to the many ways that you can laugh at us. But people wrote this, believed this, and then died for believing it. To nobody's particular benefit. Except to continue sharing the message that God dwelt among us and He did so in Jesus.
Why? "for he will save his people from their sins" said the angel to Joseph.
Curious yet? I'll continue on with this journey through Matthew, continually through a skeptical lens. I hope I'm asking the same questions you ask as I go through this. If I am not, then share with me. If I'm saying anything wrong, share THAT too.
That's right. I went there.
Now that I have your attention let me note for the record that I do believe in the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.
And the imagination part begins
Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, is writing an account of his glorious time with Jesus. He's trying to think, "how am I going to get the attention of my audience? How am I going to convince them that He is the one that the prophets spoke of when they spoke of the Messiah."
He thinks, "ok well we got the genealogy part down." (TL:DR Your lineage was KEY in Jewish culture at Jesus time and was necessary to prove prophecy fulfilled.)
The conception of Christ AKA say what now?
"Hmmm, I know! We'll talk about how He was conceived! That's it! Right... how was he conceived again?"
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. (Matthew 1:18-19)
AWWWWKKKKKWWWWAAAARRRRRD. As it were.
"But seriously guys! He's the Son of God! Guys? Guys?"
Matthew was trying to convince his audience that Jesus, that crazy rabbi that everyone heard about, was actually the Son of God come to save the world! Y'all think we're crazy for believing this stuff now, imagine what people back then were saying when they heard any of this?
The skepticism of those in the time period AKA Yeah right, cuckold.
"Pffffftt, yeah right. Holy Spirit my patootie. She got raped and you just don't want to admit it."
You actually don't think that people were thinking that back then too? Matthew probably knew it, but he was either oblivious or didn't care. Oblivious is not likely. Matthew was a tax collector before he started following Jesus, a serious Roman bureaucrat who had spent many years embroiled in the muckery of Roman bureaucracy. He plowed on with the story.
Joseph's side of the story AKA Now you're a CRAZY cuckold, not just a cuckold.
But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:20-21)
So Matthew goes he does, "I know! It was an ANGEL FROM THE LORD! That will get people's attention. That's why Joseph didn't divorce her."
An angel from the Lord comes and tells you to live out the rest of your life as an alleged cuckold (because again, realistically, you think people then bought this Holy Spirit stuff? I kind of doubt it, but anyone is free to correct me). This is NOT a small life-decision for Joseph at this point. The shame he's going to have to walk around with? The cut eyed looks and the rumours and the whispering, and the hushed titters? Private divorce sounds good to me, from that perspective. And he didn't even get to NAME the freaking bastard (irreverence making you cringe yet some of my right leaning folks?)
The faith equation AKA I don't care if you think I'm crazy I know what I saw.
But Joseph chose a more difficult path. He chose to face the potential sully on his honour because the Angel was right. He chose to believe that something special was going on and that he was going to be a part of it, even if it meant a lifetime of shame.
Now if I was trying to hornswaggle my readers, I definitely would not have written in a crazy ass cuckold who justified himself with a speech from an Angel from the Lord. I doubt the skeptics of the time would have let it go that easily. (Note that I think it's kind of pretentious of us to think that skeptics DIDN'T exist back then.) Why would I make my story WORSE by making my character witnesses to the Virgin Birth a sullied bride who got raped and a crazy cuckoo who heard voices from angels? All that does is feed the rumours that were already spreading at that time that he was just the bastard son of a Roman soldier.
But there it is. Matthew decided to put it in anyway. Whatever for, I don't know, but I'm skeptical of a view that suggests that such a defamatory statement against Christ's nature would make it into a fabricated account that is attempting to establish His Deity through false premises.
When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:24-25)An origin story? Or just some crazy fiction?
And thus, we have the origin story of Jesus according to Matthew, trying to convince his very Jewish readership that this bastard born and fathered by this crazy guy who thought he was special and privy to prophecy (spoken to by an Angel) was the Messiah to whom Isaiah prophesied, whom all the Teachers of the Law and the Rabbis taught would be a militaristic saviour come to free them from the Romans (or as was a popular Messianic view of the time).
(See Matthew 1:22-23 for his stated reasons as to why he was telling the story this way.)
Good one Matthew. Well chosen.
Again, a facetious remark to draw your attention to just how unconvincing this story really is. But Matthew wrote it out anyway. He even died for it. Or even if he didn't it was someone that believed it and likely probably suffered greatly for believing it as well. (History of Christianity 101. If you have any questions, consult a basic history text on early Christianity right after the time of the death of the last apostle but before the Romanification of the Church.)
The conclusion
With all this wild meandering, I want to conclude with this. This story is a skeptic's dream come true as to the many ways that you can laugh at us. But people wrote this, believed this, and then died for believing it. To nobody's particular benefit. Except to continue sharing the message that God dwelt among us and He did so in Jesus.
Why? "for he will save his people from their sins" said the angel to Joseph.
Curious yet? I'll continue on with this journey through Matthew, continually through a skeptical lens. I hope I'm asking the same questions you ask as I go through this. If I am not, then share with me. If I'm saying anything wrong, share THAT too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)