With passionate people on both sides of this debate, is there any way to do justice to everyone’s beliefs?! I think I have one…
What if the government got out of the marriage business?! I know it sounds crazy, but consider it. Why are LGBTs and Evangelicals alike allowing the government to define our committed unions? Maybe we have given the government too much say in what these unions mean. Perhaps Law should no longer issue marriage licenses to hetero or homo couples. They could give us all “civil union” certificates, or whatever they want to call it. Attach the same rights and responsibilities as marriage currently offers, but lose the title.
Then we can leave it to religious (or non religious) communities to attach meaning to these unions. Our state of California is apparently too big and diverse to agree on meaning.
A side of the debate I haven’t heard (except from myself) is this: Changing the definition of marriage imposes a new definition of marriage upon everyone else. For all of U.S. – and most of human – history marriage has been assumed to be a heterosexual union. In the U..S specifically, the word “marriage” is infused with so much Judeo-Christian meaning. To include same-sex unions defies the meaning for lots of people.
If marriage is redefined, I don’t know if my wife and I could continue to call ourselves “married”. It would be untrue to what we believe. If a new definition is imposed on us, we may have to legally dissolve our marriage, and continue living in the covenant we made before Christ and the Church. Losing legal benefits is a small price to pay for being true to our beliefs. I do believe it will pass eventually if the government insists on defining marriage.
Dear Moses,
I am writing to apologize for speaking out against you the other day. I want to explain what came over me, not as an excuse for what I did, but so you know the reason. You see, there are issues between us that festered in my heart for a long time, and I hope we can discuss them and find some healing for us, our family, and all Israel.
Being your big sister has always been difficult. Putting you in that river, approaching Pharaoh’s daughter, and pretending all those years to be someone besides your sister put a lot of pressure on me. I was so angry with the Egyptians, and I was angry with you for living a charmed life along with them. Even though I knew it was the only way to save you, I resented you for the freedom you enjoyed while our masters abused us. But now I understand that you went through similar turmoil, not knowing fully who you were as a son of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and as a Levite. While you appeared to be care-free, I knew that was not the case after you killed that Egyptian man.
The relief I felt then was brief, because you ran away right after that. You were our only hope for help, and then you took off! Of course, it was to save your own life, but what about us? Just like when you were a baby, your life was more important than the rest of us. Why did God like you so much, and look after you, and seem to ignore the rest of us? Honestly I, we, felt rejected by God and by you.
The hardest slap in the face was when you finally came back. I understood why you never got circumcised, but it seems at least you could have been one of us through marriage! You could have had your pick, but you took a Midianite. Then it seemed clear that you just did not want to be one of us. It hurt very badly to be rejected by the brother you worked so hard to protect.
But you came back with a powerful conviction to free us, casting plagues on Egypt left and right. This sent mixed signals. Did you really care about us, or did you think you could rule us yourself? Did Yahweh really want to free us to serve him, or to serve you? And Egypt’s punishment fell right back on us, only increasing the confusion. We followed, yes, but not always out of excitement, but out of fear. If Yahweh could do this to Egypt, could he not do it to us too. And you seemed to have such influence over him, too much power for one man.
But when Yahweh spoke to me, then it was clear. He loved and cared for me to, and everything he did through you, he did for us, for our family, and for Israel. I’ll never understand why he chose you, maybe just to show that his choice has nothing to do with our strength, or our merit. Its all about his mercy and grace, and that is shown most powerfully in our weaknesses. The other day, Aaron and I thought it was about our merit, our strength, but thank God he showed us otherwise. Thank you for praying for us, for using your influence for good. You are a wonderful brother, a great leader, and a faithful servant of Yahweh. Please forgive me for resenting you, because I was really resenting Yahweh’s choice of you. I love you.
Your sister,
Miriam
Ok, so I was hanging out with a couple of mormon missionaries today. (No this is not the beginning of a bad joke) They implored me to join the true church of Jesus Christ, and said if I asked God he would make me feel that it was true. God would prove the truth of Mormonism by giving me a feeling. No, I’m not going to start bashing them as a touchy-feely religion, because here is what I realized: Many (if not all) religious adherents feel that they are right, that their truth is the truth. This is true also for myself as well. So are feelings enough?
Well, now lets talk about how we know things (the philosophical category called epistemology). Starting at the Enlightenment, with Renee Descartes, knowledge needed a indubitable (not able to doubted) foundation to build on. Descartes’ foundation was “I think therefore I am”. This corresponds to the liberal and fundamentalist streams of Christianity. Fundamentalist/conservatives chose Scripture as their foundation. Liberals chose a feeling, or experience, as their foundation. But what both Modern/Enlightenment traditions missed was the roles of culture/tradition in knowledge. Both my Mormon friends and I were raised to believe certain things about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and humanity. This is true for all religions. Our cultures, families, and communities reinforced this. Some fall away, no doubt, but that isn’t the point. The point is, tradition and culture really shape our knowledge and beliefs.
So as my Mormon friends implored me to ask God, and seek a feeling to confirm that Joseph Smith is a prophet from God, I was floored. Just a feeling? Thats it? That just isn’t enough, and it isn’t the way we really know things anyway. A feeling did not compel those two young men to devote 2 years of their life to being missionaries in Los Angeles. Their communities have been working toward that their whole lives.
So lets wrap it up with some comments on Pluralism (the existence of many religions). They can’t all be right, though many would say otherwise. In America, we advocate tolerance of other religions. This sounds noble and good, but the result is that people think all religions are right. Consequently, their own convictions become more shallow. This weakening of religious conviction could be an American epidemic! But it is precisely the overemphasis of feeling that makes people opt for full-blown religious pluralism. A buddhist feels like they experience God, or Ultimate Reality, therefore it must be the case. Its tempting isn’t it? To think, just because someone is really sincere about their beliefs, that they are really accurate beliefs. We don’t feel justified in saying, “You may feel that way, but that is not true.” If they feel it is true, then it must be true.
But it isn’t just feelings and experiences that are dictating their knowledge, its culture and tradition. Cultures create experience. A holistic epistemology, made up of experience, culture/tradition, and a sacred text helps us understand that we need not resort to pluralism when faced with others who have sincere religious experience that conflict with ours. Because it isn’t just feelings guiding things.
This means that we must be very sensitive in trying to share our faith with others. We have to understand that its not just a logical decision, or a religious experience, but a wholesale cultural shift that has to happen. Imagine forsaking the values you’ve been taught your whole life. This would not be easy. Thus, we must seek to relate to the culture of those with whom we share our faith, and examine our own culture assumptions.
It seems that postmodern philosophy is becoming the theme of this blog. I was having a discussion with a friend about truth. She understood postmodernity to be the belief that there is no absolute truth. Much of what is labeled postmodern does ascribe to this, and many people do feel this way. The response of many Christians, like John McArthur in his book Truth War, is to vigorously defend absolute truth. They seem to fear that to lose it is to lose God’s position to tell us how to live…
I think I have good news for Christians with this fear, and even for people who fear coming to Christ because of their aversion to truth. The more productive strands of postmodern philosophy, like Nancey Murphy’s Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism, help us understand postmoderns real beef with truth: It is not the existence of absolutes, but their tendency to oppress others with absolutes. Do we need to go into examples of how combinations of religion and power has done this?
And not only that, but postmoderns have recognized the myth that a person can be truly objective. We are all shaped by our experiences, by our culture, and that is inevitable. My culture, the Bible belt of Kentucky, has thankfully bequeathed me a trust in the authority of the Bible. I recognize that it might be arrogant to try to impose that on someone who has never been taught it is the inspired Word of God.
So as Christians, believing in a Truth that applies to all people, and compelled to share that Truth at all costs, we have to watch ourselves, that our Truth is not oppressive or authoritarian. We conservatives have a particular tendency toward this. Can we communicate to people that God’s Truth is not oppressive, it is liberating! That sin is true bondage, not a morality shaped by the Bible!
And we must recognize how our context has shaped us, and be attentive to the contexts of others if we are to see them come to Christ, accept the authority of the Scriptures, and live a new life. I could be wrong, but my sense is that we do not have to defend the certainty of absolute truth and the myth of objectivity. We must always be serving, humbling ourselves, and as eager to listen to others as much as we hope to be heard.
I spent the evening with Rob Bell, at the Wilter Theater in Los Angeles. His current speaking tour was insightful and entertaining, as one would expect from Rob, but I was left wanting. He began by painting a picture of primitive humanities struggle for survival against natural forces that we are helpless to control. People imagined deities governing the rain, their crops, and disasters, and developed religious expressions in order to appease them. However one could never know if their offering was adequate; altars themselves represented the vortex created by trying to please the gods.
These detached deities are sharply contrasted by the God who calls Abraham, and promises to bless him, requiring nothing in return. Even when God appeared to be requiring his only son Isaac, in the end God provided the ram. Rob argued that this story showed that the God of Abraham was different than all the other gods, who did nothing for the people, but only “took” their offerings.
Fast forward to Jesus. In his world, the religious system is being used to control people’s relationship to God. And certain religious leaders are making a killing in the process. Jesus recognizes this abuse of the people, and misuse of the Jewish religious system, and confronts in head-on. He is repaid with execution. It is significant that Jesus did not perpetuate the violence that was being used to enforce the governments of the day. Rather he bore the cross.
Rob told stories of people still trying to appease the gods, despite our more sophisticated, “modern” worldview. The cross, he argued, is the final verdict that God is not angry with us, and that we must live in this reality. He sees continued use of guilt and shame in Christianity today, instead of an invitation into a life of peace with God. The only offerings we need to make to God are good deeds toward our neighbors.
As one friend put it, Rob is great at speaking truth afresh. While I couldn’t disagree with a thing he said, I was left wondering about how Jesus matters to the other people. Yes, there are guilt-riden folk who need to know that God is not out to get them – the Father of our Lord Jesus is not like the gods of antiquity. I wonder what he would say to folks who could not care less about God being angry with them. They do not feel any guilt or shame for their sin. Might it be good for them to experience a dose of conviction?
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the message very much. It was a great corrective for we Christians who slip into performance-based faith. But it always seems like Rob is speaking to people of faith who have been bruised by Christianity of today. He always seems to be speaking from this place of healing them. What of the person who knows nothing of church of Jesus? I honestly wonder if Rob is not universalist at heart: that is, that God is going to save everyone regardless of their faith or life.
I also things its phenomenal that a preacher from Michigan was speaking in a historic theater in downtown L.A., to a nearly sold-out crowd. Phenomenal in the sense that it is just doesn’t happen every day – or ever. What does that mean about us, if anything?
The moral of the story – live in the peace and security of God’s love, and extend your offerings to your neighbor in need.
Colossians Remixed is a theological interpretation of American and global culture, that is exegetically rooted in Colossians. The Library of Congress classifies it as social scientific criticism and Christian aspects of globalization. Intervarsity Press Academic published it, perhaps for its extensive usage of scholarship relating to Colossians, the Roman Empire, and contemporary culture. The premise of the book is that the Christian community at Colossae, and Paul himself, followed Jesus in a way that conflicted with the Empire. This resulted in a subversive movement that threatened the core values and practices of Rome. The book perceives a similar empire at work in the emerging global economy, championed primarily by the United States. Since a parallel empire exists, so must rise up a parallel movement of Christ followers to subvert it.
The overall problem the book seeks to address is reconciling a postmodern culture with biblical Christianity. It attempts this with extensive exegetical work, three postmodern archetypes, and an imaginary dialogue partner. Their exegesis draws significantly from the respected scholars N.T. Wright and Walter Brueggemann, who have eight and ten publications in the bibliography, respectively. With their help, the authors are able to glean much about the context of Colossian Christians and the Old Testament tradition that shaped Paul’s letter to them. The three postmodern skeptics all perceive the “absolute” as an oppressive tool, even in the Bible. The imaginary dialogue partner responds critically to their claims with the voice of modern, conservative evangelicalism. It is concerned to adhere to “objective” truth and avoid relativism.
Certain concepts must be defined if the book is to be interpreted correctly. It describes modernism as a call to “autonomy” that propagates an “image of a self-made, self-centered ego” (15). Modernism calls one to be purely “objective”; however the postmodern period has perceived the impossibility of pure objectivity and has responded with absolute relativity and often apathy. In the postmodern mind, “Certainty needs to be abandoned because it claims too much for any human perspective” (16). A current “cybernetic global optimism” arises alongside the rejection of modernity. Thus nihilism coexists with a “super-hyped hope of a new era of economic growth along the information highway” (26). However, the authors believe this optimism is unfounded, and it is simply a repackaged modernity.
The authors claim to be writing for skeptical postmoderns, “who have a hard time hearing the Scriptures speak in a way that addresses them where they are” (8). However the book seems to miss this mark. Because it is a Christian book, from a Christian publisher, and filled with Christian-ese, it is inaccessible to non-Christians. Also it explicitly addresses the tension between postmodern culture and modern evangelicalism, especially with the imaginary dialogues. For these reasons, the book actually functions to convert modern Christians into subversive Christ-followers. It calls them to rise above their unwitting participation in injustice, by asking questions such as, “where does my food come from?” and “what are the conditions of the factories that make my clothing?” Then they must engage all their creativity to secede from these aspects of American life, and cultivate a lifestyle that encourages liberty and justice for all. If Christians actually live this out, then the authors’ intent to reach postmoderns may be better accomplished.
While the authors recognize some negative aspects of postmodernism, they fail to acknowledge its positive philosophical contributions. It is only treated as skepticism that frightens people from adhering to truth, which makes the Bible repulsive. Some positive contributions they miss are Austin’s Speech Act Theory and Quine’s holistic “web” epistemology. They are legitimate postmodern correctives for their modern counterparts in philosophy of language and epistemology, respectively. Professor Nancy Murphy understands such philosophies as creating new and exciting opportunities for theology.
Also, the caricature of “Empire” to describe the United States and the global economy seems overly simplistic. Analogizing Rome and the U.S. has one huge flaw: the U.S. has no Caesar. Though many people hate George Bush, he is not an appropriate counterpart. American government is set up to prevent one person from wielding unrestrained power. However, the book conveys the feeling that there is a “man behind the curtain” who is trying to take over the world. It seems that today’s “Empire” would be better described as the inevitable consequence of a nation of sinners possessing unbridled American freedom.
Also, the caricature of “Empire” to describe the United States and the global economy seems overly simplistic. Analogizing Rome and the U.S. has one huge flaw: the U.S. has no Caesar. Though many people hate George Bush, he is not an appropriate counterpart. American government is set up to prevent one person from wielding unrestrained power. However, the book conveys the feeling that there is a “man behind the curtain” who is trying to take over the world. It seems that today’s “Empire” would be better described as the inevitable consequence of a nation of sinners possessing unbridled American freedom.
So I’m slowly grasping some things about postmodern philosophy. A few quick observations:
Reading about it in class firsthand has helped, because I have previously read it through filters. What I mean is, reading Christian authors applying it to theology is secondhand, like Bryan McLaren, Rob Bell, and Ron Sider. So going to “the source” has been helpful to really understand. Its actually less scary that way!
So the question that we are working through is, ‘how do we know things?’ Philosophers call this “epistemology”, I think from the greek work ‘pistis’ which means ‘faith, belief’. As I touched on in the last entry, since the enlightenment and Descartes, modern epistemology has been understood as a building. Our knowledge must rest on firm ‘foundations’, then we build up from there. But when we start finding things that seem to contradict the foundations, what happens? Do we doubt the foundation? That is the problem with the modern way of knowing, like a foundation and a building.
Do you think this way? Can you relate to the problem of thinking this way? I think I can: Consider the problem of evil and human suffering. Obviously followers of Christ believe that God is good – a foundation. We build on that with God created us, originally as ‘good’ also. But as Adam and Eve fell, we fall. Thus all kinds of evil is ushered into the world. This inevitably causes me to question the foundation of my beliefs, that God is good. So all kinds of theories are devised to explain why my foundation still works, like the notion of ‘free will’…but that calls into question if God is really sovereign. So I’m trying to see if all these conflicts seem so conflicting because of the way knowledge is conceived, as a building with a foundation.
So what does Postmodern philosophy offer as an alternative? Instead of thinking about knowledge as a building, that requires a solid foundation to build upon, a WEB is proposed (I think this is where Rob Bell gets his trampoline analogy in Velvet Elvis). So the web is anchored by experiences we have had. For Christians it will also be anchored by Scripture, and the history of the Church. Beliefs are formed from them, and beliefs are connected within the web. However, the further our beliefs are from experience (or scripture, and history) the further in on the web they are.
So my question is, is this really a better model for how we actually think and know things? That is something postmodern philosophy is proposing, and it may or may not have any usefulness in theology. But it may. Besides I may have botched the whole description.
I’m learning a cure for being an arrogant Christian – study Church history. The stories of our predecessors in the faith – both Catholic and Protestant – are patchworks of successes and failures, progress and setbacks in realizing God’s Kingdom in our midst.
Specifically today Dr. Thompson was lecturing about the Reformation in England. It is common knowledge that the Church in England broke with Roman Catholicism because Henry VIII wanted his first marriage annulled, as it was unsuccessful in producing a male heir. Good reason for schism? Probably not.
The deeper issue I see is the danger of such a close church-state relationship. Was Henry VIII qualified to make such a break? Or even deeper, should such a relationship even be established (b/w church and state) where such a break could even occur?
Ever since the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its state religion I discern the problems that come from the Church having the responsibility, or the authority, to control others with force. Church and state likewise hope to promote the good of humanity, but true change cannot occur through laws and punishment. I think the type of change God hopes to see, and Christians hope to see, we can not force. Did Jesus force his message? He died, forever exemplifying the profound limitations of force to exert change, but the profound ability of love and sacrifice to change things.
I see great implications for us today, as many of our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters seek to restore America as a Christian nation, legislate God’s morality and ethics. But I wonder if those goals are legitimate. Does God desire a nation to rally behind him, or people from all the nations? Might we lose our greatest tools when we seek to accomplish God’s purposes by worldly means?
I’m sure politics, industry, and business are making valuable contributions to humanity. And I’m confident that the Spirit of God can take hold of people within those realms and initiate movements that will move God’s purposes forward. But as for me, I see the world in no better way than through vocational ministry, and hope to lead people in “real world” to move the Kingdom forward with the same tools that Jesus used – humility, sacrifice, charity, and justice for the oppressed.
I’m increasingly convinced that followers of Jesus Christ, following his Spirit, can bring about God’s purposes on Earth. But our means are not the world’s means. And our end goal is not only the good of humanity, but the worship and love of God in the hearts of the people. God help us to guard against over-institutionalizing your Church and make us aware of the movement of your Spirit in the world!
I’m taking Postmodern Philosophy so “postmodern” becomes more than a buzzword that I use with no real understanding. Hopefully though I will be able to identify this phenomenon in the thoughts and lives of people who are not following Christ, and be equipped to speak good news – gospel – into thier lives. I recognize that this is a contentious issue because it seems to let go of Absolute Truth.
This is and is not the case. So far in my readings the modern philosophy has been identified with the “quest for certainty” through objective, rational, individual thought. Descartes is credited with this leap, as he mistrusted the authorities all around him and hoped he could find some truth. That fundamental truth he began with is “I think therefore I am”. His fundamental truth was his own existance as evidenced by his rational thought. Thus modern philosophy (and consequently science, theology, etc.) expresses a great confidence in an individual’s ability to arrive at rational, objective, absolute truth.
Post-modern philosophy has seen this quest as an absolute failure. True objectivity is seen as non-existant to the postmoderns. Absolute and universals are possible, but not deducible through individual efforts. So postmodern philosophy seeks alternate ways of knowing things. One useful way they have recognized is that knowledge is communal. With all the emphasis followers of Christ place on community, this offers real potential. More on this as I learn more!
Thanks for checking out my thoughts on Church in Mission this past quarter. I really enjoyed having others reflect and comment on the issues that came up there. I’m going to continue posting general reflections from all classes this quarter. In case you are interested, they are: POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHY; MODERN CHURCH HISTORY; and GREEK (though it doesn’t need much reflection yet). Please subscribe so you are alerted when I have posted, or try to check it out weekly. I really get alot from publishing my thoughts and hearing opinions from people who know me best, so thanks in advance!
-
Recent Comments
Judy Bishop on Dear Moses… A letter fro… DymnTwentee on how do we know things…mo… Morgan Price on Mormons, Epistemology, &… Dana Guess-Chumbler on the gods aren’t angry: r… mike hertz on Humbled by History
