Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

« Older Entries

They ask the questions we avoid (or) Why does God save yet not prevent?

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

I have one of the best jobs on the planet. Pastoring a small church whose primary ministry is with international students and scholars. Most of whom are here for a limited period of time. Many of whom are studying the Bible and learning about the Christian faith for the first time. We also have Americans and internationals who have been strong Christians for many years.

The thing about extremely intelligent and well educated internationals who are studying the Christian faith for the first time is that they ask questions that American Christians do not normally ask. Either because we have asked and answered them long ago. Or we avoid them because we have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

Jesus teaches us to forgive others. So why does God not forgive human beings unless we believe in Jesus? And why could God not forgive unless his son died on the cross? And yet God expects us to forgive others without such conditions.

Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. President Bush is supposed to be a Christian. So why did America go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. Just that they sometimes ask questions that one does not hear from Americans who have grown up going to church. This Sunday they hit me with a good one. We were discussing the Psalms. A short study on different types of Psalm. Wisdom. Lament. Thanksgiving. And praise. For the last type looking at Psalm 146. How often we think “God must be on the side of those who prosper and must be angry with those who suffer”. And yet Psalm 146 clearly proclaims that God cares especially for the oppressed the hungry the imprisoned the blind the fallen the foreigner the widows and the orphans. We might think God must have been punishing the people of Haiti because they “made a deal with the devil”. And yet Psalm 146 invites us to see how God cares about them.

And how does God care for all these different kinds of people who are in need or are suffering? Does he make food *poof* appear out of thin air? Or does he help them through us? I do believe in miracles. That God can and does *poof* provide what people need. But I also believe strongly that we are junior partners with God. That we participate in his ongoing mission to heal and to forgive and to save.

And then someone asked:

Yes but why did God not prevent the earthquake in the first place?

I did not have a good immediate answer for that. Perhaps I should have. Yes there is Genesis 1-3 and the story of the Fall or more precisely the Falling Apart. We can talk about the brokenness of creation and how that goes back to when human beings first turned against God. Paul Achtemeier argues persuasively that the book of Romans is not primarily about the doctrine of salvation by grace which we receive by faith. It is really about the story of God and his relationship with a world in rebellion against him. And it is in that context as part of that story that yes indeed Paul the apostle brings up salvation by grace received by faith.

But somehow that does not seem to answer adequately the question my Chinese friends ask. Or does it?

We talk about how God saves. But these people from other nations who frankly are the best in their home countries ask why God saves but does not prevent in the first place.

In The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkien why does Eru Ilavatar allow the drama to continue?

Posted in Christianity, Hebrew Bible, Internationals, Personal, Theology, Tolkien | 2 Comments »

Climbing out of a hole (or) And grace will lead

Thursday, October 8th, 2009
Van Gogh, Raising Lazarus

Van Gogh, "Raising Lazarus"

*Warning. This is a bit personal.*

Not many people are aware that I spent the last year or so in a “hole”.

Did my work but not much else. Almost never practiced spiritual disciplines. Avoided socializing. Did not interact much with my wife or family or friends. Spent most of my free time on the computer until wee hours of the morning. And yes there is a word for it that begins with a d-. Or another expression that begins with a b-.

How did that happen? Does it matter?

It does a bit but do not want to go into too much detail. I think part of it is exhaustion – mental emotional and spiritual exhaustion. I have been doing this for more than ten years. Six day weeks pretty routine. I am allowed ten days off per year and have never taken more than eight. Each year we make dozens of new friends – and each year we say farewell to dozens of friends. That is the nature of ministry with internationals (students and scholars and their families) who are here for a few weeks a few months at most a few years. Lurch from Sunday to Sunday grinding out English lessons and Bible studies and orders of worship and sermons week after week after week.

Part of it is disillusionment – goals and dreams that have collapsed along the way. Stay in school until age 32 getting graduate degrees and a seminary degree. Apply for dozens upon dozens of teaching positions – with just a handful of nibbles. Apply for dozens of other ministry positions – with just a handful… Publish a book that receives a devastating review. Spend a couple years trying to join another denomination only to be shut out at the last minute. Become increasingly fed up with the “moderate” Baptist scene. No longer really know where I belong religiously. You get to a point where you think “what the heck have I done with my life? what the heck am I doing with my life?” and frankly lose nearly all hope and desire.

Began to identify strongly with Jeremiah. “Thanks a lot God. Could you have picked someone else?”

And part of it is anxiety – over what appears to be the social cultural and political direction of the United States not to mention the world. Progress? Rather the normalization of insanity.

Started experiencing occasional panic attacks – the real deal where you call 911 – about three years ago. Now when the chest pains and short breath start to kick in know better. That was when I began to cut back on how much “extra” I worked.

Could not tell you precisely what triggered it – but started to crawl out of the hole about 2 weeks ago. The timing is curious – just before the current crisis facing this congregation hit with the abrupt resignation of the senior pastor.

Quit the leadership role in the online community that took so much of my time. (Took a couple weeks off and did go back as a regular member – but now no more than six hours per week.) Started studying/reviewing biblical languages and theology in the evening. Hanging out with wife and kids. Morning and evening prayer – not as diligently as a few years ago but a new start. Perhaps most importantly trying to get enough sleep.

Went back to my counselor for the first time in months this week. Which was encouraging – one of the few times instead of “your way of looking at things and dealing with them is messed up” got a lot of “you have faced your own woundedness and understand things much better”.

Called and talked with my best friend for first time in months.

Still concerned – because we have reached a point where I do not want to leave this current place of service (or least leave the state of Louisiana) until we get our daughters into college. That means toughing it out for another five years or so. But the congregation I service is way behind on budget. So we need to cut spending. And now that the senior pastor has resigned – and not under positive circumstances – the coming year clearly is going to be rough. Over the last year about three families we are close to have left University Baptist Church in frustration and disgust. And it is probably going to get worse.

So once again but with more urgency have been confronting the question “what else would I do if I had to leave?” There were a few times over the last ten years when I was working on an answer. Over the next few years may reach a point where having an answer will no longer be optional. I may be on the street. And although Church of the Nations has generally done well and avoided the problems with plague the mother congregation – attendance and participation has not been that great so far this new academic year. Numbers are not the only or primary measure of success in Christian ministry but still I am concerned.

Starting to work on a plan. Part of that plan is a two(?) month sabbatical next year. A few years late but finally around the corner.

Hope is beginning to return.

Theologically this is not about Rick crawling out of the hole in which I buried myself for the last year or two. This is about God lifting me out when I could not get out on my own. This is about grace. What God gives that we do not deserve or earn. And what God does for us that we cannot do for ourselves.

Posted in Personal, Theology | 1 Comment »

The need for theological identity

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Been reading Christian Theology: An Introduction by Alister McGrath. In the chapter on “The Modern Period” McGrath surveys and summarizes a grocery list of “major theological movements” during the “Modern” period.

Romanticism, Marxism, Liberal Protestantism, Modernism (found this one hard to understand), Neo-Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Feminism, Postmodernism, Liberation Theology, Black Theology, Postliberalism, Evangelicalism, Pentecostal and charismatic, and theologies of the developing world.

What I did not expect was to resonate strongly with how McGrath describes one of these movements. Care to guess which one?

Postliberalism.

Oh yeah. Time to order a custom made t-shirt.

Postliberalism rejects both the traditional Enlightenment appeal to a “universal rationality” and the liberal assumption of an immediate religious experience common to all humanity. (119)

Not entirely sure about that part. But hang in there.

Arguing that all thought and experience is historically and socially mediated, postliberalism bases its theological program upon a return to religion traditions, whose values are inwardly appropriated. Postliberalism is thus anti-foundational… communitarian… historicist.

It gets better.

Postliberalism reintroduces a strong emphasis on the particularity of the Christian faith, in reaction against the strongly homogenizing tendencies of liberalism, in its abortive attempt to make theory (that all religions are saying the same thing) and observation (that the religions are difference) coincide.

McGrath mentions several theologians – apparently I should have gone to Yale – including George Lindbeck who “develops  what he terms a ‘cultural-linguistic’ approach which embodies the leading features of postliberalism” (119).

Where the summary of postliberalism gets downright scary (in a good way – I hope) is:

Theology is grounded on the intrabiblical paradigm, which it is obliged to describe and apply as best it can. To affirm that theology has a regulatory authority is not to imply that it can regulate Scripture, but to acknowledge that a distinctive pattern of regulation already exists within the biblical material, which theology is to uncover and articulate.

This seems to be a bold challenge to the claims of postmodernism and its intellectual cousins.

I do not mean to imply I agree with all of the above. Only that of the various approaches McGrath describes this is the one where I thought “yeah – that is more or less how I look at Christian theology at this stage of my life”. The goal is not to seize upon an “identity”. But to be encouraged that I am not entirely alone – including in my stubborn resistance to liberal Protestantism (which bears strong resemblance to the “emergent” church movement although I could be wrong – that movement claims to be postmodern). Also my theology has become much more “orthodox” – a deep concern for the traditions and teachings of the Christian church throughout the centuries. That is why I would qualify the point about “intrabiblical” interpretation. Surely how the church interprets Scripture is already part of this “pattern” which theology would uncover and articulate?

Posted in Christianity, Personal, Theology | No Comments »

The glory of human freedom in "Minority Report"

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

Last night was planning to get to bed early but “Minority Report” was on. Tried to find the dvd version – was the very first dvd we owned a gift from two ministry volunteers – but no joy. So just watched it on television until midnight.

There are few things that get under my skin quite so much as losing something.

You remember “Minority Report” right? Science-fiction movie directed by Steven Spielberg based on a short story by the great Philip K Dick. Have you noticed how many successful movies have been based on stories by Dick? (As well as a couple real turkies.)

As I watched I realized not for the first time what an exceptional movie it is. No matter how goofie you think Tom Cruise is dang does he deliver an excellent performance in that film. Notice the constant theme of “seeing” and “eyes” and “not seeing”. Even a passing advertisement in the background reinforces the theme.

Can you see?

In a nutshell the story-now-film addresses directly freedom and guilt. Can you arrest and imprison someone because they were going to commit murder – but have not done so yet?

Anderton (Cruise) rolls a ball around the table which Witwer (Colin Farrell) catches.

“Why did you catch it?”

“Because it was going to fall”.

“How do you know that?”

The argument of course is facile. Human beings are not balls. But Anderton somehow gets away with it and Witwer does not push back at that time.

There are two moments of utter glory – when you realize what the issue is. Do human beings have choice aka free will?

The precogs see a premeditate murder – 36 hours away. The killer is – to his shock and horror – John Anderton himself. The victim is someone he has never seen or met or heard of. But sure enough… eventually… he finds the man and concludes yes he must kill him.

Agatha – the most gifted of the precognitives whom Anderton has liberated in order to gain information from her – says “you have a choice”. We do not believe it. Anderton does not believe it. They have already seen it. He is going to kill Leo Crow.

But somehow – and the film does not really quite explain why or how – Anderton does not pull the trigger. His watch alarm goes off. What the precognitives foresaw does not happen.

He has a choice. And Anderton made that choice – to arrest but not to kill.

(And at the end Burgess chooses not to kill Anderton but instead himself. The opposite of what the precognitives foresaw.)

The issue of human freedom and free will is one that has become increasingly important to me. It comes up a great deal in the literature of Tolkien. And a cornerstone of Orthodox theology is its insistence that humans have free will. They do not deny the sovereignty of God or providence or grace. But never ever can such teachings eclipse the reality of human freedom.

(Some of those who read this website lean toward Calvinist or “reformed” theology. My intent is not to insult or start an argument. I am not arguing against something so much as arguing for.)

Think about other books by Philip Dick. Which often deal with “what does it mean to be human?” and “what truly defines who we are?” Dick – fairly consistently – seems to argue in his stories and novels that we are defined by the concrete choices we make. (Think about “Total Recall”. Quaid is “fated” to go back to being a scumball criminal agent. But he refuses. He has already chosen a different path. And he does not go back.)

Posted in Movies and film, Orthodoxy, Religion, Theology | 2 Comments »

Those who "sleep" (or) Moebius syllogism?

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

A turning point(?) in my theological understanding of death was when during Introduction to Christian Mission my fine professor Isam Ballenger rather strongly state “the Christian faith does not teach the immortality of the soul – it teaches resurrection of the body” and during the same class “when we die we do not move in space so much as we move in time”.

What did he mean by this? Probably that we do not move (spatially) to some place commonly called heaven so much as we move temporally to the eschaton and the resurrection of the dead. But what happens to the “soul” (using that term imprecisely for now) between the moment of death and the resurrection? Does it go (spatially) to heaven? I submit this is how Christians normally think and talk.

“Where is grandpa?”

“Grandpa is in heaven with Jesus”.

The Bible does and does not seem to address the issue that way. Paul writes:

21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. (Philippians 1 – NIV)

Death means to be with Christ. (Which does not necessarily resolve the question of spatially or temporally?)

Paul also frequently uses the language of sleep to describe those who have died (at least those who have died in union with Christ). Indeed in the context of describing the resurrection he writes:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed– 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.  (1 Corinthians 15 – NIV)

For reasons I cannot entirely explain I spend a lot of time thinking about this issue. Perhaps because I make such a big deal about the physical dimensions of salvation. That is our bodies will be changed – not thrown away forever. Salvation is not escape from material reality – it is the redemption of spiritual and material reality. This issue also touches on very basic issues of theological anthropology – who are we? and what does it mean to be human and created in the image and likeness of God? Of course as John Zizioulas demonstrates in his book Being as Communion there is a sense in which our understanding of anthropology may determine our ecclesiology and soteriology. (But then I am not a theologian and may be completely misunderstanding Zizioulas.)

Of course there is a sense in which I want to know “where is my grandfather? where is my dad?”

And Christians frequently make rather glib statements about those who have died that are intended to comfort. “Grandpa’s looking down at us and smiling”. “I’m sure your mom is celebrating in heaven with us”. “Our baby is now one of God’s angels in heaven”. “God needed your dad in heaven”. But some of these statements while arguably comforting – the last one is anything but makes no sense and turns God into a cosmic jerk – are thoughtless and theologically nonsense. I do not have much patience with people saying things that are meant to comfort or encourage – but have no legitimacy or grounding in the teachings of the Christian faith.

Truth works best. And it works best because it is true. (That right there has become one of my strongest convictions.)

Without addressing this issue thoroughly or properly there are some who believe in “soul sleep”. When a person dies their “soul” does not travel off to heaven (wherever that is). Rather the person sleeps until the resurrection. I remember when we spent the night in Birmingham Alabama and it seemed there was a convention in town. Turns out it was a major gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There was very well done (balanced and not critical) article in the paper the next day about this. And the article mentioned several distinctive points of their theology. Please do not be alarmed but I thought “dang – I agree with half of these”. And one of the points was “soul sleep”.

But we also have the clear teaching of the Bible that those who have died are somehow “with God”. So if they are asleep – how can they be “with God”?

I wonder if Protestant Christians have really thought through the significance of the story of the Transfiguration. I will use the account from Luke because of the extra remarkable detail it contains:

About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31 appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. (Luke 9)

Has the resurrection happened yet? No. Has the Passion happened yet? No. (This is important because we have two Old Testament figures with Christ. Christ has not yet descended into Hades. Of course how salvation touches on pre-Christ persons has always been a murky issue. And it does not help that Elijah never really died. And it is unclear if Moses died.) And yet here are these two people speaking with Jesus. They are somehow present. And – do notice this part! – they may be aware of what is happening in the world.

So if those who have died are “asleep” how can they also be present and aware of what is happening in the world? (And again – that this is Moses and Elijah complicates the question.)

What if those who die fall asleep – and are translated in time to the resurrection of the dead? Whereupon they live in eternity? Where time does not work the same way?

Our present cannot see those in eternity. But those in eternity can see us. (We are present to them but they are not present to us.) Sort of like a one way mirror. But instead of glass what separates us is time/eternity.

If x goes to y goes to z which can see x but x cannot see z… Presence and perception which only moves in one direction and never backwards. I tried to picture this in my mind and the closest analogy I came up with is a Moebius strip. Is this a Moebius syllogism?

Yeah I know. Pretty flimsy. Just thinking out loud.

Posted in Hebrew Bible, Logic and Reason, New Testament, Theology, Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Excellent speech by President Obama – seriously

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

Ah yes the controversial address to the schoolchildren of America by President Barack Obama on September 9. Yes we can complain legitimately about the “teaching materials” that the Department of Education first planned to use – and then did not. And yes there have been several attempts to deconstruct dissect and analyze the speech that the president actually gave – many of which argue that the speech still contains a high degree of political propaganda.

My wife teaches third grade. She thought it was exceptional. She thinks it should be repeated at the beginning of every school year.

I am not at liberty to describe what she thinks about the president or about politics because of what the current climate for public discourse has become. *cough if you say anything critical about the president at all you are labeled a racist cough* But I am at liberty to say I respect her opinion. And she watched it. Oh – and she thinks people who deconstruct it and conclude it is full of political propaganda are wrong (my word not hers – her words was much less polite).

By the way – several conservative commentators (who had been leery of the address) ended up thinking very highly of it.

I have reached a point where I have such a low opinion of this presidential administration and its policies that frankly I do not trust just about anything it says or does at this point. Hence my extreme skepticism cynicism and distrust of the address to schoolchildren when it was announced. But we should not hesitate to give credit when credit is due. And this occasion the president deserves credit.

One conservative commentator noted that the president did give an excellent speech. It was so full of conservative ideas. (I thought it was at Townhall or National Review but I cannot find the article.)

Posted in Education, Politics, Rhetoric, Theology | No Comments »

"The Gospel According to Puccini" (SERMON – August 30, 2009)

Monday, August 31st, 2009

Preface (partly for William): I have for months been planning on at least two long posts on “The Gospel According to Puccini”. (Remotely similar to Donald Miller’s Christian interpretation of “Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare.) One interpreting “Turandot” terms of the passionate love of God (Calaf) for humanity (Turandot). Another interpreting the aria “Nessun Dorma” in terms of the Passion of Christ (the Triduum). So in a sense the first part of this sermon is little more than an “introductory sketch” – sort of like giving you cookie dough rather than finished cookies.

*********

“The Gospel According to Puccini”
Song of Songs 2
13th Sunday Pentecost (B) or 22nd Sunday Ordinary (B)
August 30, 2009
Church of the Nations
Richard M. Wright

*********

No one can perform this opera in the People’s Republic of China until 1998.

That opera is “Turandot” by the great Italian composer Giacomo Puccini.

It is long and difficult to explain the story. Set in ancient China. Anyone who wants to marry the princess Turandot must answer three riddles. If he fails then they cut off his head.

The prince of Tartary comes to Beijing. He must not let anyone know who he is because China has conquered his nation. (This is not historical.) Sees the cold cruel beautiful princess and immediately falls in love with her.

He steps forward and announces he wants to marry her. Ha ha! Foolish prince! You will fail and die!

Later at the palace she asks her riddles.

What is born each night and dies each morning? Hope.

What is red and warm but is not fire? <Sangue> Blood. The princess now is scared.

<Gelo che ti da foco> What is like ice but burns like fire? The prince thinks for a minute. Turandot!

No! The princess asks her father the emperor do not let this prince have me! But he says she must keep her promise. She must marry the prince.

And here is the mystery of the story. The part that does not make sense. Although what does not make sense is often where we will find the deeper truth.

The prince makes an offer. “You do not know my name. Bring me my name before morning – and when the sun rises I will die”.

Why does this not make sense?

Mark Lew writes that if we interpret the story literally – this is a stupid thing to do. The prince already has won. He already will marry the princess. Why give her a chance to escape?

Because he does not only want to marry her. He wants her to love him. [http://home.earthlink.net/~markdlew/comm/turandot.htm]

And that is when the prince goes through the streets of Beijing and sings:

Nessun dorma! Nessun dorma! Let no one sleep. Let no one sleep!

Tu pure o principessa nella tua freda stanza guardi le stelle che tremana d’amore e di’speranza. And you O princess alone in your cold room watch the stars that tremble with love and with hope.

Ma il mistero e chiuso i me. But my mystery is hidden in me. My name no one will know. No! No! Only upon your lips shall I say it when the light shines forth and my kiss breaks the silence that makes you mine.

I am not sure this opera is really about ancient China at all. (more…)

Posted in Music, Sermons, Theology | 1 Comment »

Theology as snapshots of a slowly moving river

Monday, August 17th, 2009
The Assebet River (which flowed behind our house in Massachusetts)

The Assabet River (which flowed behind our house in Massachusetts)

This is one of the busiest times of the year for Church of the Nations. I do not have much time or energy this month for posting. But since I appreciate people coming here I do want to post something.

There is a member of the congregation who often sends long responses to my sermons. They are extremely thoughtful and enjoyable even when they “push back” on some things that I have said.

The last two weeks there have been some exchanges in response to my sermon about the perfection of the Christian church. I want to be careful to respect the privacy of the fine brother in Christ – so rather than provide a name or direct quotes just brief indirect summaries and my thoughts in reply.

Does the idea of “perfection” create problems for doing theology? Most disciplines (such as biology) have abandoned the idea of perfection. And yet we say God is “perfect” and unchanging.

My reply included the following:

4) Of course Christian tradition does speak of perfectionism with regard to God. As you know my personal bias is to side with Christian tradition. Although always with the awareness that tradition might best be understand as a snapshot of a slowly moving river. (Where the heck did that come from?!?)

5) As you know lately I have been reading a great deal of Orthodox theology. One thing that shocked me was reading two rather difficult articles: “Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective” by John Meyendorff and “Tradition and Traditions” by Vladimir Lossky. Picking any one quote from Lossky is dangerous but perhaps:

“If tradition is a faculty of judging in the light of the Holy Spirit, it obliges those who wish to know the truth in the tradition to make incessant efforts… It must not be thought that the conservative attitude alone is salutary, nor that heretics are always innovators. While the church preserves it [truth?] in the tradition, this preservation is not static or inert, but dynamic and conscious”.

I was astonished to read that (and the rest of those two articles). …

6) As you probably know the common way to handle the perfection of God is that God in his “essence” does not change but God in his <insert favorite concept or term> does change. The <x> can be “his relationship with creation” or “emanations” or something else. So that God “does not change” and yet clearly God does “change”.

7) I do accept the words of Jesus “be perfect just as your Father in heaven is perfect”. But then… what does Jesus mean by perfect? The same thing as later philosophers and theologians? Perhaps not. Indeed Hebrews says that the son was made perfect through suffering – which to me is a profoundly significant statement that may offer insight into what is meant by “perfect” in the New Testament.

Which generated another reply that was more insightful if that is possible. This brother focused on how I do theology. It appears that I do not say “I believe x, y, z and therefore I am a Christian” but rather “I am a Christian and therefore I believe x, y, z – or at least am inclined to do so”. He particularly seized upon the idea of theology as “a snapshot of a slowly moving river”.

My second reply included:

2) I had not thought of the distinction you make (which is a profound and sensitive insight). That my Christian faith biases me toward certain doctrines/dogmas – rather than the doctrines/dogmas are what “makes” one a Christian. In a nutshell I trust the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the entire Church (past and present). It does not mean I will never question or disagree with “Tradition” – I have a bias in favor of that. But that I will do so carefully and reluctantly. And may even say “I will teach or proclaim or practice such and such – even though I have personal/private reservations”. This might make me a marginal Protestant. ?

2b) Right or wrong I distinguish between “Christian” (noun) and “Christian” (adjective). By this I mean whether someone “is a Christian” or not is not my determination to make. I am relatively comfortable holding opinions on whether a particular teaching is orthodox (small o) or not. In other words someone may be a fine and wonderful Christian and yet hold heterodox(!) opinions. Who am I to judge whether an individual Mormon is “a Christian”? But I do not mind one bit saying “the Mormon understanding of the Trinity is extremely wrong”.

2c) But what… moderates(?)… the above stance is the “snapshot of a slowly moving river”. There is always – always – the “but I/we could be wrong”. Hence the quotes from Florovsky [sic - it was Meyendorff] and Lossky.

(I hope I have not overstepped the bounds of privacy and discretion.)

What do you think?

Posted in Orthodoxy, Personal, Theology | No Comments »

Church as visible concrete reality versus(?) overly-realized eschatology

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009
Ruins of Coventry Cathedral

Ruins of Coventry Cathedral

What and where is the Church? Is there only an ideal Church off somewhere/somewhen in heaven? Or can we see and experience and participate in the Church here and now?

Metropolitan Ware writes:

The Church is accomplished on earth without losing its essential characteristics. There is not only an ideal Church that is invisible and in heaven. This ideal Church exists visibly on earth as a concrete reality. (The Orthodox Church, 242)

This is an important even essential cornerstone of Orthodox Christian ecclesiology.

I do not know to what extent this is compatible with Baptist Christian theology (however one defines that) concerning the church. But in a delightful article Prof Steven Harmon at Samford University explains why the church still needs Baptists. The heart of his position is this:

I’m convinced that the church cannot make progress toward the visible unity for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20-23) unless it receives the distinctive gifts the Baptist tradition has to offer the rest of the church. (Baptists Today, August 2009: 28)

I find it interesting that Prof Harmon’s argument refers to Christian unity – rather than some other goal or principle. We will come back to this. And it is significant the he refers to the “rest of the church” – which is to say that the church is more than (a) the Baptist tradition or (b) local Baptist congregations.

So what are these distinctive gifts that the Baptist tradition offers? The first gift that Prof Harmon describes caught my attention:

I believe one of the gifts that the rest of the church needs to receive from Baptists is our gut-level aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church. (That’s theologian-speak for the refusal of Baptists to equate any expression of church life in this present age with the full realization of the kingdom of God.)

The reason this grabbed my attention is that I wonder what is the relationship between this position (aversion to overly-realized eschatologies of the church) and what Metropolitan Ware writes. To what extent is (this particular) Baptist ecclesiology compatible with its Orthodox counterpart. One could focus on the term “fully”. Perhaps Orthodox ecclesiology would concede “look – we are the visible concerete reality of the Church… but we are not the full realization of the kingdom of God”.

I am not a theologian – although I would like to be more of one. I am not sufficiently versed in Baptist or Orthodox theology or in theological method to figure out how these two positions relate to one another. My guess is that Orthodox theology would indeed say “yes we are the full realization” – and then qualify or explain that somehow. My guess is that there are irreconcilable points-of-difference between Baptist and Orthodox theologies of the church/Church. Although I would rejoice were it possible to synthesize and harmonize them.

Please understand I am not trying to pick an argumment with either or to set one against the other. Not at all. I am trying to understand. And to struggle through my own understanding of the Christian church.

One fine brother in Christ wrote in a forum that “Rick is not comfortable being Baptist”. I suggested there might be some truth to that. But hang on a moment.

Prof Harmon in the same piece also writes:

“Real Baptists” are relentlessly dissatisfied with the present state of the church in their pilgrim journey toward the community that will be fully under the reign of Christ.

That sounds like the journey of my own heart. Relentlessly dissatisfied – hopefully in a good way! Indeed at times I feel like “the earliest Baptists… [who] ended their lives on the periphery of the Baptist churches they helped establish”.

Is there a home – ecclesiologically? Or is God content always to travel in a tent?

Posted in Baptists, Christianity, Ecclesiology, Orthodoxy, Theology | No Comments »

Is repentance turning away or turning toward?

Monday, July 27th, 2009

The senior pastor and about half the ministerial staff are at Kid’s Camp so I was asked to speak to Evensong last Sunday night. The senior pastor let me know that the theme for the last few weeks has been repentance. I find it helpful to “fit” into whatever the congregation has been hearing/listening/discussing.

These are my “notes”.

********

Mark 1:14-15.

We have met Jesus – baptism and temptation / but has not spoken yet. After his formative(?) experience of baptism and temptation (time in the wilderness – 40 days) these are his first words.

Similar to John the baptizer – baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins yet also different.

Is this his thesis? That everything after this represents / works out / interprets / embodies it is the right time… kingdom of God has come near… *repent and believe* the good news. Jesus does not begin with repent (and believe) but it is the verb imperative verb. Here is the situation. This is the response.

Repent = (Greek) metanoéo literally change-of-mind (or to be more precise change-of-nous). (Because nous might not mean “mind” the way we normally think. Early teachers of the Christian church did not understand it that way. The nous is closer to what we call the heart. What we call the mind is not the nous but is broken. Lives in a perpetual state of fear and desire – so Meletios Webber.)

I pay attention to other Christian traditions. And I wanted to share some thoughts from other Christian traditions on repentance for us to consider – grist for our theological meal.

The early Christian teacher Evagrius said “the beginning of repentance is to condemn oneself”. Sounds harsh. Perhaps a way to understand/interpret this? An elegant paragraph from a book by Kallistos Ware who now is the Metropolitan of London. Immediately after he quotes Evagrius he writes:

Repentance marks the starting-point of our journey. Correctly understood repentance is not negative but positive. It means not self-pity or remorse but conversion [we will come back to that] the re-centering of our whole life upon the Trinity. It is not to look backward with regret but forward with hope. Not downwards at our shortcomings but upwards at God’s love. It is to see not what we have failed to be but what by divine grace we can now become.

Let us pause there for a moment. Repentance as positive – hope looking up what by the grace of God we can become.

Sometimes repent is translated as “turn away from your sins” – such as in the Good News Bible. Perhaps not best translation. Perhaps “turn toward God and his transforming work in your life”.

Anglican Church in North America met for the first time. (Explain briefly.) Head of Orthodox Church in America Metropolitan Jonah came and spoke – Orthodox Church wants to encourage and have a relationship with new group.

During his talk – “this is not about using the same prayer book or having neat rituals” – that is not what Anglicanism or Orthodoxy are about. But “our surrender is that spiritual quest – is to be transformed by the Spirit. It is a quest of repentance. And of renewal of our mind [RW - and a renewal of our mind? what he said is unclear here]. When you read the preaching of Jesus and Paul and the apostles. Repent.

Adds that “repentance does not mean feel guilty and beat yourself up. Repentance means by transformed in the renewal of your mind. [transform(ed)]. What we are called to is a radical spiritual transformation by the grace of the Holy Spirit.”

Positive. Transformation (by the grace of the Holy Spirit). One more thing.

Isaias of Sketis said: “God requires us to go on repenting until our last breath”. Traditional Baptist understanding of repent as “sorry for my sins thank you Jesus now I am done – I am converted”? Properly understood – lifelong process even the greatest saints in Christian history had to repent (be always repenting).

Kallistos Ware:

Repentance is not just a single act, an initial step, but a continuing state, an attitude of heart and will that needs to be ceaselessly renewed up to the end of life.

Repentance as positive. As transformation. And as ongoing process.

********

We had some time for reflection and conversation. Most was positive and appreciative. One wonderful member of the congregation (who last week found out she has cancer) pushed back a little bit and said “but we do ‘turn away (from our sins)’ when we repent. Just as an alcoholic turns away from alcohol”.

I understand the point which is not a bad one but I would suggest that human beings cannot effectively turn away from sin and addiction. (Except by the grace of God through the work of the Spirit.) I enjoy my sins and addictions. I have no desire or intention to turn away from them.

But – when we turn towards God… we also happen to turn away from <fill in the blank>. Does the alcoholic ever truly become free of the addiction? or does the addict develop a taste for – perhaps we can say the addict turns toward – sobriety? I am much more drawn to holiness than I am repulsed by my own sins and addictions. Repentance is more “that is how I want to be – God grant me the grace to turn that way” than “I am sick of these sins – I must turn from them”. I am not sure our prayer is so much “God give me the strength to stop sinning” as “Lord have mercy”.

When I turn on a road to head towards New Orleans I am not “turning away” from Lafayette. It is true that I am heading away from Lafayette – but that is a consequence and a result.

I could be wrong. But I appreciated the “push back” and the discussion. (And yes there are plenty of places in Holy Scripture where the imperative phrase is “stop sinning”.)

Lord have mercy.

Posted in Christian Practice, Mark, Theology | No Comments »

« Older Entries