I was talking with a friend of mine about our pet peeves about the way theology is developed and discussed today. We talked for a bit about Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, then moved on to theologians as a whole.

His problem is that theologians generally write for other theologians. They tend to sit back positing, hypothesizing, and generally wondering out loud, but little (if any) of that is usable by the layman. They use a lot of words in order to sound smart, whether they are or not.

I add that while that’s happening, many of those who teach the church are reducing theology to pragmatism, washing out the foundation of their positions when they speak to the congregation. They are, in essence, discouraging people from thinking theologically about things by spoon-feeding them “life lessons” and “practical application”. The result is that people are unable to associate their beliefs with their everyday activities.

One example that jumped out at me recently is that a number of pediatricians support breastfeeding, but recommend a formula supplement. There are a lot of conclusions that people will draw from that, but few will see that this points to a lack of faith in God. If you have faith, and are able to associate your faith with everyday life, you’ll realize that God gave your baby every nutrient she needs for her first 6-12 months in the form of breastmilk. If God is providing, is there any need for a formula supplement?

I’m not saying that supplements are evil, and I’m not saying that you lack faith if you listen to your doctor. I’m saying that neither you, nor your doctor have been encouraged to think theologically about such things.

My friend says that it’s like theological texts are written in another language, and there are only a handful of skilled/called/responsive translators. We need more ministers to heed the call to teach their congregations to think theologically about life. Not just church life, but every part of their lives.

This post is about me. I can hear both of you saying, “Aren’t they all?” Well, yes. But this one isn’t about me, per se, but about “me”. As has been said many times, in many places, our culture is driven by the consumer. It used to just be an economic phenomenon, but it’s spread. The consumer determines whether or not you have a job, and how hard you work, and how much money you make. How much money you make determines how much money you spend when you get off work and become the consumer. The consumer determines what movies and TV shows get made, and what kinds of commercials air during those shows.

I know you’ve seen the whole “consumerism is EVIL!” rant before, so I’ll stop there. Suffice it to say that (several years ago) it made its appearance in the church. People started choosing churches based on what they “got out of it”. I’ve done it myself, and I hate that part of me.

Like I said, that was several years ago. When people started seeking church that way, rather than correcting that error, church leaders began to cater to it. Robert Webber says this in the intro to Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches:

While the sixties were the age of secularism in which God had been shoved to the periphery of existence, the eighties and nineties rapidly shifted to a new era of self-focused spirituality…In this context, a “pragmatic evangelicalism” was born…[it] created new practical solutions - corporate churches, entertainment worship, need-driven programs, therapeutic faith.”

Webber goes on to discuss how theology took a back seat to meeting felt needs. I went to a conference last year that brought to my attention the concept of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. The basic idea, as stated on Christianpost.com, is this:

• 1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.”(Deism)
• 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”(Moralism)
• 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”(Therapeutic)
• 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.”(Deism again)
• 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.” (Moralism Redux)

I just read this article to brush up…the comments are especially telling.

It’s clear that based on the evidence of MTD that we can easily see in our world, theology - Biblical theology, that is - has taken a serious hit. I was speaking with my pastor today about a conversation I had with some of my teens. Our Sunday School conversation turned to world religions, and two of my students said that they believed that a) God revealed himself differently to different cultures, and those made up the world religions…so they’re all equal, and b) that a good person - the example was Ghandi - must be deserving of God’s love.

I told my pastor that I disagreed with them, and first he asked me why. I was a little confused, but he said that he’d tell me what he thought, and that I could tell him what I thought, and we’d go from there. Here is a paraphrase of his position:

I see religion as people watching a baseball game through a wood fence. They’re looking through knotholes, one from first base, one from centerfield, one on the third baseline. They’re all different perspectives of the same game.

I had a friend who was an alcoholic and a drug addict [note: I assume he was recovering]. He told me that we’re all suffering from the same disease: separation from God. Everyone’s trying to fill the void inside, he had chosen drugs and alcohol.

I’m a Christian because I believe with all my heart that Jesus is the way to God. But if someone tells me that they’re Muslim, or Buddhist, and that fills the void for them, who am I to say that’s wrong?

It’s like in the the Gospel lesson this week. When they asked Peter why he had to eat with the uncircumcised, he said, “If these guys had an experience just like we did, who am I to keep them out?”

There are two things in this conversation that stand out to me, showing that Biblical theology has become unimportant. First, my pastor believes that the purpose of faith is therapeutic. Whatever stuffs your turkey. It’s about you feeling complete, satisfied, happy. Second, he either misunderstood, or intentionally misstated the passage that had been our reading this Sunday.

Before Peter went to Cornelius’ house in Acts 10 he had a dream. God told him not to call “common” that which he has made clean. Then the Spirit directed him to follow the three men who had come from Caesarea. He did, where he was told of Cornelius’ dream, then he preached the Gospel. Then the Spirit descended on them. When questioned, Peter recounted the whole incident, including both dreams, and applying Jesus’ words of them being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Then he said, “Who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

Peter’s experience was directed by heaven itself. Supported by dreams, prophecy, and the words of Christ. Moreover, it doesn’t conflict with Scripture, it confirms it. Scripture tells us that “the nations will rally to him” (Is 11:10), that he would proclaim justice to them (Is 42:1); Christ told the apostles to make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19-20), etc, etc.

But my pastor’s argument does not confirm scripture. It contradicts it. Those who do not believe are “condemned already” (Jn 3:18), no one will find God except through Christ (Jn 14:6), “there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ (1Tim 2:5).” How can my pastor, who seems in all ways conventional hold this belief? I honestly don’t know.

I know it’s a product of our consumer culture. I know it’s a product of the “tolerance” movement that is en vogue in progressive churches like my own. I know it’s a result of “niceness”: you must be careful not to offend. Nobody wants to seem arrogant or superior, so they won’t point out error. They won’t point out anything that will make another person uncomfortable. So they pretend there’s no right way.

In the end, it all comes down to “me”. What makes me happy right now? What makes people like me? What will keep my parishioners and the members of the community from thinking I’m cocky?

I told him that Jesus’ purpose wasn’t to make us feel whole or complete, that’s just a by-product. He came to reconcile us to God, for his glory. Our purpose is to give glory to God. This isn’t about “me”, it’s about him.

Check out this recent post from God’s Politics by Ryan Beiler, Does God Hate?

The crux is this: “As Stephen Colbert might say: ‘God hates or God loves? Pick a side � we’re at war.’ Or is such black-and-white, either/or thinking offensive to the nuanced and paradox-embracing mind of the progressive intellectual Christian? Discuss.”

And many did, here’s my response:

I think the problem with people’s perceptions of this is that they seem to think that God can only love or only hate. Well, Scripture seems to say he can do both. Why can’t we be comfortable with the idea that God loves the things that he created, and hates the perversions we’ve made of them?

The word nuanced is overused…in progressive circles it’s starting to translate to “convoluted”. The paradox-embracing Christian (progressive or conservative) should be perfectly at home with the idea that God is capable of both love and hate. If you can’t accept that how can you understand the tension between law and gospel, holiness and grace, and Jesus incarnation as fully God and fully man?

And my favorites from other readers:

As I understand it (but would appreciate if I was corrected), when the word “hate” is used in the bible it is taken as meaning “rejection”. Hence why God “loved” Jacob but “hated” Esau. God still blessed Esau, and didn’t hate him in a despicable way. He simply chose Jacob over Esau for his inheritance (since Esau treated it with contempt).

However I must say it is a simple and flawed theology to deduct that God must love everything because “God is love”. Love is not simply an emotion nor is it a wilfully naive. It is more of a choice, choosing to love something that is unlovely.

Perhaps study in to the original Hebrew and/or Greek texts would shed some light from time to time.

Alex Fear | Homepage

I agree with Alex on this point.

God is indeed love, but His love is very different from human conceptions of love. It is not mushy sentimentality, which is not to say that it is not personal and compassionate. But His love is indeed a different kind of “love” that is multi-faceted. A good resource for this would be D. A. Carson’s book ‘The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God’.

Another note - God’s love is informed (for lack of a better term) by His holiness. Holy love cannot “love” evil. It cannot “love” sin. God’s holiness means He cannot dwell with sin - and thus Christ’s atoning sacrifice is our entry into God’s presence because through His death, we have been clothed with His righteousness. God’s love was demonstrated in His dealing with the sin that separated us from Him through the death of His Son. But that sacrifice also demonstrated God’s justice, which will not allow sin and evil to go unpunished (Romans 3 is a good reference for this). You have to have both in mind to have a balanced view of God’s love.

That God hates sin is not a negative idea insofar as it speaks of the absolute holiness of God in which He will not “love” sin or evil.

We are informed by the Bible that when Christ returns He will judge the world for unrighteousness. We stand between the First and Second Advent of our Lord. Sin still dwells in the world, but God will deal with it definitively when Christ returns to consummate His Kingdom. We must keep that in mind when thinking of God’s hatred of sin and evil.

pollyanna | Homepage

Last month an ELCA pastor from Atlanta was tried by the church for breaking denominational rules: He is in a (committed) homosexual relationship. You can find plenty of information about it here. The decision was handed down this week. You can find the full text of it here. As usual, I get most of my major ELCA news from Bob @ I Am A Christian Too(it’s surprising how little information gets to the church staff).

I don’t know where to start, with the commentary from the panel, or with Bob’s commentary on the panel. So I’ll go with stream of consciousness. Aannnnnd…begin:

In the event that the Committee on Appeals determines that paragraph b.4) of Definitions and Guidelines is unconstitutional[!], then this committee would find, with near unanimity, that there is nothing about Pastor Schmeling’s acknowledged and stipulated homosexual relationship that would impede the proclamation of the gospel or the right administration of the sacraments. If relieved of the specific requirements of Definitions and Guidelines and permitted to decide this case under the standards of constitution chapters seven and twenty, this committee would find almost unanimously that Pastor Schmeling is not engaged in conduct that is incompatible with the ministerial office, and would find with near unanimity that no discipline of any sort should be imposed against him.

Schmeling Discipline Hearing Committee

And Bob’s comment:

Translating: Pastor Schmeling is morally fit to be a pastor, it’s just the current rules that get in the way. Whether the rules are set aside on appeal or not, they recommend that the Churchwide Assembly change the Definitions and Guidelines and Visions and Expections, the two documents governing behavior of ELCA clergy, to remove the prohibition against committed same-sex relationships. This is so cool!

Sooo…he’s morally fit, except that the rules get in the way? Doesn’t morality imply following the rules? “Ken Lay was an upright individual, it’s just that the current laws against embezzlement get in the way.” Yeah, sounds great.

Bob then employs the “human face on the problem” argument. “It is easy to argue against gay rights or for a scriptural basis for condemning gays when it is in the abstract, but when someone that you know and love comes out as gay, it’s not so easy.” I believe that this is true for many people. But two things about it are notable: one, it wouldn’t be as easy, but we don’t do the right thing because it’s easy, we do it because it’s right. This is the problem too many conservative/orthodox churches and church-goers have…the easy way to deal with homosexuality is to condemn all homosexual persons on spec, whether they are abstaining and devout or not. The right thing is to love and accept everyone and “teach them to obey everything [Jesus has] commanded.” It’s obviously much harder.

The second thing: the fact that many people would rethink and even decide that one of the philosophical shams that passes for Christian theology is true based on the sexuality of a friend or family member speaks volumes about the moral character of the West. We have a whole society raised to believe that if something feels good, it is good. That’s what this comes down to. Pastor Brad is a nice man and has become loved by his congregation, and this makes him happy…how could it be wrong? This kind of reasoning has already gotten the church and the rest of society into all kinds of trouble. If you think about it hard enough you’ll recognize it’s effects.

Since, in my opinion, this can’t be said enough, I think it’s a wonderful testimony to the grace and power of God that Pr. Schemling’s sexuality hasn’t negatively affected his ministry. It’s not his sexuality that is the problem here; it’s his open, outspoken, and unapologetic defiance of the clear context for sexual activity set out in Scripture.

In reading up on this issue I’ve come across several theological arguments attempting to demonstrate God’s acceptance of homosexual union. These arguments, more than any other, highlight the underlying theologies of the progressive Christian movement. These theologies are characterized by a number of ideas, including that the Bible is written in a mythological form that uses miracles and the supernatural to convey “deeper truths” about God, and that the earliest Christians didn’t believe Jesus was God. Marcus Borg, one of the world’s leading progressive theologians, denies the divinity of Christ and his resurrection.

A couple of months back, after Bp. Schori’s original NYT Magazine and NPR interviews, I sent an email to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. For those of you who don’t know, the ELCA and the ECUSA have a relationship of “full communion”. This is a pretty significant linking, though it’s not really a merger. As an ELCA minister I was fairly disturbed by some of the comments she made, especially those saying that Jesus is not the only way to heaven. Bp. Hanson got back to me about a month ago, but my anti-spam got it, and I just noticed it yesterday.

Basically, I asked him what his reaction was, how it might affect the communion, and whether the ELCA would follow suit. This is what he said:

I received your email of November 28 in which you expressed concerns about a statement made by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Bishop Schori’s remarks about those who are saved represent a specific theological school of thought that became increasingly popular at the Second Vatican Council and beyond. While it does not deny that Christ is God’s revealed means of salvation, it opens the door for the possibility that God has the capability of saving fallen humanity through a variety of means. Such a position would be in accordance with the biblical principle that God desires the salvation of every human being. We are certain that God accomplishes such salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. We are not certain that God also will act in other ways to proffer salvation. Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world.

In order to place the best construction on Presiding Bishop Schori’s intention, I think we can affirm that it is not up to us, fallen creatures that we are, to determine for God the full range of how God may act towards us. That is how I read her remark that we should not attempt to put God in a box. And while I might not choose to express myself in the same way as Presiding Bishop Schori has done, I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.

The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, in constitutional provision 2.02., declares:

This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.

The proclamation of God’s message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. As we celebrate the birth of our Savior among us, may you be filled with peace, joy, and hope.

Living in God’s amazing grace,

Mark S. Hanson
Presiding Bishop

Well, Hanson just ticked up a couple of notches on my respect-o-meter. Typically i see a response that is worded so carefully as a load of B.S., but he makes a couple of strong points. Yes, God has only revealed himself to us in Jesus, and we know that salvation is found in Him. But Jesus told us that the Father desires the salvation of ever person. And we know he has the power to do anything he wants. So the possibility is open that there are other paths.

But the logical conclusion of this position is that we need to spread the Gospel as far and fast as we can and leave the rest to God. If He decides to save people through other means then that’s his prerogative…but we can’t count on it. We have to act as though there are no other options, because we can’t be sure. Similarly, as a 25 year-old I know that Social Security and Medicare might be there when I’m 67, but I better not count on it for my survival during retirement.

Bp. Schori was not saying this. It’s clear that she’s saying that we shouldn’t act as though Jesus is the only way. I find this difficult to do, because Jesus, the Prophets, and the Apostles were very clear that the nations would be saved through the cross. The nations…Gentiles…Goyim, with all their myriad religious traditions, would be saved through faith in Jesus of Nazareth. This is in stark opposition to her assertion that “people of other faith traditions approach God through their… own cultural contexts.” As a church leader she has a responsibility to be faithful to the Scriptures and lead people toward Christ, not make it easier for them to ignore him.

I hope that God chooses to save those who are pure in heart and spirit, but did not find Christ in life. Especially those who were hurt by bigoted, self-righteous, misguided Christians, and couldn’t bring themselves to return to the church that scarred them so badly. But if there were another way, why would Jesus have to die the way He did?

BTW, if your wondering about the random bold words, I decided to emphasize every time I referred to God using a third person masculine pronoun, because Bp. Hanson refused to do so. I understand that there’s a philosophical reason to avoid it, but Jesus called God “the Father” and that’s reason enough for me. Besides it’s stinkin’ hard to read a sentence like, “Only God knows how God will act to redeem the world,” or “I believe we can affirm both that Jesus Christ is God’s uniquely revealed means of the world’s salvation and that God has the freedom to act in order to bring all people under God’s kingdom.” Don’t they teach you not to do that in 7th grade, or something?

Already Making Waves (Revisited), Already Making Waves, A Spoiled Kid In A Weird Hat, More From the Schore, Schori’s Glory

« Previous Page — Next Page »