Avoiding a Repeat of the Worst Mistake in Christian History
Here is a link to a story that illustrates for me that some Christians have still not learned one of the biggest lessons of Church history. For those who don't want to read the article, a theologian is suggesting that Tilly the killer whale should die based on the laws of the goring ox found in Exodus 21. This story about someone trying to apply scripture may seem innocuous at worst, and to some even laudable. To me it betrays both a deep ignorance of scripture and a failure to understand our past blunders.
The Scriptural Problem
This person's 'literal' reading of scripture fails to understand one of the most important features of the law. The law was given to a theocratic state where religion and government were essentially the same. Today we would call this the union of church and state. Unless Sea World, or the US is under theocratic rule, this argument holds no water.
The Failure to Understand Church History
Someone might argue that the union of church and state would be a good thing. I would respond that we already tried that in medieval Europe. The union of church and state was one of the the biggest mistakes in the history of the church. It was the root that gave birth to the two worst happenings in the history of the church: 1) the crusades, and 2) the exportation of culture and imperialism under the guise of missions. Both of these happenings were the fully grown fruit of the union of church and state. In both cases, Christians packaged the gospel with their own culture and government.The separation of church and state is a good thing for both the church and the state.
What do you think? Do you think this theologian has a point? Or do you think he is totally off base?
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
3.07.2010
2.24.2010
The 10 Reasons Christ is Coming Back in 2010
That list would be a lot easier to assemble than the 88 reason list assembled by Edgar Whisenant about why Christ would return on Rosh Hashanna 1988. End times obsession has been a major feature of fundamentalist/evangelical Christianity for the last couple of centuries. It has given us such delights as Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth, the atrocious Omega Code, and the ever popular Left Behind series.
End times obsession was a key note of my upbringing. I remember 1988. I remember my pastor giving us the highlights of the 88 reasons and my mother copying them down on a scrap of paper from her purse. The first book of the Bible I ever read on my own was the Revelation. I had one of those small Gideon New Testaments that I would sit and read. When I was a teenager we spent the better part of a year going through Revelation as a youth group. That was good times.
End times obsession was a key note of my upbringing. I remember 1988. I remember my pastor giving us the highlights of the 88 reasons and my mother copying them down on a scrap of paper from her purse. The first book of the Bible I ever read on my own was the Revelation. I had one of those small Gideon New Testaments that I would sit and read. When I was a teenager we spent the better part of a year going through Revelation as a youth group. That was good times.
All of this end times focus had a very odd effect on me. I found that I regarded the return of my Lord with some mixture of fear and morbid curiosity. The book of Revelation was like a horror movie that I did not want to watch but could not look away from. As I have grown, I have learned that I am not alone in this response.
Should this be the case? Shouldn't the our response to the return of Christ be some mixture of joy and hope rather than fear and morbid curiosity?
What do you think? What is your experience with end time obsession? How do you think we should engage matters of the end times?
11.30.2009
Creed and Councils, They're Not Just for Catholics!
Growing up, it was common to hear that our only creed was "We have no creed but the Bible."Of course that was not true. We believed in all kinds of things that the Bible does not describe, the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ most prominently. These things come to us from the great tradition of the church, of which we were largely ignorant. In my opinion this is sad. In an attempt to be un-Catholic many evangelical protestants cut themselves off from the riches of the great tradition.
On the other hand, members of many liturgical churches could recite the creeds much easier than they could recite any biblical passage.This is also sad. in an effort to stay true to the traditions of the church, they have lost the most sacred and most fundamental of all traditions, the scripture itself!
I think many of us feel forced to make a choice. You can have either the traditions of the church, or you can have the Bible, but not both.
So where is the nice middle ground? Is it possible to be both anchored in scripture and to draw from the riches of the great tradition? Can we actually be evangelical and recite the Nicene Creed every week in church
What do you think?
On the other hand, members of many liturgical churches could recite the creeds much easier than they could recite any biblical passage.This is also sad. in an effort to stay true to the traditions of the church, they have lost the most sacred and most fundamental of all traditions, the scripture itself!
I think many of us feel forced to make a choice. You can have either the traditions of the church, or you can have the Bible, but not both.
So where is the nice middle ground? Is it possible to be both anchored in scripture and to draw from the riches of the great tradition? Can we actually be evangelical and recite the Nicene Creed every week in church
What do you think?
11.16.2009
"If One Thing in There Isn't True..."
"...Then we can't trust anything it says." "Every word is true, or its all garbage." I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard that statement made about the Bible.
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
10.26.2009
Of God, People, and Primates
You want to see a fundamentalist get red in the face? Ask him his opinion about evolution. Worse yet, tell him you don't the conflict between the Bible and modern science, you think they should peacefully co-exist. Then get ready for some fireworks!
What is it about the issue of creation and evolution that brings out such emotional combativeness? Is it righteous anger? Passion? Insecurity? Fear? Doubt?
The Nicene Creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible." In my view, the belief that God is the creator of all things is essential Christian doctrine. It is one of the core affirmations of our faith.
However, within Christian circles the debate is not so much about whether God created all things but how. The three prevailing opinions are as follows:
1) Young Earth Creationism: the belief that earth was created in 6 literal days about 5,000-10,000 years ago. Many who hold this view regard it as the only legitimate Christian view because all other views distort the plain truth of scripture.
2) Old Earth Creationism: the belief that the 6 days either stand for 6 eras, or are figurative. So then the earth was created billions of years ago as scientists suggest. However, the basic outline and means of Genesis 1-2 are true.
3) Theistic Evolution: the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create. Genesis 1-2 then are taken as literary polemics or poems answering questions more applicable to Moses and the Israelites than to modern science.
Many hold variations of these views, but these are the basic categories.
I believe that so long as we maintain that the Lord is truly creator of all things, we can hold any one of these views.
What do you think?
Which is your view? Do you think there is room for all of these views or not?
What issues are most important to you as you think about this debate?
What is it about the issue of creation and evolution that brings out such emotional combativeness? Is it righteous anger? Passion? Insecurity? Fear? Doubt?
The Nicene Creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible." In my view, the belief that God is the creator of all things is essential Christian doctrine. It is one of the core affirmations of our faith.
However, within Christian circles the debate is not so much about whether God created all things but how. The three prevailing opinions are as follows:
1) Young Earth Creationism: the belief that earth was created in 6 literal days about 5,000-10,000 years ago. Many who hold this view regard it as the only legitimate Christian view because all other views distort the plain truth of scripture.
2) Old Earth Creationism: the belief that the 6 days either stand for 6 eras, or are figurative. So then the earth was created billions of years ago as scientists suggest. However, the basic outline and means of Genesis 1-2 are true.
3) Theistic Evolution: the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create. Genesis 1-2 then are taken as literary polemics or poems answering questions more applicable to Moses and the Israelites than to modern science.
Many hold variations of these views, but these are the basic categories.
I believe that so long as we maintain that the Lord is truly creator of all things, we can hold any one of these views.
What do you think?
Which is your view? Do you think there is room for all of these views or not?
What issues are most important to you as you think about this debate?
10.19.2009
H, E, Double Hockey Sticks
HELL, that is.
Hell is a disturbing concept. Eternal punishment, where pain never ceases, no one ever dies, and there is no hope of improvement...forever. When I really pause and think about it, hell is downright terrifying. But then again, I guess that is the point. Preachers have been scaring people with hell for generations. "Turn or Burn," they say. I wonder how many people find their way to heaven out of the fear of hell.
In recent years, the concept of hell has come under fire. Two main objections are frequently raised: 1) the unbalanced scale of finite sin vs. infinite punishment, and 2) an all loving God would not do that to people. Objections like this have many to believe that instead of eternal punishment, unbelievers will simply cease to exist (a position called annihilationism). They argue that instead of eternal punishment, "hell" is missing out on an eternal paradise with the Lord. Others object that this takes the teeth out of the gospel. Concepts like the wrath and justice of God become rather mundane and docile.
What do you think? Is it ok for a Christian not to believe in hell?
What is gained by eliminating hell? What is lost?
Hell is a disturbing concept. Eternal punishment, where pain never ceases, no one ever dies, and there is no hope of improvement...forever. When I really pause and think about it, hell is downright terrifying. But then again, I guess that is the point. Preachers have been scaring people with hell for generations. "Turn or Burn," they say. I wonder how many people find their way to heaven out of the fear of hell.
In recent years, the concept of hell has come under fire. Two main objections are frequently raised: 1) the unbalanced scale of finite sin vs. infinite punishment, and 2) an all loving God would not do that to people. Objections like this have many to believe that instead of eternal punishment, unbelievers will simply cease to exist (a position called annihilationism). They argue that instead of eternal punishment, "hell" is missing out on an eternal paradise with the Lord. Others object that this takes the teeth out of the gospel. Concepts like the wrath and justice of God become rather mundane and docile.
What do you think? Is it ok for a Christian not to believe in hell?
What is gained by eliminating hell? What is lost?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
