Add comment

Comments

16 Comments

A Need for Creative Theology

The latest of edition of the magazine Fast Company features today’s 100 most creative business people. The magazine’s stories of these innovators has me thinking about creativity in Christian theology.

What counts as creative is at least partly subjective, of course. But I noticed common themes among those featured in Fast Company. Most creative people listed are problem solvers, obstacle overcomers, or innovators.

The magazine's list has fascinating people. Ranked first is the general director of Al Jazeera. Number two is a designer at Apple. Interestingly, Conan O’Brien made the top ten.

There’s Nothing New Under the Sun?

All of this has me wondering what it would be like to construct a list of the 100 most creative theological thinkers today. I know of no magazine who publishes such a list. But I'm sure it would be interesting!

Of course, some Christians think theology done well is not creative at all. Good theology, from this perspective, simply retells stories and truths handed down from yesteryear. For Christians with this perspective, either the Bible or the Christian tradition offers everything of theological importance.  There is nothing new under the sun.

Others think creative endeavors in theology imply that God has changed in some way. Because they think God is in all ways unchanging, creative theology is at worst heretical and at best misguided. An unchanging God requires unchanging theology.

I personally think good theology takes into account insights from yesteryear and Scripture. But I don’t think appreciating the past eliminates the possibility of new and creative theological insights. Traditional wisdom is crucial; but contemporary imagination plays an important role in Christian theology.

Something New Under the Sun

We need creative theology today as much or more than ever. In fact, I think the most important creative advances today may actually be occurring in theology not business!

The common Christian conviction that we can never fully understand God plays a role in explaining why creative theology is important today. Unless we think a person or group in the past comprehended God entirely, there is always room to “grow in the knowledge of the love of Christ.”

In addition, Christians face a host of unanswered or poorly answered questions. Take the problem of evil, for instance. Most Christians have either no answer or a poor answer to why an almighty and all-loving God fails to prevent genuine evil. There’s plenty of need for creative theological thinking on that issue.

Theology is necessarily tied to our views of the world, including science. Our views of the human person, initial and ongoing creation, and social structures are always influenced by research and theories in the sciences. While theology need not be a slave to changing scientific ideas, creative theology can help Christians reconcile time-honored truths with contemporary scientific research. There’s work to be done here too.

Or take the questions of religious pluralism. While people of differing faiths have always interacted to some degree, many Christians today interact with nonChristians more often and more deeply. We need creative theological answers questions this new situation raise.

New Research Programs in Theology

Fast Company inspires me to consider the kind of creative theology we need most today. In some of my recent work, I’ve attempted to offer satisfying answers to some questions. But I’m thinking now about what I should do next.

In a changing world with changing people and changing ideas, some things do stay the same. But as long as we know in part, there will be plenty of room for creative theological endeavor.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Postmodern Philosophy, Theology, and Culture

Add comment

Comments

13 Comments

The Language of Science and Faith

Can Christians affirm the general theory of evolution and believe God is Creator? A new book from Karl Giberson and Francis Collins answers this question with a resounding YES!

The Language of Science and Faith offers straight answers to genuine questions about contemporary science and Christian theology.

This is the kind of book you should give those wrestling seriously with evolution and Christian faith. It’s not a book written in technical language only academicians could understand. The prose is accessible and the language lucid.

Basic Answers to Common Questions

Suppose you’re having a conversation about some issue related to God and contemporary science. In the conversation, your friend asks, “So what do you mean by evolution?” Or your friend wonders, “What actually is the evidence for evolution?”

You could refer this friend to a biology textbook. But few textbooks offer concise answers with the questions of faith in mind. What you need is a book that gives understandable, brief, and informed answers to pertinent questions.

Enter The Language of Science and Faith, by Giberson and Collins. The questions above are only the tip of the iceberg. Discussions of science and faith move in a myriad of directions and raise dozens of questions. Giberson and Collins's book answers many of the most common:

Is there proof of macroevolution?

Can we really know the earth is billions of years old?

Does the Bible teach the world is young?

Can religion contribute to science or science contribute to religion?

How should we read Genesis?

What should we do when science and Christian faith seem to conflict?

What role might God play in evolution?

Does evolution worsen the problem of evil?

Does evolution disprove God?

Why are Darwin’s theories controversial?

Do thermodynamics disprove evolution?

Does the mystery of the origin of life undermine evolution?

How are the Big Bang, fine-tuning, and God as Creator related?

What is Intelligent Design?

Did humans come from monkeys?

Is human evolution an accident?

What about Adam and Eve?

Uniting the Pair So Long Disjoined: Science and Faith

The final chapter of the book offers a contemporary story of creation – a grand narrative. This narrative uses the language and ideas of both contemporary science and Christian faith. It’s a brief summary for the issues addressed in the book.

Throughout the book, Giberson and Collins make a convincing case that a Christian can affirm both the general theories of contemporary science – including evolution – and the general doctrines of Christian faith. Along the way, they address problems they see in Young Earth creationism, Intelligent Design, and atheism.

Specialists in the science-and-religion discussion will not find detailed or nuanced arguments in this book. The authors didn’t write The Language of Science and Faith for an academic conference.

The dearth of sophisticated arguments doesn’t mean the book is erroneous. But it does mean those wanting to go deeper to answer questions such as those I’ve listed above should consult a more extensive science-and-religion bibliography.

This book plays a very important role. It is perfect for cross-disciplinary conversations, university seminars on science and faith, and Sunday school discussions. It promotes a particular perspective – often called “theistic evolution” but herein labeled “biologos” – that I personally find most plausible overall.

Although the book may not convince those strongly predisposed to atheism or young earth creationism, it can help people open to serious discussion about contemporary science and Christian faith. This book should convince those sitting on or near the fence on questions of evolution and Christian belief.

I heartily recommend The Language of Science and Faith!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Theology and Science

Add comment

Comments

13 Comments

Choosing a Seminary President

My friend, Ron Benefiel, recently stepped down from his role as seminary president. The search to fill the opening has me thinking about the role of seminary leaders in our changing world.

From my view, Ron did an excellent job as seminary president of Nazarene Theological Seminary. The seminary and denomination are greatly indebted to him. Ron departed in large part because his wife is dealing with cancer. My prayers are with her, Ron, and their family.

Financial Expectations

Like any leadership position, a multitude of expectations comes with the position of seminary president. As the old saying goes, only Jesus could meet them all.

Recent trends have changed some expectations. We no longer expect seminary presidents to be exactly what they were decades ago.

Most seminaries receive far less financial support from their sponsoring denominations. Both mainline and Evangelical seminaries suffer from the decline in denominational giving to education. The economy in recent years hasn’t helped. Some seminaries receive less than half what their denominations gave them even three years ago!

Although they give less money, denominations typically want to maintain whatever level of influence they enjoyed in the past. This creates tension. As seminaries increasingly rely upon student tuition and outside funding instead of denominational resources, seminaries understandably feel less obliged to follow the advice of denominational leaders.

While seminary presidents have always been asked to help raise money, many who think about the president job description expect candidates to excel in this practice today. The financial stakes are high.

Cutting-edge or Cutting Off?

Seminary presidents must attract students eager to minister in a postmodern world. But they also must assure traditional ecclesial leaders and financial supporters.

On one hand, students today are attracted to seminaries addressing cutting-edge questions. Many want to study under faculty with the reputation for leading from the frontline. Seminary presidents do well to portray their institutions as engaging leading issues under the direction of leading thinkers.

On the other hand, financial supporters and ecclesial leaders often want seminaries to follow traditional ways. They worry when seminary education becomes too progressive, too faddish, or too “ivory tower.” Seminary presidents do well to portray their schools as preparing students for the practical demands of ministry.

Seminaries not willing to engage exciting questions with exciting faculty are cut off many students’ lists of potential schools. Seminaries not willing to follow proven paths of pastoral preparation can be cut off denominational support. And donors with a conservative view of what seminary education should entail may not want to provide funding.

Seminary presidents must strike the right measure of cutting-edge engagement and time-honored ministerial training. That’s not easy!

The Technology of Education

Technology changes constantly. But many seminaries do not have the financial resources and/or desire to keep up with those changes. Seminary presidents must make tough choices about how much technology to embrace in the educational process.

Seminary presidents work with professors. It’s natural for professors to want to follow the educational delivery model they learned when students. They understandably prefer using teaching practices that have worked for them in the past. Encouraging professors to learn new educational methods or become more technologically savvy can be a chore.

Many seminaries have generally been slow to embrace online education. Most are built on a face-to-face delivery system that, to a greater or lesser degree, competes with online teaching. Many have bricks and mortar costs that work against the nimbleness required of online education.

My own institution embraced online teaching for graduate theological education more than a decade ago. While not perfect, it allows us to lead in teaching undergraduate and graduate students. But this change requires great commitment in terms of time, finances, and learning.

Mainstream theological education is generally suspicious of online educational modalities. The Associated Theological Schools (ATS), for instance, does not yet accredit degrees delivered fully online. (My own institution is fully credited regionally.) To remain viable in the future, however, ATS will need to change its accrediting policy.

Seminary presidents need to work in a new era of theological education delivery systems.

The Theological Core

Seminary presidents face changes in what counts as relevant theological education. Theology always changes. Keeping up with the changes is part of the seminary president’s job.

When I graduated from seminary near the end of the 20^th century, “contemporary theology” meant studying people like Paul Tillich and Thomas Altizer. It meant reading liberation theology from Gustavo Gutierrez or narrative theology from George Lindbeck.

When I teach contemporary theology today, I talk about postcolonial theologians, deconstructive theology, open and process theologies, radical orthodoxy, womanist theologies, and the role of science for theology. Some ideas in these theological movements were latent in previous theologies. But theologies influential today also ask radically new questions.

A seminary president must navigate these new waters. She or he must do so, while also affirming great theologies from the past and key ideas from the denomination or tradition’s heritage.

I’ve not even begun to address other important changes in biblical studies, philosophy, spiritual formation, missions, homiletics, etc. While seminary presidents need not and cannot know all changes in these disciplines, they at least need to be aware of what’s happening. It’s a difficult task!

Seminary presidents must also deal adequately with religious diversity. Some seminaries address the issues by discussing world religions in their classrooms. Others virtually ignore it.

One denominationally supported seminary – Claremont School of Theology – officially involves professors and students of various religious traditions and offers degrees in those religions. Understandably, a move like Claremont’s raises questions about a denomination’s financial support. But even critics admit such a move takes religious pluralism seriously.

Academy and Pew

The best seminary presidents walk and talk comfortably among academicians and laity. They care about the best in scholarship and in what happens among laity in the pew.

It takes an extraordinary person to move effortlessly between academic language and “plain talk for plain people.” It takes certain gifts to meet the expectations of the intellectual elite and "average Joes and Janes" in local churches.

To do well in these very different settings, many seminary presidents have both a Ph.D. and experience in ministry settings. This affords them “street cred” in the classroom and sanctuary. Such people have “lived” in both worlds.

Few people exist, however, with both doctoral degrees and traditional ministry experience. For this reason alone, finding capable seminary presidents is increasingly difficult.

Conclusion

There are other important issues to consider when choosing a seminary president. But these come quickly to my mind.

My prayer and support goes to selection committees who search for seminary presidents. They have a difficult – but extremely important – calling. The present and future church depends, in part, on choosing wisely.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

7 Comments

John Wesley on Freedom

I’ve been thinking lately about the relationship between God’s love and creaturely freedom. Some people say we are free to do just about anything. Others don’t think we’re free in any genuine sense.

Those who emphasize our near total freedom rightly build upon our commonsense notion that we make choices that seem, at least to some degree, free. And they rightly argue that moral responsibility seems to make little sense if freedom is illusory.

But the kind of radical freedom some profess does not account for what it means to be embodied and relational beings. For good reason, scientists of various sorts point to constraints to our freedom. And those who explore human behavior point to predictable patterns that suggest our freedom is not as great as we might sometime think. Christians rightly point to the habits of sin as denying us the capacity to do some things.

Others read the scientific literature or have theological reasons for saying we have no freedom whatsoever. They believe we are entirely controlled by the atoms or genes below. Or a sovereign God entirely controls all creation and us.

John Wesley

John Wesley offers a helpful middle ground between these two views. Wesley emphasizes creaturely freedom – what he typically called “liberty” – and its relation to love.

Wesley rejects views of divine sovereignty and doctrines of predestination that undermine the logic of give and recieve love. They imply that Christians cannot freely participate in the work of salvation. “The God of love is willing to save all the souls that he has made,” argues Wesley. “But he will not force them to accept of it; he leaves them in the hands of their own counsel.”

Wesley considered God persuasive not coercive. God “strongly and sweetly influences all,” says Wesley, “and yet without destroying the liberty of his rational creatures.” God empowers others rather than overpowering them.

Creaturely freedom is not entirely self-derived, however. God gives freedom to creatures. In one of his most important sermons, “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” Wesley argues from a portion of an Apostle Paul’s letter (Phil. 2:12-13). In light of this passage, Wesley says, “the very first motion of good is from above, as well as the power which conducts it to the end.” In other words, we rely upon God.

Prevenient Grace

This initial work of divine love empowers free creaturely response. Wesley called this “preventing” grace; we now call it “prevenient grace.” This is God’s grace that precedes and empowers creaturely response. “Through the grace of God assisting me,” says Wesley, “I have a power to choose and do good as well as evil.”

Because God first acts on our behalf, says Wesley, we can and must respond to work out our salvation. God offers all people “some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man that cometh into the world.” For this reason, “no man sins because he has not grace,” says Wesley. He sins, “because he does not use the grace which he hath.”

Many of the most perplexing questions Christians face are at least partially answered by affirming the idea that God empowers creatures by granting freedom to respond. If Christians follow Wesley’s lead on this issue, they will discover conceptual resources for making sense of God’s call in their lives.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

22 Comments

Extra Mile Love

Students in my class on love made a positive difference this semester. The course explores love in theology, science, and society. Students went the extra mile to help others.

As part of the curriculum I asked students to “go above and beyond” their normal lives to do good to others. I called this the “Extra Mile Love Project,” in light of Jesus' teaching to go a mile more than what is asked of us. More than 40 students chose a love project that required them to move outside their comfort zones to be helpful.

Loving a Beggar

Joshua Mundy accepted the Extra Mile Love Project challenge and did his good deed on Valentine’s Day, 2011. Joshua met a homeless man panhandling near Wal-Mart that day. 

The man was thin, had a long scruffy beard, and was wearing heavy camouflage clothing with thick black boots. He held a sign: “Homeless, Hungry and No Clean Water.” 

Joshua felt like God was asking him to talk with this man.  “Hey, are you all right?” he asked.

“I am just trying to get dinner,” was the response.

“Is it all right if I buy you groceries?” Joshua asked. The man, Richard, accepted. 

As they walked the store aisles, Richard explained the series of misfortunate events that led to his homelessness. Richard was riding his bike home from a grocery store when a truck “doored” him, knocking him off his bike and injuring him.  Luckily, a pedestrian called an ambulance.  Richard suffered from six broken ribs, a minor concussion, and a severely bruised arm. 

All of Richard’s money went to paying his medical bills. When the money dried up, he began living on the edge of someone’s property.

Richard only selected a few items from Wal-Mart’s shelves that day. Joshua paid $16.66 for them. But Joshua learned his relatively minor sacrifice could make a big difference.

Helping the Blind

For her Extra Mile Love Project, Macey Mendez-Vigo walked once a week with Sandy, a blind member of the community.  Sandy’s blindness made her fearful of doing outside activities. But walking with Macey allowed Sandy to explore the world beyond her home.

Sandy often said, “You have no idea how much this means to me!” She seemed rejuvenated having Macey as a walking companion and finding new avenues for exercise.

Macey says that this love project stretched her. Macey is herself an introvert who feels nervous meeting new people. She has a busy schedule as a college student. But this experience added to the passion Macey has for her chosen field of study, psychology.

Macey says this project led her to feel greater compassion for those in need. She believes that with graduate work in clinical psychology, she will be able to influence many more lives. Macey learned through this Extra Mile Project that she could make a positive impact on another life. 

Ministering to the Dying

Student, Lindsay LaShelle, volunteered with a hospice organization to show Extra Mile love. She said she wanted “the opportunity to love on someone, to be a comfort or a listening ear as the end of life approached.”

Lindsay found that although she had come to sit with someone who was dying, the people caring for the patient seemed to benefit most from her visits. They were grateful and relieved just by her presence.

As expected, the person Lindsay saw passed away after a few months of her beginning to visit. Lindsay says she learned a lot through the experience. While she usually likes to help people by doing things for them, this Extra Mile Love Project taught her that love sometimes calls us to sit, listen, and be present to others.

Encouraging the Disenfranchised

A student who wishes to remain nameless decided to be someone’s “secret friend” for the university semester.  This student wrote encouraging notes and sent anonymous gifts to a girl who wasn’t quite as social as other girls were.

This secret friend suffered from fibromyalgia, which is a disease that causes constant pain. “She is a sweet girl,” says the student. “She is just extremely shy. She has had a very hard life up to this point and has a very hard time trusting people.” 

The student used Facebook to encourage her secret friend. “It was always so exciting to get on Facebook and see what her friend had to say about her note or gift for the day,” said the student. “It was nice to get a response from her too.”  The girl never discovered the student’s identity.

“All I did for my Extra Mile Love Project was write little notes and send inexpensive gifts every day,” said the student. “But I could tell it gave her hope and brought her happiness.”

Caring for Children and Busy Parents

Amanda Snyder chose to babysit weekly for some leaders at her church. Each week, Amanda watched movies and played games with the kids. She expected the gift of babysitting to be easy. But it took more time than she expected, and giving up free time to help others is not easy for a busy college student.

The rewards for this work were many, says Amanda. The leaders were able to help others in the church and not worry about watching their own kids. Amanda developed friendships with people she had not known well previously. And she found she enjoyed babysitting. She plans to continue helping with kids as she prepares for a career after college.

Helping the Poor

Another student who wishes to remain nameless planned an Extra Mile Love Project for his friend, George. George comes from a family whose total income is below to poverty line. Although a university student, he cannot afford money for laundry. George often wears clothes many days in a row. He is embarrassed that his clothes become filthy and odorous.

For his project, this student decided to send ten dollars in quarters and laundry detergent anonymously for six weeks. This required some sacrifice, because the student didn’t have much money himself.

In the weeks that followed, George’s confidence grew. He stopped having body odor and his clothes were consistently cleaned and washed. George allowed himself to get closer in physical proximity to other people. Something as simple as laundry was holding George back so much in his confidence and personal life. The student plans to continue this gift of cleanliness.

Buying Food

Aaron Blackwill decided to accept the Extra Mile Love Project challenge by paying for someone’s groceries. While at Wal-Mart, Aaron asked an elderly man if he could pay for the small basket of food the man was carrying to the cash register. The man laughed and said, “That’s really strange!” But he accepted the offer.

This stranger seemed happier and touched by Aaron’s kindness. “This little experience has changed me for the better,” Aaron says. “I realize now that we can do small things everyday to show love and kindness to someone.”

Aaron plans to continue doing this kind of thing in the future. “The action of brightening someone’s day could, in turn, create positive effects for other encounters,” says Aaron, “spreading a happier day for many people.”

Going the Extra Mile Promotes Well-Being

I encourage students to express love in the little and mundane activities of life. But going the Extra Mile by planning a gift of love that stretches the giver can bring great rewards.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

14 Comments

A Six-Word Note on Love

A class I teach explores love from theological, philosophical, and scientific perspectives. It is about to conclude. My students have offered some intriguing perspectives on what they think about love.

I’m a fan of what are sometimes called “six-word memoirs.” These little phrases or sentences have six words each.

To conclude my class on love, I asked students to construct their own six-word love notes. The notes could highlight an overall theme in the course. They may describe something important they have learned while taking the course. Or they may simply be a statement they want to make about love.

Below are the six-word notes on love my students crafted. Some are profound. Others are cute. Others defy easy classification.

A SIX-WORD NOTE ON LOVE

Haley A. - Love is the doorway to God.

Marisa G. – Love is more than a feeling

Ryan M. – I shouldn’t say I “love” sports.

Sarah O. – Love is a choice. Choose it.

Ariel G. – Love is very, very, very deep!

Sarah R. – Can you feel the love tonight?

J. Baik- Love is worth it. Try hard.

Kristen C. – Love involves both heart and mind.

Justin K. – Love is like soccer: popular elsewhere.

Stacie M. – Love means something different to everyone.

Bailee B. – What would we do without love?

Lindsay L. – Gods’ character: God cannot not love.

Elisa D. – Love is the most powerful tool.

Macy M. – Everyone needs love, love needs everyone.

Matt L. – Love is appropriately responding in sacrifice.

Amelia H. – In the eye of the beholder.

Geoff G. – Love brings people together in God.

Ashley C. - Love is what keeps us alive

Evan C. – Love is icing on the cake.

Aaron B. – Love is the pulse of life.

Ashley M. – Love touches everyone in some way.

Rob C. – Love = family, friends, neighbors. Give yourself.

Jessica C. – All the world needs is love.

Danielle B. – Love is the foundation of life.

Shelby S. – Love breaks, love mends, love creates.

Amanda S. – Jesus loves me this I know.

Kandace T. – Love is the most important thing.

Vitaly T. – Love nurtures, love unites, love benefits.

David W. – Love heals the soul that gives.

Blake W. – Love: more than a four-letter word.

Krista W. – I love, you love, we love.

Maylee B. – Love is more than sexual intercourse.

Hyesu H. – Love makes big difference in life.

Jill B. – Love: not a whim … a lifestyle.

Eric G. – My views on love haven’t changed.

Brock O. – Love something you can’t live without.

Josh S. – Love is the ultimate universal language.

Chadwick P. – Love gives, love sustains, love perseveres

Care to post your own six-word note on love?

If you're up to it, post your own six-word love line as a blog comment...

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

41 Comments

The Love of Jesus

Jesus Christ is rightly regarded as the most important person for helping us understand love.  Especially at this time of year, it seems wise to ponder the love of Jesus.

Jesus lived about two thousand years ago in present-day Israel and Palestine.  Almost all that is known about Jesus comes from the New Testament.  Four books – Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John – are accounts of his birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection.  In other New Testament books and in writings produced in the past two millennia, many have interpreted and developed Jesus’ love legacy.

Jesus drew upon teachings from his Jewish heritage to offer what many consider the central insight of his ministry.  Matthew records this insight in these words: “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.  And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”  Jesus adds, “Upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Mt. 22:37-40).  Mark’s version of the same insight concludes with Jesus adding that there are no greater commandment than these two (Mk. 12:31).

In the book of Luke, Jesus is asked what must be done to inherit eternal life.  Jesus answers with these same two love commandments.  The questioner responds to Jesus, however, by asking who one’s neighbor might be. 

The answer Jesus gave this second question came in the form of a story.  Jesus tells of a man who is robbed, beaten, stripped, and left to die.  Two religious people passed by the victim, but these religious people ignored the opportunity to help.  However, an impure outsider – a Samaritan – came to the injured man’s aide, cared for his wounds, and found him a place of safety.  In this story, the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus suggests that a neighbor is any person in obvious need.  All other laws -- including religious ones -- are secondary to the law of love (Lk. 10:25-37).

Matthew records Jesus saying, “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Mt. 7:12).  The point Jesus makes is not that the laws and the words of the prophets are useless.  Rather, Jesus is suggesting that love is their culmination or overarching guide.  Matthew later records Jesus inviting his followers to love as inclusively as God, for God sends sunshine and rain on the good and bad indiscriminately (Mt 5:43-48). 

The apostle Paul, the most important witness for the Christian movement emerging after Jesus, picks up and promotes Jesus’ idea that love is the fulfillment of the law.  “Owe no one anything,” Paul writes to the Christians in Rome, “except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.  The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet;’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Loves does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rm. 13:8-10; see also, Gal. 5:14).

According to Jesus, the neighbor and others who should be loved include those whom some people might consider unlovable.  In fact, Jesus commands his followers to love enemies.  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’” Jesus declares.  “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Mt. 6:43-44). 

Luke’s account of the command to love enemies involves Jesus saying that his followers should “love your enemies and do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you….  Love your enemies, do good, and lend, anticipating nothing in return.  Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.  Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Lk. 6:27-28, 35-36).  In this, Jesus is saying that his listeners will imitate God when expressing love even for those who oppose them.

Jesus says that those who love the neediest will be rewarded.  The king will say, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me…. Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:34-36, 40).  Jesus advocates love for those sometimes considered unlovely.

In his own actions, Jesus demonstrated that followers should also love the downtrodden, outcasts, and marginalized.  Jesus showed love by washing feet, giving to the poor, listening to and blessing children, resisting retaliation, and feeding the hungry.  He was moved with compassion for the sick, lame, and hungry.  He associated with the social outcasts, such tax collectors, Samaritans, women, and non-Jews.  Breaking with social norms, Jesus voluntarily assumed the social role of a servant.

At times, Jesus praised and promoted self-sacrificial love.  “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.  No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Jn. 15:12, 13). 

At Easter, Christians especially reflect on Jesus death and resurrection. Jesus’ death on the cross is the prime example of self-sacrificial love.  Jesus’ death benefits others.  The apostle Paul says, “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rm. 5:8). Jesus' love is cruciform.

Jesus tells those who want to follow his lifestyle that they should follow his example of love.  “By this all will know that you are my disciples,” says Jesus, “if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35).  Later in the New Testament writings, the Apostle Paul says that Jesus should be the example for those who want to love as God loves.  “Be imitators of God, as beloved children,” writes Paul, “and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph. 5:1, 2).

Jesus’ life, words, death, and resurrection have been an inspiration to many throughout history who seek to understand and express love. Especially this holy week, I pause to ponder – and to imitate – the love of Jesus.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

22 Comments

Reviewing Love Wins

I have been impressed with the attention Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, enjoys. Having read the book, I’m now ready to weigh in on its merits.

The marketing of Love Wins has been ingenious. Bell’s short video promo caught the attention of many, including me. After watching the video, I was hooked: I had to read the book!

The video highlights questions we all should be asking. In particular, Bell asks about the nature of the God in whom we believe.

After buying and then reading the book, my overall response is this …

This is a great book!

Setting the Stage

Early on in Love Wins, Bell claims the ideas in the book are not entirely original to him. Others in the Christian tradition have argued similarly. He is right in this – although the majority of people today are unfamiliar with these Christian voices.

Bell’s version of these ideas, however, is enticing. The prose is attention grabbing, accessible, provocative. Love Wins is not a technical academic book, and, overall, that’s one of its strengths.

Heaven

From the start, Bell calls into question popular views of heaven and hell. He joins other Christians who say Jesus was much more concerned with the here and now than the then and there.

I like to put this point in this way: the eternal life Jesus promises is more about a quality of life in the present than a quantity of life forever. But God cares about both now and then.

Bell says the redemption of our lives and all creation requires our participation in God’s action in the world. Those in Jesus’ day expected the world to be restored, renewed, and redeemed. They weren’t thinking much about an afterlife.

“Jesus teaches us to pursue a life of heaven now and also then,” Bell says, “anticipating the day when earth and heaven are one.” He continues, “If you believe that you’re going to leave and evacuate to somewhere else, then why do anything about this world? A proper view of heaven is not to escape from the world, but to full engagement with it, all with the anticipation of a coming day when things are on earth as they currently are in heaven” (46-47).

Hell

To begin his discussion of hell, Bell makes the point many scholars know but most laity do not: the Old Testament says little or nothing about the traditional idea of hell. “The precise details of who goes where, when, how, with what, and for how long,” says Bell, “simply aren’t things that Hebrew writers were terribly concerned with” (67).

In the New Testament, we find only about a dozen instances in which the Greek words have been translated into English as “hell.” One word, gehenna, refers to the city dump burning outside Jerusalem. Jesus’ listeners would have imagined this site, not a fiery pit below them. Another word, hades, is the Greek word for death or the place of the dead. The popular view of hell comes more from writers like Dante than from the Bible.

Bell believes in a particular view of hell, however. Hell emerges from the negative consequences of sin and evil. What Jesus says about hell “describes the very real experiences and consequences of rejecting our God given goodness and humanity,” says Bell (73).

When we choose other than God’s loving best, we experience hell. God allows us to live with the full consequences of our choices, says Bell, confident that the misery we find ourselves in will have a way of getting our attention.

“We needed a loaded, volatile, adequately violent, dramatic, serious word to describe the very real consequences we experience when we reject the good, and true, and beautiful life that God has for us,” Bell says. “And for that, the word ‘hell’ works quite well. Let’s keep it” (93).

The Logic of Freedom and Love

The most interesting chapter of the book comes about halfway. Bell asks in its title, “Does God get what God wants?”

We find numerous passages in the Bible that speak of God wanting all people to find salvation. God’s desires to be united and reconciled with all creation. God works in us to fulfill God’s own good purposes. And God never gives up on us, ever. Does God get the salvation God wants for all?

“God has to respect our freedom to choose to the very end,” Bell argues, “even at the risk of relationship itself. If at any point God overrides, co-ops, or hijacks the human heart, robbing us the freedom to choose, then God has violated the fundamental essence of what love even is” (103-104). Therefore, “love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us,” says Bell. “We can have all the hell we want” (113).

I find this logic compelling. In fact, this is precisely the logic I use in my own work, including my book The Nature of Love. I now understand why one reviewer said my book gives a more complete theological rationale for Love Wins.

Like Bell, I believe giving freedom is an aspect of God’s love. If God always gives freedom and never coerces, we have no grounds to affirm a universalism that says God unilaterally saves all.

Let me explore this a bit…

Universalism

At the heart of this book’s controversy is the claim that Rob Bell affirms universalism. Although universalism can be defined in many ways, it is typically understood to mean God unilaterally saves all to enjoy eternal bliss in heaven.

Universalism so understood sounds like the conclusion of a game of hide and seek. God says, “Ally-ally in come free!”

Those who reject universalism make several arguments. One of the most common is the Bible speaks against such universalism. A few passages in the Bible use words we translate as “hell.” (As I note above, Bell does a good job noting their scarcity and that they likely do not mean what many Christians have assumed.)

Many more biblical passages, however, speak of the negative consequences sin and disobedience cause. “The wages of sin is death,” to quote the Apostle Paul. Those who reject universalism often interpret these passages as referring to punishment in the afterlife. Bell argues (rightly, in my view), however, that these passages pertain to the suffering that comes in this life. Few if any biblical passages speak of suffering in the afterlife.

God’s Power to Send People to Hell

Oddly enough, many universalists embrace the same view of God’s power those who affirm the doctrines of predestination and unconditional election embrace. Predestinarians typically believe God, in solitary sovereignty, chooses who will go to hell and who will enjoy heaven.

Universalism and predestination take to its logical end the belief that God alone saves. If no one but God initiates and completes our salvation, God alone is the one who determines to save all (universalism) or only some (traditional view of predestination).

Those who believe God alone initiates and completes salvation are likely to quote biblical passages like this: “By grace you are saved, through faith. This is not of yourselves, it is a gift from God. It is not because of your works, so no one can boast.”

Often set aside are numerous biblical passages that suggest we have a role to play in our salvation. For instance, the Apostle Paul says, “work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling. For God is at work in you both to will and to work for God’s good pleasure.”

If God initiates the possibility for salvation, empowers us to choose freely this salvation, but never accomplishes salvation all alone, we have a role to play. If free creatures play a necessary role, we should not affirm universalism or predestination as these have been commonly understood.

To put it another way, I argue that we should not affirm universalism, in the sense that all will go to heaven by divine fiat. Instead, we should affirm that creatures play a role in cooperating with God to establish the kingdom of God in this life and the next.

Does Love Win?

Near the end of his chapter asking whether God gets what God wants, Bell gets to the issue in the book’s title. He correctly notes some Christians have argued hell is not forever. Hell can be temporary. These Christians believe that in the end, love wins.

Not all Christians have believed this, of course. But, says Bell, some “envision God’s love to be bigger, stronger, and more compelling than [all other things] put together” (111).

Bell doesn’t answer the chapter question, “Does God get what God wants?” At least he doesn’t directly. He says the real question is “Do we get what we want?”

“If we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours,” argues Bell. “That’s how love works. We can’t be forced, manipulated, or coerced. It always leaves room for the other to decide. God says yes, we can have what we want, because love wins” (119).

What Does it Mean to Say Love Wins?

I’m not sure what Bell means when he says love wins.

One interpretation would be that as long as God loves us and we are free to embrace or reject that love, love wins. Love wins because God always loves and offers us freedom. As long as God is love and we exist to respond to God, love wins.

I generally like this view. But it doesn’t tell us whether all creation eventually freely says “yes” to God. It doesn’t tell us whether, to use more traditional language, the Kingdom of God will finally be consummated.

Another interpretation of “love wins” says God’s love eventually persuades all creatures to say “yes.” Love wins not just in that God never stops calling us to love. Love also wins, because God’s love eventually persuades all creation to enjoy God’s invitation to salvation.

I like this second view too. But I think this meaning of “love wins” remains a Christian hope and not a foregone conclusion or certain guarantee. I wholeheartedly affirm this hope. But if creatures are always free to resist God’s love and God never coerces, there’s no certainty that the Kingdom of God will be entirely fulfilled. This idea is unsettling to some Christians, because they want a 100% guarantee. I think Christians should affirm this hope on biblical faith, not as a guaranteed certainty.

The Cross and Resurrection

It’s understandable that Bell would include a chapter in his book on Jesus’ cross and resurrection. But in my opinion, this is not a very strong chapter.

Bell rightly shows that Scripture offers different explanations of what the cross means. He rightly says atonement metaphors are more or less appropriate given the context. The resurrection provides the source of hope for overcoming evil. All of this makes sense to me. But I don’t see a strong link between the cross/resurrection and the ideas Bell advocates in previous chapters. I think the case could be made. But Bell doesn’t do so, in my opinion.

Bell wisely addresses Jesus’ well-known words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.” He correctly notes that this verse doesn’t give specifics of how, when, and in what matter people get to God through Jesus. “What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody,” says Bell. “And then he leaves the door open, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities.”

Speaking of Jesus, Bell says “He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe. He is as exclusive as himself and as inclusive as containing every single particle of creation” (155). This generally fits my own view on the central importance of Jesus for salvation. 

What Is God Like?

I was initially provoked to read this book upon watching Bell’s video. In it, he wonders about the nature of a God who allegedly sends people to heaven or hell.

In the closing pages of Love Wins, Bell addresses this issue directly: “We have to ask: just what kind of God is behind all of this?” (175) Having undermined the idea that God alone sends people to heaven or hell in the afterlife, his answer makes sense: “God’s very essence is love” (177).  

Returning to themes I like most, Bell says God’s love can “be resisted, and rejected, and denied, and avoided” (177). “God is love, and to refuse this love moves us away from it, in the other direction,” he argues, “and that will, by very definition, be an increasingly unloving, hellish reality” (177).

And then we have what may be the best line in the book:

“We do ourselves great harm when we confuse the very essence of God, which is love, with the very real consequences of rejecting and resisting that love, which creates what we call hell” (177).

I suggest we use this quote to interpret the recent recording -- apparently of Bell -- in which he denies universalism.

While God never gives up calling us to live lives of love, we can freely respond improperly to God’s loving call. When we do, we reap the natural negative consequences that come from choosing something other than God’s loving best.

Conclusion

Bell’s book leaves some questions unanswered. That’s fine with me. No book can answer all our questions. Even the Bible leaves questions unanswered.

This doesn’t mean that we should refuse to construct the best answer we can to our questions. And I think the Bible can play the central role in our quest for such answers. Part of what it means to love God with our minds is that we search honestly. And God can help us find answers that are more plausible than others.

But in our searching, I agree with what I think is the heart of Bell’s book: we must keep the themes of love central. Love should be at the heart of our answers to the biggest questions of life. Too often, answers to questions about heaven and hell have not followed the logic of love.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

1 Comments

Relations and Measuring Love

Some time ago, I posted blogs on the idea that love can be measured. In one blog, I defined love; in a second, I talked about the role of intentions. Now I turn to the role that relations play in measuring love.

My definition of love says we love when we act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being.

As my definition states, I think our relation to God plays a key role in our sympathetic/empathetic response. With the Apostle John, I believe we love because God first loves us (1 John 4:19).

Explaining the nuances of how I think God empowers creaturely love is a project I’ve worked on in several books. In this blog, therefore, I’ll set aside specifics about relations with God and focus on how a lover’s relations with other creatures is important for measuring love. I’ll come back to theological issues in a subsequent post.

Sympathetic/empathetic response

I use both empathy and sympathy in my definition, because academic disciplines define the words differently. In philosophy, “sympathy” means to “feel with.”  It has a mostly positive meaning. But in psychology, “sympathy” is often equated with pity. It has a more negative connotation, and psychologists often use “empathy” to describe what philosophers mean by “sympathy.”

The response I believe love requires involves our being affected by others. What others do matters. This influence shapes who we are and how we act, but it doesn’t entirely determine it.

To use philosophical words: we are internally related to others, not merely externally related to them. In our interrelated universe, others genuinely affect who we are in each moment.

Research on creaturely love may focus on relations with others.

If love involves sympathetic/empathetic responses to others, some research projects on love must explore the stimuli, conditions, and constraints others place on an actor’s love. These relations exert causal influence on those who love. Science is best known for attempting to account for particular cause-and-effect relations in existence.

The kinds of relations and their causes vary widely. Some of the most interesting love research explores how these relations shape or hinder expressions of love. I will note three general types: societal, interpersonal, and bodily.

Societal relations

From ancient days, humans have believed the wider social environment and broad communal relations influence our capacities and opportunities to promote well-being. Measuring this belief proves difficult. When the multiplicity of possible causes expands so widely as to include a whole society, researchers have difficulty identifying primary influences for or against love.

The notion that societies encourage altruism has been given special emphasis in the group selection theory of evolutionary sociobiology. In their book, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, biologist David Sloan Wilson and philosopher Elliott Sober argue that evidence shows groups of altruists can outcompete groups of egoists.

Group-selection theory, says Wilson and Sober, has been an important force in evolution. “Altruism can evolve to the extent that altruists and non-altruists become concentrated in different groups,” they report. Groups of altruists can survive and thrive better than groups comprised of selfish types. The authors provide data in the biological and anthropological sciences to substantiate group-selection theory. They conclude, “the concept of human groups as adaptive units may be supported not only by evolutionary theory but by the bulk of empirical information on human social groups in all cultures around the world.”

Others pursue research on the causal influence of society for love. Stacy L. Smith and Sandi W. Smith examined altruistically loving acts portrayed on television. They randomly selected and taped TV content for about three months, using a definition of altruism as “a voluntary intentional action – independent of motive – that benefits others beyond simple socio-ability or duties associated with a role.” The two primary actions deemed loving were helping and sharing.

Smith and Smith found that 72% of all programs they observed featured at least one instance of altruism. Most altruistic acts were toward friends (32%) and acquaintances (21%). The researchers concluded that some forms of altruism are important ingredients in the narrative structure of television programming. They believe their work is important, because “a social cognitive or socialization approach [to altruism] suggests that such portrayals may have a positive impact on viewer’s propensity to help or share.”

Interpersonal relations

The kinds of relations we have with family, friends, and coworkers make a difference in our ability to love. These relations and their causal influence also affect the forms love takes. Intimate causal relations begin in the mother’s womb and continue throughout a lifetime. Not surprisingly, the nature of interpersonal relations provides important scientific research data about a subject’s capacity to love and the forms love takes.

A whole realm of psychology called “attachment theory” offers insights into the capacity for giving and receiving love based on interpersonal relations. John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth were pioneers in empirical research suggesting the relationship an infant enjoyed with its mother (or significant caregiver) greatly influences that child’s love for others. A child’s attachment system naturally elicits a positive mental representation of those who protect it. When the system functions well, individuals feel relaxed, confident, and will more likely care for self and others.

Today, developmental psychologists employ attachment theory in their research on relationships at all stages of life. For example, Mario Mikulincer and Philip Shaver find in their studies that those who feel a proper sense of attachment are more likely to act compassionately than those who do not have a secure attachment. “Our findings indicate,” say Mikulincer and Shaver, “that the attachment behavior system affects the caregiving system, making it likely that heightening security will yield benefits in the realm of compassionate altruistic behavior.”

The research of Samuel and Pearl Oliner on the parental influence of those who rescued Jews during the period of Nazi rule illustrates well scientific work on how interpersonal relations influence love. Using interviews of rescuers and nonrescuers, Oliner identified various factors influencing those who rescued Jews in Nazi Europe and those who did not. From these interviews, the Oliners constructed composite portrait of both types. They found that “close family relationships in which parents model caring behavior and communicate caring values” were typical of those who rescued Jews. Parents of rescuers set “high standards that they expect their children to meet, particularly with regard to caring for others.”

George Valliant’s work serves as a final example of the causal role interpersonal relations might play for research on love. Valliant followed the lives of 456 inner-city men whose lives had been characterized by extreme difficulty. He found that by the time the men reached their middle fifties, the nine men who led the most generative and self-giving lives said the greatest factor in their now positive lives was a loving marriage. This suggests that positive interpersonal relationships in marriage encourage men to promote well-being.

Bodily relations and constraints

Lovers are embodied beings. As such, their relations within their own bodies influence what kind of loving activity is possible. Bodies and the entities that comprise bodies provide both tools for loving and constraints to love. Research on this causal influence is important.

Nancy Eisenberg does research on pro-social behavior in children. Eisenberg cites one study of 6-month-olds that revealed about half of those examined responded to distressed peers with actions indicating empathy. This evidence suggests that even at an early age, humans are hardwired to respond to those in their environment. But the apparently involuntary response of children to other’s distress decreases through childhood. “Because preschool children are better able than younger children to take the perspective of others,” says Eisenberg, “they are more motivated and better able to pinpoint the source of another’s distress and to help in ways that are appropriate to the other’s need.”

Much of the neuroscience research on love pertains to exploring the necessary neural requirements for complex forms of love. For instance, neurologists Antonio and Hanna Damasio document a number of contemporary cases in which the neocortical neurons necessary for empathy are destroyed or rendered dysfunctional from brain damage. In one research project, the team studied thirteen adult patients who experienced prefrontal cortex damage. The wife of one patient with brain damage testifies that her husband was caring and affectionate prior to his brain alteration. After it, however, her husband reacted with indifference when she became upset or distressed. Despite the fact that his verbal and performance IQ scores ranked in the high 90th percentiles, the husband lacked empathy.

Adults in the study with damaged frontal lobes could not employ social and emotional facts to respond sympathetically. “Without the prefrontal cortex,” Hanna Damasio says, “empathy, along with other adaptive social behaviors, becomes impaired.” Various regions of our brains may influence our capacity to empathize well with others, but these studies show that the neocortex is especially important for some forms of empathy.

Conclusion

            I could city many, many other examples of love research projects that explore relations. I have not even touched on the power of relations among those in the Church, for instance. But we are related to so many others – both outside our skins and the various entities inside our skins – that accounting for all of the ways relations affect love would be impossible. Much research is needed!

I want to conclude this blog on love research pertaining to bodily and environmental relations and their causal influence by reiterating what I said in my conclusion to studying the general domain motives and intentions. Just as explanatory certainty is not possible through research on motives, so explanatory certainty is not possible through studies of causal relations with others, whether those relations be social, interpersonal, or bodily. Scientists are rarely if ever capable of isolating causes sufficiently to know with absolute certainty that any particular cause played the primary role in producing a result.

It seems unlikely that one cause is ever the full and sufficient cause for any result. For this reason, humility is required in scientific research. Scientists would be wise to heed the Apostle Paul’s words: “We know in part.” And yet scientists can argue for the greater plausibility of some explanations compared with others based on their research.

Research on our varied relations proves important for measuring love. My hope is that greater funding can be secured to help us all explore the constraints and opportunities our relations have for expressing love.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

15 Comments

Greathouse and the Future of Theology

With the recent passing of William Greathouse, I’ve been thinking anew about the future of theology in the Church of the Nazarene.

LEGACY

Greathouse’s contribution to theology came in many forms. He wrote most of his books for the “average” reader. His writing style was often more sermonic than academic, although he liked quoting great minds from the past. His inspirational style made him more influential in the Church of the Nazarene denomination than many theologians whose writing contributions were aimed mainly at the academy or classroom.

Greathouse’s contribution also came through institutional leadership. He served as college president before taking the position as the president of the denomination’s premier seminary of its day: Nazarene Theological Seminary. At these institutions, Greathouse shaped theological education in diverse ways. He was often most proud of the able-minded thinkers he attracted to the institutions he led, such as Mildred Bangs Wynkoop and others.

Upon his election to the top leadership role in the denomination, General Superintendent, his leadership took other forms. He was widely regarded as a leader able to articulate a Wesleyan theological perspective to a denomination often not fully aware of its theological identity.

Retirement did not mean Greathouse’s theological leadership ended. Seminary, university, and college presidents often consulted with him on theological concerns. He was brought in occasionally to assess a theologian’s orthodoxy. His recommendations were taken with great seriousness. For a few decades at least, he was the most influential “behind the scenes” theological advisor in the denomination.

Even after retirement, the denomination’s highest leadership consulted him often about the direction they might lead members. General Superintendents considered Greathouse’s advice on emerging theological questions, doctrinal disputes, and the nuances of holiness. In some ways, he functioned as a denominational pope on issues of theology.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN NOW?

With the passing to glory of William Greathouse, I have been asking myself several questions. Most of them have to do with how theological matters will be handled in the Church of the Nazarene’s future.

As far as I can tell, no current theologian can easily fill the role Greathouse has been filling. Many theologians in the denomination are academically capable, of course. In fact, I would judge several academically superior to Greathouse. But none is trusted by top denominational leadership to a degree anything similar to the way Greathouse was trusted. I know of none who functions as “insiders” in denominational decision-making.

It may be time for the position of “unofficial theological pope” to pass. It may be that the denomination is too theologically diverse and globally segregated to allow for a voice of Greathouse’s authority.

It also may be that the denomination should form an official and elected theological committee to adjudicate theological questions. Such a committee could be invaluable for working through potential changes to the denomination’s Articles of Faith, for instance.

I worry about what I perceive is a widening gap between academically trained theologians and top leadership in the Church of the Nazarene. Rightly or wrongly, fewer university presidents and General Superintendents are viewed by those in the academy as able to articulate well a Wesleyan perspective on the gospel of Jesus Christ. This worries me.

THE NEED FOR THEOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP

No matter what the mechanism needed to fill the void left by Greathouse’s passing, I am more convinced now than ever that the Church of the Nazarene needs sophisticated theological leadership. I say this not in criticism of the denomination’s top leaders. I say this to recognize that the diversity and expansion of the denomination requires strategic plans to address questions of theological identity and proclamation.

The need for sophisticated theological reflection – on both Christian practices and doctrine – must not be ignored. In a time of shrinking financial resources, the denomination and its leaders must look to inspire and inform those inside and outside the church community to walk the highway of holiness.

I believe we must affirm the core of the Wesleyan message but present it in forms and language helpful for people today. Like Greathouse, I think the primary form and language is love. But there are many other dimensions of the gospel that require fresh articulation and creative expression in our postmodern world.

There will never be another exactly like William Greathouse. But I hope we as a denomination and as individuals honor his legacy by making theological reflection and proclamation top priorities.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

14 Comments

Greathouse Passes to Glory

William (Bill) Marvin Greathouse passed from this life to the next Thursday evening, March 24. Bill was a giant of a leader and theologian in the Church of the Nazarene.

A recently published biography on Greathouse, Crucified with Christ: The Life and Ministry of William Marvin Greathouse, offers a nice summary of his life and accomplishments. Bill was a pastor, college president, seminary president, general superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene, and inspiring theologian.

For several years, Bill has been expecting to pass on to glory. In our conversations, he often talked about his failing health and physical difficulties. He was ready to go home.

Upon hearing of his home going, I flipped through some old emails exchanges. And I pulled down some of his books from my shelves. Many of us in the theological academy owe a great deal to Bill’s personal and intellectual influence.

Of his books, his little tome, Love Made Perfect, is probably my favorite. We both believed love to be the center of holiness and the Christian life.  His writing style comes across like an inspirational sermon.

I was struck when I took down the book by the inscription he had written to me. After a few comments of encouragement, he wrote these words from John Wesley:

“If thine eye be single – singly fixed on God and heaven, thy whole soul will be full of holiness and happiness.”

Bill Greathouse lived a life fixed on God. And now he enjoys the complete happiness of heaven.

Hallelujah!

(Photo: Diane Leclerc, William Greathouse, Rob Staples, Thomas Jay Oord)

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

9 Comments

Adjustment Bureau Theology

The classic questions of God’s plans and human free will take center stage in The Adjustment Bureau, a movie now in theaters starring Matt Damon. The conclusion leans heavily toward an open theist view of how God and creatures interact in light of a yet-to-be-settled future.

Storyline

The Adjustment Bureau centers on politician David Norris (Matt Damon) who accidentally stumbles into agents (angels) making mental adjustments to various humans in Damon’s office. All humans but Norris are frozen, depicting the stopping of time so the adjustment can be made to change the future.

Norris flees the scene, but the agents (angels) catch him. They warn him not to tell anyone what he has witnessed. The penalty for divulging that angels intervene to change the course of history is the erasure of Norris’s brain.

But we have a problem. Norris has fallen in love with a dancer named Elise (Emily Blunt) whom he accidentally met just before giving a speech. Elise gave Norris her phone number. The angels, however, burn the number to prevent them from reuniting. Under direction from the bureau Chief (God?), the angels tell Norris that the future has been planned so that the two cannot be together.

Will Norris go after his love and spoil their potentially productive – and apparently predetermined – futures? Of course, viewers know that he will try!

Angels and God

Throughout the movie, issues of fate, chance, free will, and divine plans play prominently. Given my own interests in these areas, I was engrossed.

I instantly noted problems in the storyline for the kind of open and relational theology I find most helpful. For instance, if the agents are angels whom God asks to do projects, I wondered why an omnipresent and almighty God would need such intermediaries. Why doesn’t an omnipresent and almighty God do all this work alone? This, of course, is a classic question for any theology of angels.

Through most of the movie, I wondered how chance could play such a large role. If there are plans that have been laid and angels who carry them out, what role is there for accidents and chance? And yet the angels consistently admitted the occurrence of chance events. This question plagued me while watching the move – until the final scenes.

Movie writers offer as a possible explanation the classic compatibilist position for free will and divine action. That is, the angel tells Norris that although he thinks he chooses freely, the Chief is ultimately calling all the shots. In other words, the compatibilist position says God is in total control, even though we think we have some control. (This is not an open theist view.)

We quickly find out in the film, however, that compatibilism doesn’t represent the true nature of things.  Of course, I was happy the writers rejected this problematic solution to divine control and human “free will”. If God is in control, God is ultimately culpable for all evil events – even those we might (erroneously) think free humans caused.

The age-old problem of evil raises its head in the movie. At one point, an angel gives an explanation (which later turns out to be wrong) for why in the course of human history humans have sometimes possessed freedom and other times not.  In response, Norris makes a comment about how things aren’t so good today – despite apparent total angelic and divine control.

At another point in the film, an angel admits that things don’t always seem to be planned by the Chief to work out well. But he says something like, “We must trust the Chief. We can only see part of the plan. We don’t get the full picture.” This classic response to the problem of evil has never satisfied me. But I do agree that we can’t know all things. And I admit that mystery must play some role in answering the problem of evil.

Open Theology

The conclusion of the movie fits nicely with some core themes of open theism. For this reason alone, I recommend seeing the movie. Because of choices made by Norris and Elise, God opens up a new future of possibilities. Their free choice changes God’s script for their future. The angels are given new directives in light of creaturely free will.

There were several other aspects of the movie that I thought also promoted a general open theist perspective.

For instance, the writers depict the angels as having different motivations and emotional responses. Those angels thinking the future was fixed because the Chief had already settled it were virtual automatons. Their motivation was pure obedience. They acted joyless. They did their job without thinking much about the goodness or lack thereof of the Chief.

The angel who helped Norris and Elise fight for a future together, however, was more emotional. Viewers immediately like this angel, because he was sympathetic to the possibility of their romantic love being established. He imagined a better future, and this angel schemed with Norris about how to bring about that better future. Because the future was open, he sought a way that was both obedient to the general will of the Chief but also respected and relied up on the free choices of humans.

I also loved the little “playbooks” the angels used. Although master plans were set aside in a library, each angel carried a little playbook on the job. The book’s pages offer various diagrams and patterns, suggesting various possible routes that individual histories might take.

The ingenious part of the playbooks was the way they depicted time. Pulsing images moved across the grid of diagrams, with possible moments of significance not yet concrete. The actions of the humans determined whether these possible nodes of significance would be realized.

In my own work, I’ve used various diagrams to depict the ongoing nature of time as essential for considering free will. I wish I had something like these notebooks to use as illustrations!

I also like the idea in the movie that our choices have "ripple effects" on others. In an interrelated world, what one creatures does influences what others can do. At its best, Open theology affirms the mutual influence our choices have not only on God but on others and on our own future possibilities.

Conclusion

There is so much more to this movie than what I’ve described here. And this description comes after my seeing Adjustment Bureau one time. I plan to see it several more.

I’m sure that not everyone will like the conclusion of this movie. But for open theists, this flick comes as close as any in describing God’s flexible plans and creaturely freedom.

No movie can do full justice to all of my views of God, of course. I mean, how does a filmmaker depict an omnipresent being!?! But The Adjustment Bureau goes a long way toward sorting out the complex issues of love, freedom, God, and the future.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

8 Comments

Books I’m Reading

It’s spring break at the university, and I’m catching up on my reading. Actually, I’ve been reading off and on since Christmas. Here are the books that have caught my attention in the last few months.

I should say I’ve finished some of these, am in the middle of others, and have only started a few. So I’m not offering full-scale reviews of each. And I offer these in no particular order…

1.      The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions, by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins. This book delivers what its subtitle foretells. It’s written in very accessible prose and addresses some of the central questions asked in the science and theology debate. I wouldn’t be surprised if it became the “go to” book for helping Christians answer questions about faith with contemporary science. It’s really that good!

2.      Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language, by David Crystal. With the 400^th anniversary of the publishing of the King James Version of the Bible, I thought I’d pick up this book. The author explores common words and phrases, such as “skin of one’s teeth,” “my brother’s keeper,” and “out of the mouths of babes.” The book has 42 chapters dealing with specific phrases. I found many chapters interesting, but it’s not the kind of book that makes you eager to read the next chapter.

3.      The Crucible of Life: The Role of Experience in John Wesley’s Theological Method, by Timothy Crutcher. This is a well-reasoned dissertation on the subject described in the book’s subtitle. Crutcher not only explores the breadth of Wesley’s writing on experience. He also points toward how experience might play a role in theological construction in our day. This work will prove a valuable resource in my own ongoing work in Wesleyan theological method.

4.      Science and Religious Anthropology: A Spiritually Evocative Naturalist Interpretation of Human Life, by Wesley Wildman. The author addresses in academic prose research and ideas pertaining to religion and the human person. This book won’t make the bestseller list, because its writing style is methodical and dense. But it offers a strong naturalist account of religion – although I don’t personally find it convincing in the end.

5.      The Power of One: A Sermonic Sojourn into a Pluralistic World, By Oliver Phillips. This collection of sermons addresses a myriad of subjects, with at least one goal of making sense of the gospel in our pluralistic world. The sermons prove provocative and insightful!

6.      Genesis, Evolution, and the Search for a Reasoned Faith, by Mary Katherine Birge, Brian G. Henning, Rodica M. M. Stoicoiu, and Ryan Taylor. Meant to be an introduction to issue of science and Christian faith, this multi-authored little book explores succinctly key scientific, philosophical, and theological issues. One chapter explores Genesis. A second looks at science and evolutionary biology. The third takes on the place of humans in evolutionary history. And the last explores theology – from a decidedly Roman Catholic perspective – in light of science.

7.      From Grace to Grace, by Mark Quanstrom. This tome on holiness weaves together pastoral stories and serious theology to argue for the relevance of holiness in our contemporary world. I was impressed by the ample references to the thought of John Wesley. But the book also draws from creeds and confessions, hymns and narrative, and my denomination’s articles of faith. Quanstrom emphasizes several neglected or at least underemphasized ideas in the heart of the holiness witness. I’m excited about how this book should positively influence the conversation on sanctification.

8.      The Hidden Gifts of Helping: How the Power of Giving, Compassion, and Hope Can Get Us Through Hard Times, by Stephen G. Post. Filled with stories, reports on findings in stories, and personal anecdotes, Post preaches the virtues of helping others. I’m thinking of giving this book to my mother to read, because it’s so inspiring.

9.      The Bible as Word of God: In a Postmodern Age, by Terence Fretheim and Karlfried Froelich. This book has been out several years, but I recently reread Fretheim’s contribution. I have reduced Fretheim’s material to a short essay, and it will appear in a book I’m coediting with Richard Thompson called, The Bible Tells Me So. Look for it in the fall of 2011.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

0 Comments

The Best News… for Easter!

Thanks to so many for your interest in partnering with our attempts to distribute The Best News You Will Ever Hear book. This project is taking off in wild and wonderful ways!

We are now working with people in about a dozen world areas to make the book available. And several people in the U.S. are planning to use the book in their own unique settings. Some are simply buying copies and distributing them. Others are working on new versions of the book, with the idea of having a co-author edition for them to use and distribute.

EASTER

A couple people asked about getting copies of the book to give away at Easter. This seems like a great idea! Many Church communities want to hand people something to take home that shares the love of God.

If you want copies of The Best News You Will Ever Hear, order them soon and directly from the publisher’s website. You can get great bulk rates for a price much better than what you can get from Amazon.com or elsewhere.

Here’s a link to the publisher’s website.

STORIES

We have already heard some amazing stories about how people are using this little book to share the good news of God’s love. It is MASSIVELY exciting!

If you’ve got a story, we’d like to hear it. Either post it as comment below or send me an email or facebook message. We might use your story in some way, so be sure to indicate whether you’d allow us to retell your story to others.

And if you’re interested in doing a version of the book with us as coauthors, let me know. We want this to be a tool available to everyone.

I should also let you know that my coauthor, Bob Luhn, and I are not making any money from these books. We take no profits so that we can price the book as inexpensively as possible. We’re hoping this allows those with little money to buy a copy of the book. And we’re hoping those with greater means will buy multiple copies to give away.

ONE MORE THING…

We have contacts now seeking to have the book translated in dozens of languages. For about three thousand dollars per translation, we can get hundreds of copies of the book translated, printed, and distributed to just about anywhere in the world.

If you know of someone who would like to sponsor the translation of The Best News for some people group or country, please let us know. We think God can use this tool to establish the reign of love in all kinds of places and in all kinds of people.

It’s great to see God working and inviting us to participate in telling the Christian good news!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

No comments yet.

10 Comments

Sharing the Good News—with a book!

I recently completed co-writing a book that shares the Christian good news. It’s now published and available for purchase. But I’m thinking about ways to get this book into the hands of those that need it most!

When writing this book, my co-author (Bob Luhn) and I wanted something easily understandable. We wanted a short book we could give away to just about anyone.

The message of the book focuses upon God’s love and our response. We think the core of the Christian message has been often downplayed or placed as secondary in Christian attempts to witness. Our book tackles the usual subjects of sin, salvation, and the holy life. But love is the center of it all.

Now that the book is complete, we’re talking with people around the world about using the book where they live. Several African leaders want to use the book, for instance, either in its English version or in a translated version. We’re working with others in countries around the world.

The Good News in Context

What makes our venture different from others, however, is that we want our book to be contextualized.

To do this, we’re asking leaders and translators to be co-authors with us. We want them to add or subtract to the electronic version of the book before printing paper copies. By doing this, these indigenous leaders can shape the book’s content to meet the concerns and theological emphases of their region. We’ll list them as coauthors on the versions of the book they have helped produce.

For instance, some people emphasize the domain of demons and angels in their presentation of the Christian gospel. This is especially prevalent in some regions of Africa. Although we touch on this issue in the book, some co-authors may want to expand the book to address the spirit world in greater depth.

In other parts of the world, however, demons and angels play little role in how God is understood to work in the world. Emphasizing the spirit world in such contexts would actually detract a book’s presentation of the good news of God’s love. We expect co-authors in such regions to delete or not expand discussions of spiritual beings.

While we think the core of the gospel transcends culture, we want to be sensitive to the diverse ways the gospel is understood around the world!

Many potential co-authors with whom we have already talked are intelligent theologians and leaders. But most don’t have access to the kind of financial resources it takes to have large quantities of the books printed. It’s a major need!

We're Looking for Partners

So… we’re also looking for people who want to “take on” some financial costs for translating and printing copies of the book for particular world regions. A few thousand dollars can get the book translated and about 500 copies of the book printed. That’s super cheap!

We’re looking for individuals and churches to collaborate with us.  Some potential collaborators may already have a contact somewhere in the world they would like to support. Other collaborators may simply want to give funds for whatever project has the greatest need.

We think God can use this little book to bring people to the saving knowledge of the love of Jesus Christ. We’ve already also talked with indigenous leaders who want to use our book as teaching literature.

If you’re interested in collaborating with us in this project, send me a note. I’ll send you a complimentary copy of the book. After you read it, we’ll want to talk about what we might do together. (It probably wouldn’t be wise for me to post my email address here. If you don’t know it, you can find it on the Northwest Nazarene University website.)

I am so excited about this new venture in sharing the good news of God’s love. If you’d like to join in any way, let me know!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

5 Comments

Bible Conference Wrap-Up

The Bible Tells Me So conference was a powerful step forward in articulating a Wesley approach to the Bible. Here’s a conference wrap-up essay. It includes the consensus statement and links to photos, DVDs, and more info.

Opening Comments

The conference began on the right foot. Northwest Nazarene University president, David Alexander, talked about Bibles he has owned over the years and their impact in his life. The worship team led participants in praise, and Bob Luhn led in our celebration of the Eucharist. Uniting around praise and the Lord’s Table set the tone for the conference.

In my own opening comments, I talked about the importance of our gathering and how we should conduct ourselves. I thanked scholars and pastor leaders who agreed to play leadership roles in our gathering. I talked about searching for harmony among diverse views of the Scripture.

I also shared a personal testimony. While hiking in the Owyhee Mountains in December, I was praying about the conference and feeling the burden of its gravity. Suddenly, I sensed God telling me to relax. I felt reassured that God would be ever present, ever working, ever convincing participants of truth. I felt comforted by this experience, and I felt God’s presence throughout The Bible Tells Me So conference.

Conference Elements

The conference included excellent plenary panel discussions. The opening night, Dick Thompson, Steve Green, and Karen Winslow worked through the conference five big questions. (I’ll write more about those questions in a moment.)  Brent Strawn, Marty Michelson, and David Kendall explored biblical preaching and teaching. George Lyons, Bob Branson, and Jeff Stackert fielded “tough questions about the Bible” on their plenary panel.  (Here’s a link to the post-conference press release.)

Among the conference highlights were the Friday afternoon workshops. Most were led by biblical scholars either working on or having recently completed a Bible book commentary. Other workshops explored the Bible as it relates to spiritual formation, the academy and church relationships, worship, preaching, and more. More than 50 scholars attended!

Randy Maddox’s banquet address was masterful. He talked about John Wesley’s understanding and use of Scripture. The crowd was captivated. (To get a DVD of Randy’s presentation, see this link.) Rob Staples responded to Randy, and he focused on the Church of the Nazarene’s current discussion about changing its article on Scripture. Rob was against changing the article, in part because its current form does not affirm absolute biblical inerrancy.

Some of my favorite parts of the conference were the small group discussions. On Friday and Saturday mornings, pastors led groups discussing biblical inspiration, interpretation, inerrancy, trustworthiness, and the Bible’s relation to postmodernism. The discussions were lively and productive! I enjoyed eavesdropping as I took photos. (Here’s a link to photos.)

Consensus Statement

Each small group – and there were about 30 – crafted short statements on the five big questions. (You can read each group statement at this link.) Randy Craker, Dick Thompson, and I took these statements and quickly crafted a general consensus statement. We attempted to capture the dominant sentiments from the groups…

Statement one:  "The Bible has its origin in the heart of God. God inspired the authors and inspires readers of Scripture across the ages. God uses the Bible to call us to faithful response."

Statement two:  "The Bible consistently witnesses to, reveals, and teaches the truth regarding God's purpose of salvation and holy life. It is consistently confirmed by the Christian community, empowered by the Holy Spirit."

Statement three: "The Bible is inerrant in what it does: the Spirit is at work revealing through human words the character and purposes of God to redeem, in Christ, all creation."

Statement four: "We interpret the Bible in a dynamic process. This requires that Christians interpret in community, in prayerful humility, and relying upon the Holy Spirit. Good interpretation is informed by the tradition, anchored by essential Christian beliefs, and informed by the best contributions of saints and scholars today."

Statement five: "Christians have always engaged and interacted with the cultures in which they live. Yet the essential message of the Bible remains consistent. Christians in humility endeavor to engage the postmodern world by listening to, speaking with, living among, and embodying Christ-like love to this generation."

These statements reflect a Wesleyan emphasis upon the centrality and reliability of the Bible to be used by God to offer salvation. They emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit to inspire original authors and present-day readers. They avoid affirming absolute inerrancy, while affirming a principal place for the Bible.

Very Positive Outcomes

The overwhelming number of comments after the conference was positive. Almost everyone seemed pleased with the event, although there is obviously always room to improve.

In a month or so, ten DVD recordings of conference plenary sessions and a few workshops will be available for purchase. These DVDs showcase some conference highlights (Here’s a link to an order form to get those DVDs.)

Dick Thompson and I are editing a book with the conference title, The Bible Tells Me So. The book has about 30 chapters dealing with books of the Bible, inspiration, inerrancy, Randy Maddox’s text on Wesley and the Bible, postmodernism, interpretation, and many other topics. It should be a GREAT book, and it will become available this summer.

Thanks!

I toyed with concluding this report with a huge list of people who deserve thanks for their contribution to the conference. Such a list would be incredibly long. So let me just mention a few. I appreciated working with Fred Fullerton and Michelle Kuykendall of the Wesley Center, Mark Maddix and my colleagues in NNU’s School of Theology and Christian Ministries, Dick Thompson and other conference committee members, the scholars and pastors who led workshops and group discussions, Randy Maddox and other plenary speakers, Daryl Johnson and College Church of the Nazarene, and many others.

For such a meaningful conference of reflection and inspiration, I say, “Thanks be to God!”

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

49 Comments

Love, Sex, and Romance

If the lyrics of rock-n-roll songs are a guide, love is about sexual attraction.  Harlan Ellison put it this way, “Love ain’t nothin’ but sex misspelled.” The view that love and sex are identical may seem crass.  But the two words are often swapped in common use.

Few would deny the intense sexual attraction that accompanies the experience of “falling in love.” Because we recall these passions, we might think some basis exists for the widespread intuition that love and sex are related.

We who have once fallen in love also know that the initial burst of attraction often does not last.  The flames of romance almost inevitably dissipate.  Often only glowing embers – sometimes even dust and ashes – remain. 

When the fire dims, we wonder if love keeps relationships together.  Perhaps it is friendship instead. Perhaps the glue is really habit or social customs.

ANCIENT LOVE MYTH

The ancients proposed a myth for why two lovers seek one another.  As Aristophanes tells the legend, humans were originally joined in pairs.  Humans once had four legs, four arms, two heads, and displayed the characteristics of both males and females.  People were self-sufficient, and they possessed great insight and strength.

The legend says humans were so strong they began attacking the gods.  In response, Zeus struck upon a plan to cut humans in two to weaken them.  Since this time of great separation, humans have been condemned to roam the earth seeking our other (“better?”) halves. 

The moving force in our seeking is love itself. We find satisfaction and strength when we locate and embrace our soul mate.

This ancient myth suggests that sex and romance are powerful expressions of a deeper urge: the urge to reunite with one from whom we have been separated.  The myth of love, accordingly, is the story of reattachment.

EVOLUTIONARY SEX

Today, ancient myths have largely been replaced by science.  People seeking serious answers to the questions of love, romance, and sexuality look to anthropology, biology, and psychology. Science point to evolutionary history when talking about the relationship between sex and love.

Studies of our primate relatives – including lemurs, chimpanzees, monkeys, and apes – lead to theories about human sexuality.  If human mating habits evolved over time, study of nonhuman primates should give clues about the sexuality of human primates. 

Research of various types suggests that all primates are social.  Social behavior is vital for caring for the offspring that sexual activity sometimes produces. Research also suggests that the urge for sex has a genetic basis.

Many human sexual practices differ from the practices of nonhumans, however.  Humans are more likely to commit themselves to one sexual partner. Humans in general have more self-control than other primates when responding to sexual urges.

Humans are also unique in that they marry. In fact, marriage is a phenomenon of almost all human cultures. Nonhuman primates do not have the ritual of marriage, although they may dedicate themselves to one partner for life.

BIOLOGY EXPLAINS SEXUAL FAITHFULNESS?

Explaining why humans are more sexually faithful than nonhuman primates is a research project for some scientists.  Some speculate that the secrecy of human female ovulation is the evolutionary explanation for human monogamy.  Unlike females of many other species, human females show little or no sign of their fertility. Nonhuman females often show obvious signs of ovulation.

According to this explanation, males restrict their sexual activity to one female, because they cannot be sure when the female is ovulating. The risk that another male would fertilize his female is too great to leave her unprotected. Because creatures want to extend their genetic heritage, the need to protect one’s sexual partner led humans to commit to exclusive pair bonds.

A second theory for human marriage and sexual monogamy relates to the first.  According to this theory, human sexual monogamy serves the genetic interests of both males and females by providing a better environment to protect and nurture children.  A solitary female is more vulnerable to forces that may prematurely end the lives of a couple’s children.

The reasons females choose a mate differ from males. According to these scientific theories, females want to reproduce with males who have status, power, and wealth. Such males are more likely to protect the female’s offspring. 

Females also choose males who will likely help with child rearing.  Because females select males with such traits, so the theory goes, an evolutionary tendency toward monogamy emerges through female selection practices.

PSYCHOLOGY WEIGHS IN

Many think evolution does not fully explain human sexual and marital behavior.  To say it another way, the evolutionary drive for reproductive success cannot fully explain romance, sex, and marriage.

Sigmund Freud, for instance, believed that our desire for our opposite-sex parent drives us to find union with someone similar to that parent.  Others say an unknown magnetic force brings together very different people: males and females.  The maxim that opposites attract may indicate that aesthetic forces unite couples.  Marxists and social constructionists claim that economic concerns and the possibility for increased power unite lovers.

Most, if not all, of these explanations surely sometimes possess a measure of truth.  But surveys of the motivations behind human sexual activity and marriage reveal a wide variety of alternative explanations.

If we ask people what motivates them romantically and sexually, the most common response is personal attraction. These attractions can be physical, e.g., another’s body features, mannerisms, gait, or voice quality. They can be nonphysical, e.g., perception of status, intimacy, friendship, or wealth.

Psychologist David Buss notes that all major psychological studies reveal that the first and most important factors humans consider when choosing the ideal mate are factors related to caring, kindness, generosity, and other such personality traits. 

In one study, Buss interviewed more than 10,000 people. He asked these people to rate 18 possible qualities of a mate.  Both men and women rated the same qualities among their top five most important.  These qualities included dependability, emotional stability, a pleasing disposition, etc.

EROS AND LOVE

Although many factors affect our sexual and matrimonial choices, one element unites them all: attraction.  This attraction is the driving force behind our choices to be romantic, sexually active, and marry.  Attraction may be to something physical about the other. We may be attracted to what the other has to offer in terms of power, wealth, security, or status. Or we may be attracted to the other’s character or personality.

The word “eros” perhaps best accounts for this attraction for the other.  Unfortunately, however, contemporary people almost exclusively use eros and its derivative “erotic” to refer to sexual matters.  The classical use of eros is much more expansive.

Plato’s ideas about eros have shaped the way many understand attraction.  Plato used eros to describe desire for or attraction to the beautiful, valuable, or good. One could express eros for the gods, society, the good life, one’s country, and a host of other nonsexual things.

THE LANGUAGE OF LOVE

Today, those who want to speak clearly and consistently about love must make a choice about language. They must decide to equate eros with love or to think of love as greater than eros. 

I recommend considering love as a category greater than but including eros. After all, we often use the word “love” to talk about acting toward those to whom we are not attracted or do not find highly valuable. Sometimes we love in spite of the fact that we do not feel attracted to the other.

The Christian tradition tells us that love may not primarily involve attraction to what is beautiful, valuable, or good.  Christians, for instance, are instructed to love their enemies.

DEFINING LOVE AND EROS

The easy equation of sex/romance and love drives me to be as clear as possible about what love means. It drives me to define love as best I can.

My definition of love is the following: to love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.  This definition suggests that love’s goal is overall flourishing, genuine happiness, blessedness, the kingdom of God, and the common good.

With this general definition of love in mind, I identify eros as a form of love that intends to promote well-being.  Eros as a love form involves intentional response to promote well-being when attracted to what is beautiful, valuable, or good.  Eros love seeks the good or beautiful in others and seeks to enhance or enjoy it.

Given my definitions of love and eros, we can see that sex and romance may or may not express love.  When sex and romance promote well-being, they are acts of love.  When sex and romance promote ill-being, they are not.

I am trying to change my habits of language on this issue. I try to use the word “love” in relation to sexual attraction, romantic feelings, or sexual activity only when I think overall well-being is promoted. I try to use words like “fondness,” “affection,” “passion,” “attraction,” “romance,” “sex,” or “intercourse,” when I am not sure overall well-being is intentionally being promoted.

Old habits die hard, of course. But I suspect that we would all gain greater appreciation for the word “love” if we were more careful how we use it.

CONCLUSION

To sum up: Love is not sex misspelled.  Sex and romance may be expressions of love. But they may not. Love promotes well-being – whether sex and romance are involved or not.

Love seeks well-being when the fires of romance rage.  But love also promotes well-being when passions die down to embers or ashes.

- This text draws from material in my book, The Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being (Templeton Press). My newest book engaging these subjects is Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Brazos Press).

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

14 Comments

John Wesley and the Bible

It makes sense to ask a world-class John Wesley expert to give a keynote address at an event exploring a Wesleyan approach to the Bible. Here’s a sneak preview of Randy Maddox’s thoughts on Wesley and Scripture. He presents more at The Bible Tells Me So conference.

MAN OF ONE BOOK

One Wesley quotation many people know is his claim to be a man of one book. “Let me be homo unius libri,” says Wesley, with Latin flare.

But Wesley was far from being concerned with literally only one book. He read widely and required his ministers to read many other books. Maddox notes that Wesley scolded his ministers who claimed to read only the Bible as exhibiting “rank enthusiasm.” That’s like calling someone today a raving religious lunatic!

By homo unius libri, says Maddox, Wesley meant he regards no book comparatively but the Bible. Scripture is the first book of importance, but not the only important book.

Maddox notes that Wesley drew upon other sources, including scholarly tools, when reading the Bible. He appreciated textual criticism, says Maddox, but was less warm to historical criticism.

ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?

When it comes to the question of biblical errors, some will quote Wesley’s letter to William Law (see correction to this attribution in blog comment below). “If there be one falsehood in the Bible,” writes Wesley, “there may be a thousand; neither can it proceed from the God of truth.”

Maddox notes, however, that Wesley never used the phrase “biblical inerrancy” nor embraced its modern understanding. Modern biblical inerrancy, says Maddox, “insists that the Bible is accurate in every detail, including historical allusions and descriptions on the natural world.” Wesley wasn’t concerned with this, and occasionally he notes apparent discrepancies in the biblical text.

Wesley’s comments about the trustworthiness of the Bible focus on what calls the “rule of Christian faith and practice.” Wesley followed 2 Timothy 3:16–17, says Maddox, in which “inspiration of Scripture is related to its usefulness for instructing in Christian belief and training in lives of righteousness.”

FREE WILL AND THE BIBLE

In one of my favorite parts of Maddox’s conference keynote text, Randy writes the following:

“Wesley’s descendants may want to … suggest that his conviction about how God works in salvation—by undergirding and assisting our will, but not overriding our liberty—has broader implications than he realized. Applied to God’s agency in inspiring the human authors of Scripture, this conviction would allow one to take with utmost seriousness the cultural specificity of the various books in the Bible that modern scholarship makes evident, while still affirming a robust sense of the authority of Scripture as the “book of God.”

I am a descendent of Wesley who advocates precisely what Maddox says. That is, I think we should take as central Wesley’s insight that God assists but does not override the freedom God gives creatures.

Placing this insight at the heart of our understanding of God helps us solve a host of theological problems related to evil, science, and the inspiration and interpretation of the Bible. With regard to the Bible, it suggests that free human authors of Scripture can make errors or have misunderstandings that do not affect the main message in the biblical text.

INSPIRATION AND INTERPRETATION

Maddox notes that Wesley affirmed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit both to the authors of the Bible and to present-day readers. “We need the same Spirit to understand the Scripture,” says Wesley, “which enabled the holy men of old to write it.”

Maddox says Wesley’s deepest concern was personal embrace of the saving truth in Scripture. Even “the devils” believe the Bible, says Wesley, but they do not embrace its saving truth for themselves.

Wesley believes we need to read the Bible “in conference” with others. Some people are simply more mature, and we can benefit from their insights if we listen in community. Meeting in groups to study the Bible is important for forming people and helping to identify the Bible's central purposes.

Wesley recognized the limits of all human understanding. Even spiritually mature persons see through a glass darkly when interpreting the Bible. Wesley writes:

“Although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it); yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true.”

Part of interpreting the Bible well, says Maddox, involves “not limiting our dialogue partners to those who are most like us, or those with whom we already agree.” Those who see things differently than we do might identify places where our understanding of something in Scripture might be wrong.

HELPS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE

Maddox identifies a number of other sources Christians should consult when reading the Bible. Wesley valued the writings and biblical interpretations of those who had come before him in the Christian tradition.

Wesley appealed to what he called “the Rule of Faith” as a tool for interpreting the Bible. The rule of faith identifies the central and unifying themes in the Bible. Difficult, ambiguous, or obscure passages should be interpreted in light of Scripture’s central themes.

Wesley also thought God’s revelation in the natural world could help us interpret the Bible’s special revelation. “And when Wesley confronted an apparent conflict between current science and Scripture,” says Maddox, “he sought an understanding that did justice to both.”

THE CORE OF THE BIBLE

Perhaps Wesley’s most distinctive way of reading the Bible pertains to the lens of love he used to interpret it. Wesley recognized that Christians regard some interpretive lenses as better than others. He writes:

“We know, ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ and is therefore true and right concerning all things. But we know likewise that there are some Scriptures which more immediately commend themselves to every [person’s] conscience.”

Wesley prized the theology of 1 John above all others. Maddox notes that Wesley “used 1 John for his sermon text much more frequently (comparative to the number of verses in the book) than any other biblical book.”

Wesley said 1 John 4:19 — “We love [God] because he first loved us” — is “the sum of the whole gospel.” The book stresses clearly God’s goal to transform us so that we might love both God and neighbor and live lives free from the tyranny of sin.

Maddox summarizes:

“Wesley increasingly and self-consciously read the whole of the Bible in light of a deep conviction that God was present in the assuring work of the Spirit both to pardon and to transform all who respond to that inviting and empowering love (and all can respond!). This conviction was not something that Wesley thought he was imposing on Scripture. He was convinced that it was the most central and clear message of Scripture—as seen particularly in 1 John and related texts. At the heart of reading the Bible in “Wesleyan” ways today would be embracing Wesley’s central interpretive lens, even as one continues to test and refine it by ongoing conference with the whole of Scripture and the range of other readers.”

CONCLUSION

I hope you see from this material why I am so excited to have Randy Maddox give this conference address.

I’m also excited that Randy’s lecture will be one chapter among others in The Bible Tells Me So book. This book arises from the conference, and I am co-editing it with Richard Thompson.

For those who have not yet registered for the conference, you can still do so. But for those who cannot attend, I invite you to watch the free online simulcast of The Bible Tells Me So. A link to that simulcast will be placed on the NNU homepage on the first day of the conference, Feb. 10.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

5 Comments

Holiness for a Postmodern World

I am excited about Diane Leclerc's new book, Discovering Christian Holiness. She does a good job of addressing key issues in the postmodern attempt to understand and live holiness.

Diane writes her new book from the perspective of Wesleyan-Holiness theology. She believes this theological tradition offers a distinct perspective that rises from the history of the Christian tradition and Scripture. The audience for the book, however, is our contemporary age. 

Early on, Diane argues for the relevance of the Wesleyan tradition’s understanding of holiness in this postmodern world. She takes her understanding from John and Charles Wesley’s argument that salvation is the gospel’s primary focus. She believes a Wesleyan approach to holiness can be optimistic: sin needs to reign no longer.

Diane bases the structure of her book on the Wesleyan quadrilateral. As a preliminary, she argues for the supremacy of love in biblical and historical understandings of holiness. Diane writes, “Love, for Wesley and his successors, should permeate every fiber of holiness and thus should be understood as the overarching theme of my entire book and not just the concluding chapter.” She also argues that “entire devotion to God is perhaps the best expression of our love for God and should be seen as a thematic thread” (30).

Holiness and the Bible

We all come to the Bible from a particular perspective and life experience. We all either explicitly or implicitly are convinced some ways of reading the Bible are better than others.

Diane argues that a Wesleyan way of reading the Bible emphasizes it as our most important lens through which we might see what God is like. The Bible is formative, and we can rely upon it for all things pertaining to salvation. It serves as a source for helping Christians in their devotional life.

Wesleyans examine Scripture and pick the grand themes in its pages. Like John Wesley, they affirm the purpose of Scripture is to reveal the God of love, who out of love saves the world (44).

Diane asks early on in the book a key question: “What does it mean to be holy?” She answers in this way:

    “We affirm that all holy acts come out of a holy heart and that God changes our desires and motivations from within when we fully devout ourselves to following Christ in faith and fellowship. We depend on God’s enabling grace everyday in our Christian walk. Holiness means much more than sinlessness. To be holy, we must love. And love is never finished because there are always new opportunities to practice love for God and neighbor. This is the heart of the Wesleyan message” (48).

In her exploration of holiness in the Bible, Diane uses the Wesleyan phrase, “the whole tenor” of Scripture. She argues that holiness is a central theme in the Old and New testaments.

Biblical authors present holiness in a variety of ways. Sometimes Holiness refers to God incomparability, other times God’s glory or jealousy. Sometimes Scripture suggests that human holiness is derived from God. Sometimes to be holy means being entirely devoted to God. Sometimes, holiness refers to a divine-human relationship. Other times to human obedience.

In the New Testament, biblical writers sometimes identify holiness with purity of heart. This purity expresses itself outwardly in actions. We also find biblical passages identifying holiness with the absence of sin, and others identifying it with the presence of good. According to the Bible, holiness is both an individual and corporate calling.

History and Theology of Holiness

Part two of the book addresses holiness from an historical perspective. Because she is an historical theologian, it comes as little surprise that Diane both appreciates and knows well major figures of the Christian tradition. These chapters provide dozens of sketches of important historical figures both predating John Wesley and following him. I learned some new things in these sections.

Diane titles part three of her book, “Holiness Theology for Today.” She begins by addressing the complex issues of how we talk about God. She affirms both the transcendence and immanence of God. “An understanding of God as holy, as transcendent, as immanent, and as relational,” she says, “finally brings us to the supreme affirmation that God is love.” She continues...

   “This love is what most exactly defines God’s holiness and most precisely modifies God’s transcendent and immanent relationship with the world. God’s holiness as love is not only the height, but also the very depth of all the Wesleyan theology affirms. The love of God expands both far and wide into all that it believes. This does not contradict the suggestion that at the heart of Wesleyan theology is soteriology, for God’s love is a love that reaches infinitely towards us in order to save. The ultimate expression of this love comes to us through the incarnation. Christ is love personified. As such, he reveals that the nature of love is an embodied servanthood willing to carry a cross” (142).

Diane spends a good deal of time exploring Jesus Christ as the revelation of God’s love. As the Son, he is the servant, model, savior, high priest, mediator, and the one whom God has resurrected. “Christ reveals that God’s love toward us is a gift,” she concludes, “self giving in nature and soteriological in purpose” (147).

The Holy Spirit plays an important role in sanctification, according to Diane. In this context, she addresses the Wesleyan understanding of prevenient grace. This grace is God’s loving presence that comes before, seeking to woo and draw us to God. Matters of the Holy Spirit also lead Diane to address briefly the question of how Wesleyans should think about religious pluralism. Finally, the Holy Spirit regenerates, sanctifies, and comforts individuals and the church.

I think it is important to note that Diane decides to talk about God’s love before she talks about humans as sinful. This reflects the basis of her Wesleyan optimism that God is greater than sin. But she does not shirk from addressing sin issues. Diane says God created humans, but they sinned against God. In fact, they now have a bent toward sin. She steers a path on the question of the original sin between the views of Augustine and Pelagius. The key to this path is the universal prevenient grace of God that provides the possibility for salvation to all by empowering them to respond to God’s gift of love.

The final part of these three sections addresses the death of Christ and atonement theories that have emerged in the life of the church. Diane argues for full salvation, and this leads naturally to her understanding of sanctification. She makes the following important claims:

Entire sanctification...

1. is subsequent to regeneration.

2. breaks the power of sin.

3. is characterized by entire devotion to God.

4. results in obedience and love.

5. has an element of both taking away and giving to.

6. is through faith (by grace) alone.

7. is (usually) followed by the witness of the spirit.

8. can be described by several metaphorical phrases.

9. requires subsequent growth, which must be intentionally nurtured.

10. involves growth in Christ-like character.

In this segment, Diane calls for a balanced interpretation of entire sanctification. This balanced view affirms the best of John Wesley’s theology and the best of the American holiness movement. It affirms holiness as both appropriated in a moment and developed over time through growth in grace. She calls for readers to retain the idea of secondness in sanctification, while allowing differences from person to person in how entire sanctification is experienced.

Holy Living for a New Century

Diane titles the final part of her book, “Holy Living for a New Century.” She devotes chapters to five aspects of holiness: purity, perfection, power, character, and love.

By purity, Diane has in mind the issue of morality. Holiness leads the Christian to live a moral life of avoiding sin. Being obedient to the God of love involves fulfilling the call of love. This involves following certain ways of living and rules. It is embodied holiness. Diane’s discussion of sexuality is particularly relevant for challenges that twenty-first century Christians face.

In her chapter on perfection, Diane argues that we are created to love God with our whole being and our neighbors as ourselves. Perfection does not mean becoming un-human. It does not mean we no longer make mistakes or have weaknesses. Perfection involves living the life of love. Such life includes avoiding sin but also acting in compassion and for social justice. Holiness as perfection entails perfect love.

In her chapter on holiness and power, Diane emphasizes the importance of God working in our lives to provide power for victory over sin. This does not mean that human give up a sense of self. Instead, Christians follow the self-giving love of Jesus Christ who, in kenotic love, lived a life sacrificing his own interests for the good of others.

Some of Diane’s best work resides in this chapter. In it, she considers deeply vital questions of human weakness, brokenness, suffering, and abuse. She concludes, “Out of our own courage at times to be our own unique selves despite the pain, God is able to lead us to be an instrument of powerful healing in others’ lives. God is indeed a redeeming God” (252).

In the chapter on character, Diane argues for not only loving in the moment and avoiding particular sins. Holiness also calls for Christians to become people with loving characters. The life of Christlikeness develops a particular kind of character in the Christian. Following certain practices -- both within the church community and as individuals – is important for developing a Christlike character in a postmodern world.

Diane titles the final chapter of her book, “Holiness as Love.” Throughout her book, she had referred often to the central place love plays in a Wesleyan holiness understanding of sanctification. Love is the center. For Diane, this means holiness and love cannot be separated. It also means that a strong theology of holiness will care about the head and the heart, the intellect and feelings. Love makes a difference in the way we live our day-to-day lives.

Diane makes a special point to talk about our love for God as entire devotion. She says such devotion is the proper and fitting response to God’s love for us. It involves complete consecration and surrender.

Conclusion

The conclusion of Discovering Christian Holiness is a fitting conclusion to this review:

  “This then is the essence of holiness, the holiness to which we have been called. To be called unto holiness is to be called to kenotic love. Love at the center of it all. Love at the center of us all. Self- emptying love outpoured into the world: This has been our past; this can be our future” (286). 

I recommend Diane Leclerc’s new book!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

22 Comments

What is Relational Theology?

Many Christians find the ideas and language of relational theology helpful. But many also appreciate relational theology without really being clear about what it is. Misunderstandings emerge.

As they read the Bible, Christians frequently encounter relational theology’s ideas and language. Unfortunately, however, conventional Christian theologies have sometimes ignored relational ideas and language. The conventional theology that results is sometimes impractical and nonsensical.

The Bible describes the activities and nature of a relational God. God created “in the beginning” and invited creatures to “bring forth” others in creative activity. God’s interactions with Adam and Eve portray God as relational. From the beginning, God instructs, expects, and responds to creatures – all of which are relational activities.

The Bible tells us God makes covenants with Israel and all creation. God’s covenant making demonstrates God’s relationality. Because God is relational, sinful behavior makes God angry. But positive responses and ongoing relationship deepens the relational friendship God shares with creatures. Biblical authors repeatedly proclaim that a God of steadfast love never gives up on the relationship God initiates and seeks to develop.

In Jesus Christ, the relational God is specially incarnated. In him, we have the fullest revelation of God as relational. Jesus teaches that God is our Abba (Father), an intimately relational description. God calls us to enter into a mutually loving relationship – what Jesus announces as the greatest commandment. Jesus reinforces Old Testament themes about the importance of love relations. Christians are commanded to love believers and unbelievers, friends and enemies, the near and dear as well as the stranger.

The Christian community emerging soon after God raised Jesus from the dead was Holy Spirit empowered. This budding community emphasized from its inception the importance of interrelatedness. As the Church, they ate together and shared things in common. They worshipped and prayed together. They shared the Lord’s Supper as a community. Christians embarked as the Church on a give-and-receive mission of relational love.

Core Ideas of Relational Theology

If God created a relational universe and relational people, it should come as little surprise that recent developments in science, philosophy, and culture reveal the interrelatedness of all existence. Relationality is present at the quantum level. It profoundly shapes personal and social levels of existence. And relational perspectives influence scientific research of the distant edges of our cosmos.

What makes relational theology distinct is its general approach to thinking about God’s interaction with creation. At its core, relational theology affirms two key ideas:

1.     God affects creatures in various ways. Instead of being aloof and detached, God is active and involved in relationship with others. God relates to us, and that makes an essential difference.

2.     Creatures affect God in various ways. While God’s nature is unchanging, creatures influence the loving and living Creator of the universe. We relate to God, and creation makes a difference to God.

Of course, those who embrace relational theology typically embrace other theological ideas too. For instance, many think God’s primary attribute is love, and many believe God’s chief desire is that people love others as themselves. Most think God relates within Trinity, and Jesus Christ best reveals God’s relational love. Most think God and creatures are genuinely free, at least to some degree. Most emphasize the importance of relationships in the Church, outside the Church, and relationships with all creation. Most think relational categories are central to Christian ethics and should be guides to get along with others – both human and nonhuman – on our planet. The list goes on.

People interpret variously what the two main ideas of relational theology entail. Because of these diverse interpretations, relational theology is like a big umbrella idea under which various theological alternatives reside. We might illustrate the umbrella like this

Relational Theology

Some people adopt one theological alternative but reject another under the relational umbrella. For instance, some people adopt Trinitarian theology as the primary way they think about Christian theology but reject Process theology. Others embrace both Trinitarian and Process theologies. Or, for instance, some feminist theologians do not identify as Arminian. Others do. A person need not embrace all theologies under the umbrella.

It is also important to note that some theologians embrace a number of theological traditions simultaneously. For instance, a person might say she is Wesleyan, liberation, process, and Trinitarian. Another person might say he is Arminian, missional, and open. Still others might embrace one theology and not another listed above. For instance, a person might be Process, emergent, and Pentecostal. Many other combinations exist.

Confusion sometimes emerges when people identify relational theology with personalities or character traits we might consider “relational.”  People who are friendly, sociable, or highly empathetic do not necessarily embrace the ideas of relational theology. Of course, we usually hope people develop adequate social sensibilities. But a relational theologian is not automatically an expert at relating to other people!

To the extent that Christians seek to be Christlike, however, relational theology can encourage loving interactions and character traits that promote positive relationships. We best understand the Apostle Paul’s command to “imitate God, as dearly loved children, and live a life of love as Christ loved us…” (Eph. 5:1, 2), for instance, in relational terms. Those who consistently heed Paul’s counsel develop into the kind of people we call “virtuous” or “saints.”

We could say much more about relational theology. In fact, that’s exactly what Brint Montgomery, Karen Winslow, I, and others are doing. We’re putting together a book to explore in an accessible way what relational theology is and what its implications might be.

Keep an eye out for our book next fall!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

10 Comments

Five Questions of the Bible

Most present-day Christians treasure the Bible. I know I do. But differences of opinion exist among Christians about how best to understand and engage Scripture.

For most of history, the typical Christian was unable to read the Bible. Many were not taught to read. Even more had no access to a Bible. Not until long after the printing press was invented were typical Christians able to own a Bible of their own. Many heard only heard the Bible read aloud in a language they did not know (e.g., Latin).

In the United States and many other countries today, however, Bibles are common. I must own a couple dozen, and I’ve probably been offered a hundred or more free Bibles over my lifetime. I’ve had the privilege of studying the Bible with the help of various translations, commentaries, reading the original languages, and the benefit of the best theological education.

As I think about how I treasure the Bible, I find myself returning often to five basic questions. The answers I’ve given these questions have varied over my life. 

These questions form the heart of The Bible Tells Me So conference I’m directing in early February. I thought I’d pose the questions in this blog to help those who plan to attend the conference think about how they might answer them. And I’d like to get responses from those who cannot attend The Bible Tells Me So conference but want to offer here answers or insights they find helpful.

1. What does it mean to say the Bible is inspired?

Every Christian I know believes God inspired the writing of the Bible. Part of the reason Christians believe this is that the Bible says in a few verses that God inspired biblical authors. The most common passage expressing this is 2 Timothy 3:15-17.

What it actually means to say God inspired the writing of the Bible, however, is a question with various answers. Some either implicitly or explicitly say God dictated all of the words so that what was written is precisely and totally what God wanted. This dictation theory suggests that the writers acted like machines or robots with none of their own thoughts and creativity contributing to the writing process.

Most in the Wesleyan theological tradition have rejected this dictation theory of inspiration. It doesn’t seem to line up with what the biblical authors actually say about their role. And it doesn’t fit with the way in which we see God inspiring people today. With H. Orton Wiley, these Christians talk about dynamical, cooperative, or symbiotic inspiration, whereby human authors contribute with the God in the writing of the Bible.

Many scholars today argue that the more important question is not “How was the Bible inspired by God,” but “How is God inspiring us to read the Bible today?” This shifts the focus from past tense to present tense. I’ve written some about this in previous blogs.

2. On what questions is the Bible a trustworthy guide?

Christians believe the Bible provides truths. The Bible can be trusted as a helpful guide in helping us answer at least some questions.

I have yet to meet someone who, when pressed, says the Bible answers all our questions. When my daughters ask math homework questions, for instance, I don’t open my Bible to find the answers. The Bible can’t give me all the answers to the Kennedy assassination. Nor can I rely on it to predict the 2011 Super Bowl champion.

So what kind of guidance does the Bible give? In the Wesleyan tradition, scholars have said Scripture at least gives us truths God uses to lead us to salvation. There is debate, however, about whether the Bible is trustworthy on all matters of science, history, and culture.

For instance, to what extent do Genesis creation narratives tell us scientific truth? When the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth, should we believe that round planets have four corners? Or should we interpret these and other biblical passages as metaphorical or theological and not scientific?

3. Is the Bible without error?

While Christians in the distant past thought occasionally about this question, the question of biblical inerrancy has been often debated in the last century. The worry has been that admitting to even one biblical error or inconsistency leads to lack of trust on the Bible as a whole. And if God inspired the Bible, an error-free God must have delivered an error-free product.

Answering this question is trickier than one might first imagine. I’ve written a few blogs on the subject, and the responses illustrate that this issue remains hot!  See this and this.

The major question is “What constitutes a biblical error?” Answering this question requires interpretation and looking at contexts. Some people list as errors what I think are simply uncharitable and even nonsensical readings of the Bible. Here’s one recently published list (you have to read the small print) of alleged errors in the Bible. The vast majority of those listed are unconvincing, however, because they fail to account for the biblical contexts or treat as literal what seems to be intended as metaphorical.

But other lists of inconsistencies and biblical errors have led biblical scholars to reject what I call “absolute inerrancy,” which is the view that the Bible is without any errors whatsoever. The vast majority of Wesleyan biblical scholars do not accept absolute inerrancy.

If we reject absolute inerrancy, however, we face questions about how we decide which passages have inconsistencies or errors and which do not. Some worry this discerning exercise leads to insurmountable problems and becomes subjective. Others argue that the discerning process is necessary because they cannot honestly affirm absolute inerrancy given the biblical text itself.

4. How should we interpret the Bible?

Amid debates about inerrancy, what many think is a much more important question sometimes gets overlooked: How do we go about interpreting the Bible?

Ironically, two people who argue the Bible is absolutely inerrant can come to vastly different interpretations about what a particular biblical passage means. At the end of the day, isn’t figuring out what the Bible means the most important issue when trying to learn about God and how we ought to live life?

Part of the interpretation problem revolves around who gets to decide which interpretation is best. On the one hand, I want to say the Holy Spirit can teach truth to anyone who prays and reads the Bible. But what happens when those who pray and read the Bible come to interpretations that the majority believes violates the plain meaning of Scripture? And what happens when a minority interpretation lead to destructive behavior the individual claims that God endorses? The "individual interpretation" approach has real limits.

On the other hand, I want to say that we should listen to and trust those who have studied and been educated in the intricacies of Scripture. This means trusting the scholars. But I also know that scholars often disagree with one another. And I worry that “waiting for scholarly consensus” on how to interpret a passage can sometimes suck the fervor from the desire to seek a word from the Lord through reading the Bible. Besides, sometimes experts are wrong. The "expert's interpretation" approach also has limits.

In short, who do we trust to interpret the Bible rightly? Do we rely on individual interpretation? Scholarly interpretation? Interpretations from our pastor or famous Christian leaders? Our community’s or theological tradition’s interpretation? The Pope’s interpretation?

5. Does postmodernism influence the Bible?

The final question Christians face is the question of cultural and ideological influence on the Bible. We often call such current influence “postmodernism.” This word has many meanings. But at its heart is the intuition that changes have occurred that affect the way we view reality.

For some, this question is the most threatening of the five I’ve listed. Such people can’t imagine how any change in worldview should influence how we understand the Bible.

But a glance at history reveals that cultural and ideological influence has always affected the way Christians approach Scripture. For instance, there is no doubt that the translation and interpretation of the Bible has changed over the centuries. The Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible is different from King James Version. And those two are different from the New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, and newer translations like the Common English Bible. 

Those who translated these versions of the Bible were influenced by their culture and worldviews as they chose words to use when translating the Bible from ancient manuscripts. And because more old biblical manuscripts have been discovered over the centuries, more ancient manuscripts were available for contemporary translators than were available for older versions of the Bible.

Of course, postmodern culture and ideology also likely influences how we interpret the Bible today. Most of this influence is probably unconscious. But I think with a little reflection, we realize that most people interpret some parts of the Bible differently today than most people interpreted the Bible in the past. For instance, I have no doubt that postmodern people read references to slavery differently than Christians five hundred years ago. And people today often think about biblical references to women differently than even 100 years ago. The times change, and these changes influence how we read and interpret the Bible.

Prayerful Conclusion

These five questions are deep. They are complex. And I think they are extremely important for educated Christian leaders to ponder. They will be the fodder for several discussions at The Bible Tells Me So conference.

We will conclude the conference by offering answers to these questions. The answers won’t come from me, however. They will come from the conference consensus. Those who attend will answer them, and these attendees include pastors, biblical scholars, lay leaders, theologians, students, and others.

I come to The Bible Tells Me So conference in an attitude of hopeful prayer. My hope is our loving and mighty God. My prayer is that God will lead those who attend, those who watch the conference live online, and those who only hear of what occurs to listen closely to what the Spirit wants to teach us all. My hopeful prayer is in the God who seeks to convince everyone of the truth of salvation.

Would you join me in hopeful prayer for The Bible Tells Me So conference?

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2011 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

10 Comments

Books I’m Reading

With the holydays here, I thought I’d list books I’m currently reading. I’ve finished some. I’m hoping to complete the others soon.

I rarely start and finish a book in one sitting. I dabble, reflect, and drift from one book to another. I read many books simultaneously. Call it an eclectic approach to perusing!

The following are not thorough book reviews. Nor are they endorsements for “the best books I’ve ever read.” Instead, they are books that pique my interest and sit on my “currently reading” bookshelf or reside on my nightstand.             

So, here goes…

1.         Discovering Christian Holiness: The Heart of Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (Beacon Hill)

... is a new book from my colleague, Diane Leclerc. In fact, it was just released days ago. Having read a portion of an early draft, I’m really looking forward to reading the final product of Diane’s extensive work!

2.         Love, Violence, and the Cross: How the Nonviolent God Saves Us through the Cross of Christ (Cascade)

... is written by Greg Love, professor at San Francisco Theological Seminary. Atonement is a subject I’ve been wrestling with for some time. I like the author’s criticism of the substitution theory of atonement. I like the way he uses stories and anecdotes throughout the book. And I share many of his basic theological intuitions. I’m enjoying the book.

3.            I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution (Wipf and Stock)

... is written by Denis Lamoureux. It offers straightforward and largely understandable arguments for the compatibility of evolution and Christian beliefs about God as Creator. While I have some differences of opinion on original creation (creatio ex nihilo), I largely agree with Lamoureux’s project. He’s take the important material from a much larger volume he wrote earlier and culled out the essential arguments for this book.

4.            Streams of Mercy: Prevenient Grace in the Theology of John and Charles Wesley (Emeth)

... is the basic argument of Greg Crofford’s doctoral thesis. The subtitle gives a good idea of the book’s content, although Crofford includes other important figures and their views on prevenient grace.The final chapter explores recent work on prevenient grace, including differences in emphases and directions. Reading Greg’s book reminds me why I like so much of what John Wesley says!

5.            Making a Way Out of No Way: A Womanist Theology (Fortress)

... is written by the highly creative theologian, Monica Coleman. It offers a new vision of life and justice in God. Coleman draws from the experiences and theologies of African American women, from postmodernism, from process theology and more. The book is adventurous and hopeful!

6.            The Essential Zizek (Verso)

... is a collection of Slavoj Zizek’s most important work. I was introduced to this interesting writer/philosopher/cultural critic by a number of sources. The blurb introducing the collection says this: “The four pillars of Slavoj Zizek’s work are (Lacanian) psychoanalysis, (Hegelian) philosophy, a (Marxist) theory of ideology, and (Christian) theology.”  Zizek makes me think in new ways!

7.            Henri Nouwen: Following the Movements of the Spirit (HarperOne)

... is by Henri Nouwen, with Michael Christensen and Rebecca Laird. The book is a basic guide on how to live a spiritual life. Christensen and Laird pull together unpublished homilies, interviews, lecture notes, speeches and articles. The authors integrated the material into a very readable and helpful tome.

8.         Christian Theology (Beacon Hill Press)

... is by H. Orton Wiley and considered one of – if not the – most important systematic theology in the Wesleyan Holiness movement. Lately, some in my denomination are calling us back to Wiley. I’m reading this three-volume set to find what I appreciate in Wiley and what I think Wiley got wrong. It’s been clear to me that some of his material remains an important resource and some is now outdated, irrelevant, or simply unhelpful. The volume is available as online text through NNU's Wesley Center. Just click the title above.

9.            Christ, History, and Apocalyptic: The Politics of Christian Mission (Cascade)

... is, I believe, Nathan Kerr’s doctoral dissertation. Nate lays out his agenda with a question: “What mode of thinking about history and the historical character of human action renders the ‘truth’ of the earliest and most straightforward confession, that of Jesus Christ’s ‘lordship’ – kurios lesous – for our world today?” To answer this question, he looks at the work of Ernst Troeltsch, Karl Barth, Stanley Hauerwas, and John Howard Yoder. The book concludes with Nate’s own proposal.

10.         Creation Untamed: The Bible, God and Natural Disasters (Baker)

... is by one of my favorite Old Testament scholars, Terry Fretheim. I can’t actually say that I’m reading this book, but I ordered it from amazon.com recently. Given my own work in theodicy and my sympathies with Fretheim’s previous work (e.g., The Suffering God; God and the World) I’m really excited to start reading this when it arrives!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

43 Comments

Options in Divine Action

A recurring interest of mine is pondering how God acts. It's an immensely complex subject. I've come to think eight main options present themselves to Christians wanting a general framework for considering divine action.

Below is a chart of the eight general options. Some options are more attractive to me than others are. Those nearer the middle of the chart are most attractive.

Less Attractive Options

The options on the far left of the chart presuppose a very controlling God. The universe is virtually a puppet, because God controls everything or almost everything. This view of divine sovereignty, in my opinion, allows little or no room for genuine creaturely freedom or agency. These options fit some Calvinist theologies.

The options at the far right have problems as well. Although I think some degree of mystery should always be present when pondering how God acts, absolute mystery negates the entire enterprise of believing in God. I can't affirm wholescale negative theology.

Deism is not a viable option for me. My own personal experience, the Bible, and from reports of people throughout history testify to the ongoing activity of God after the creation of our universe. Thoroughgoing deism allows no room to account well for the spiritual experiences of my life and the lives of most people who have every lived.

More Attractive Options

Among the four remaining options, I see strengths and weaknesses. 

Traditional freewill theism fits most of what John Wesley says about God's action. So I'm partial to that option. God generally gives freedom and only occasionally "interrupts" or "intervenes" the freedom God gives

Natural and/or Supernatural Action fits most of what I read in the writings of important theologians like Thomas Aquinas. His version of divine primary and secondary causation has been influential, although I don't think it answers some of the most important questions pertaining to theodicy.

What I've called the Steady State Divine Influence option has the advantage of an active God whose causal activity is uniform. This option fits well with theologies that emphasize God working in and with the laws of nature. But it has a more difficult time accounting for miracles. And most versions say God is voluntarily self-limited and the gifts of freedom and/or agency God gives are entirely voluntary on God’s part.

The option I currently like most is Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism. It says God necessarily gives freedom and/or agency to others. But the forms of God’s causal influence vary. And the effectiveness of God's activity depends in part on creaturely responses. It seems to fit best both with the idea that God creates and works with natural laws and the idea that God can act dramatically – miraculously – without squashing creaturely freedom and agency entirely.

I like to think Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism option takes Wesley's theology of prevenient grace, puts it on turbo charge, and then offers a consistent basis for affirming God's love. This is the option I develop in the last chapter of my new book, The Nature of Love: A Theology (Chalice Press) and in Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Brazos Press).

We Live by Faith

At the end of the day, of course, there will always be a speculative element to thinking about how God acts in the world. We live by faith, after all. None of our minds can comprehend the universal Mind.

But some divine action options make better sense of what we find in Scripture, in our own experience, and contemporary science. And some do a better job of consistently affirming God's love.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

25 Comments

Measuring Love Intentions

To some people, scientific research on love is preposterous. Skepticism runs especially high when a researcher claims to explore loving motives and intentions. But research on the motives of love is possible -- and it offers key insights for living well.

In a previous blog, I outlined three major areas of love research (see “Measuring Love”). These three correspond to the three basic aspects of a robust definition of love. The first aspect pertains to intentions and motives.

If love requires intentionality, research on love may explore an agent’s motives and intent. Motives matter.

Of course, scientists cannot place motives under a microscope. In fact, we cannot perceive motives in themselves with sensory perception – sight, sound, touch, etc. This presents a problem for this aspect of research on love, because most scientists presuppose that sensory perception is the only perception possible.

At best, we perceive or become directly aware of our own motives. Even then, we are not likely fully aware of all our motives. Research on love can overcome this problem at least partially, however, by concentrating on a subject’s primary motive for any particular action.

We all presuppose that at least sometimes one motive predominates over other motives when we choose to act in a particular way. And most of the time we can be accurate about discerning our primary motives.

The issues of discerning motives and the role motives play in our decisions are complex. There exists no philosophical or scientific uniformity on the salient issues. My argument only requires the claim that we have motives, that these motives influence our choices, and that we can be cognizant at least to some degree of what our primary motives might be.

I propose at least three general methods for researching primary motives as they pertain to love.

Self Report of Motives

The first method for research on the motives of love involves hearing from those who report their own motives. In particular, self-report based research focuses on what subjects believe to be their primary motives for intentionally acting in a particular way.

Take the work of psychologists Susan S. Hendrick and Clyde Hendrick, as an example. They used a self-report method to explore the relation of love to religious belief. These scientists asked over 500 participants in two separate studies to report on what kinds of love they express and to report on their religiosity. The self-report study focused on a 42-item love styles scale and addressed six types of love: eros (romantic), ludus (game-playing), storge (compassionate), mania (possessive), pragma (practical), and agape (self-less/religious).

The result of the Hendricks’s research shows that participants who self-report being very religious also self-report expressing more storge, pragma, and agape love forms. These same highly religious people, however, self-report expressing ludus love (game-playing) less than non-religious participants. The Hendricks conclude that “subjects who were more religious endorsed the more ‘dependable’ love styles of storge (compassionate), pragma (practical), and agape (selfless), while they relatively rejected ludus (game-playing).”

Self-reports are advantageous for many reasons. The main one is they emerge from the witness of those who know their primary motives best: the subjects themselves.

The disadvantage to self-reports, however, is that those surveyed may not report their motives honestly. Various incentives may tempt them to characterize their primary motives as loving when they are not.

Scientific research on love based on self-report is important but cannot lead to absolute certainty with regard to the research project goals. But failure to attain certainty does not eliminate it from science. Absolute certainty is not possible for any scientific project, and therefore does not disqualify self-report research methods.

Inferring Motives in Others

 The second general way in which love research focuses on motives pertains to inferring a subject’s motives based upon observing its actions. Researchers may rightly infer that some actions are motivated primarily by the actor’s intent to promote well-being. Observation and inference are bedrock activities in scientific research.

Admittedly, inferring another person’s motives entails conjecture. Inference can result in misperception and never attains absolute certainty.

But conjecture and failure to achieve certainty do not disqualify this research method. Other scientific methods based on observation – e.g., scientific explanations for conflicts among Maasai lions or planetary research based on telescope observations – also rely on conjecture and cannot provide explanatory certainty. However, it should prompt those who use this method to be modest and cautious when reporting their research results.

A scientist exploring love can increase the likelihood he or she accurately infers a subject’s motives. A researcher can reduce the likelihood other factors influence a subject to exhibit nonloving primary motives.

For example, Daniel Batson’s research sets up conditions to increase the likelihood he can accurately infer the motives of subjects as loving or not loving. In one experiment, Batson told undergraduates they would form teams of two participants. Each undergraduate would play a role in a stress experience. One student was randomly selected to undergo up to ten electric shocks. The second team member observed the first. Batson told all participants they could withdraw from the experiment at any time. Participants in this test did not know, however, that every undergraduate was “randomly” selected for the observer role.

As assistants escorted each to an observation room, the undergraduate learned he or she would watch on closed-circuit television as a young woman named Elaine – the person they presumed was his or her randomly selected partner – received the series of electric shocks. The scene each student watched, however, had been pre-recorded so that all participants watched the same experience.

By the end of the second “live” shock treatment, Elaine’s reactions were so strong to the electrocution that the assistant administering the treatment “interrupted” the procedure. The assistant asked Elaine if she was feeling okay. A conversation ensued in which Elaine confessed that as a child, a horse threw her onto an electric fence. After the fence incident, a doctor said that in the future, she might react strongly to even mild shocks.

Hearing Elaine’s (made up) story, the assistant wondered aloud if the undergraduate participant watching in the adjacent room might take her place. With a mixture of reluctance and relief, Elaine consented to the assistant checking on this possibility.

After a brief moment, the assistant entered the room in which the student was watching the shock treatments on closed-circuit television. The assistant asked if he or she would be willing to take Elaine’s place. The assistant also gave the person the option to remain an observer.

“If you decide to help Elaine by taking her place,” the assistant concluded, “she’ll come in here and observe you. You will go in and perform the recall trials while receiving the shocks. Once you have completed the trials, you’ll be free to go. What would you like to do?”

Batson found that most observers who judged themselves dissimilar to Elaine (based upon previously completed questionnaires) opted out of taking the shocks in her place. However, those who judged themselves similar to Elaine – based on similarities evident in the questionnaires – were likely to take her place, even when they could easily escape the situation.

Whereas only 18% of dissimilar observers helped Elaine when given an easy escape, 91% of highly similar observers helped Elaine when given an easy escape. These results give reason to believe that the primary motive of some people in some situations is genuinely altruistic. They are willing to promote overall well-being by responding intentionally to relieve Elaine’s stress.

Batson’s experiments are powerful, because he sets up controlled circumstances and introduces or eliminates various factors. This helps him increase the likelihood that he can infer correctly a subject’s primary motives.

Batson is quick to say, however, that such studies do not prove irrefutably that the participants expressed love. After all, the possibility always exists that students such as those who took Elaine’s place in the experiment acted with selfishness as their primary motive. It may be that some observers took Elaine’s place, for instance, because they knew they would feel enormous guilt if they did not. Their primary motive was the selfish desire to avoid guilt.

In sum, scientific studies on motives to promote well-being are important. They cannot prove irrefutably that a subject acts lovingly, however. They play an important part in love research generally, because they examine the intentions of those whom may have acted lovingly.

Intentionally Acting on Convictions

A final subdomain of research on intentions and motives explores how personal beliefs, convictions, and principles – when acted upon – influence a person’s decision to love. This research also requires inferences based on observation of actions. But it relies upon observations of others over a long period of time rather than a controlled experiment like the one Batson constructed.

In their book, Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral Commitments, developmental psychologists Anne Colby and William Damon look at a twenty-three people who are moral examples of love. Colby and Damon use both self-reports and their own inferences based on observation for their research.

The first moral exemplar Colby and Damon present in their book is Suzie Valadez, known as “Queen of the Dump.” Valadez has spent her life handing out food to the poorest of the poor in the squalid conditions outside Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Valadez worked for more than 30 years helping others, often sacrificing her own health and safety and that of her family members. Colby and Damon report, “She was consumed by the work, fully and completely engaged. For Suzie, her work is her life… As she sees it, the work with the poor of Juarez is what she is her for, what she most wants to do.”

Colby and Damon conclude that the moral exemplars they studied acted lovingly for others despite difficult circumstances. But all were motivated by unswerving commitment to principles. These moral exemplars have “a common sense of faith in the human potential to realize its ideals,” they report. Faith in the human potential to attain something better is “what made the center hold throughout all the decades of the exemplars’ uniquely consequential lives.”

Conclusion

While the scientific import of the other two aspects of my love definition must wait for future posts, I want to conclude with a brief theological comment.

The arguments above pertaining to motives are important for engaging love research. But I think they should also prompt Christians to ask about the sources, shaping experiences, and mechanisms of motives.

I believe God is the ultimate source of our motives to love. But I don’t think God is the only actor in love. God inspires and empowers love. But our love involves choosing to respond appropriately to God’s prior (prevenient) loving actions.

In addition, the Church and Christian practices can play a major role in shaping and cultivating love motives. What we do in community and the rituals of our lives make some motives possible that otherwise would not be possible. 

While what God does ultimately and primarily matters, what we do as persons and communities also matters. The science of loving intentions helps us demonstrate this.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

28 Comments

Wiley on the Bible

I have been thinking a lot about the Bible lately. I’m preparing for the upcoming NNU Wesley Center c­­­onference, “The Bible Tells Me So.” H. Orton Wiley has been helpful for my preparation.

I am an ordained elder in the Church of the Nazarene and professor at a key educational institution in the denomination. The denomination has about 2 million members; most reside outside the United States.

The conference I am leading will explore a Wesleyan view of the Bible. This is vitally important to our denomination, in particular, and the Wesleyan theological tradition, in general.

Being a young denomination -- 100 years old -- the Church of the Nazarene has a short history. Few authoritative theological voices exist from which to draw.

Perhaps the most important theologian in the Church of the Nazarene's history is H. Orton Wiley. Wiley’s magnum opus is a three-volume work titled Christian Theology. It was commissioned by the denomination and first printed in the 1940s. I am finding Wiley’s work pertinent to the upcoming Bible Tells Me So conference.

REVELATION: JESUS, BIBLE, NATURE

Wiley often writes in his section on revelation that an important relationship exists between the Bible and Jesus Christ. He is eager to argue Jesus Christ is not identical or equal with the Bible. Jesus Christ – not the Holy Scriptures – is God's supreme revelation. 

In the opening segments of his discussion on revelation, Wiley employs the classic categories of general and special revelation. By “general revelation,” he means the revelation God gives in the natural world. Wiley says, for instance, “Nature is filled with the Divine Spirit and reveals God as the atmosphere is filled with sunlight and reveals the sun” (127).

By “special revelation,” Wiley means the redemptive purpose of God manifest in Jesus Christ and revealed most explicitly in the Bible. Wiley says Jesus Christ is “the personal word” and the Holy Scriptures are the “written word” of God. Interestingly, the Free Methodist denomination uses this kind of language in its article of faith on the Bible.

Given my interest in science and theology, I was intrigued by Wiley’s view on nature and the Bible. The revelation of God in the Bible was not meant to supersede the revelation God gives in nature, he says. “The Earth and the Bible are God’s two texts, each having its place, time, and function in progressive revelation.” Wiley even goes so far as to say, “Without the Bible, the universe would be a riddle; without Nature, the Bible would be meaningless” (140). I will be using Wiley in my future work on science and theology!

FALSE CONCEPTS

Some of the most interesting material comes when Wiley worries about he calls “false concepts” related to revelation. These concepts undermine the supremacy of the Living Word – Jesus Christ – as God’s primary revelation.

One false concept is the belief that the Church is more important than Jesus Christ. Here, Wiley shares the Protestant worry that the institutional Church might trump the revelation of God in Jesus.

The second false concept is the belief that the Bible is more important than Jesus Christ. Wiley says sometimes humans “unconsciously substitute the Written Word for Christ the Living Word” (142). Those who substitute the Bible for Jesus have their priorities wrong. The result is that “the views of God attained are merely those of a book, not those of the Living Christ which the book was intended to reveal” (142).

The third false concept is the belief that reason can become more authoritative than Jesus. While Wiley praises reason, he also says it can be used as a “legalistic defense of the Scriptures.” Such defense “depends on logic rather than life” (143).

BIBLICAL INSPIRATION

Wiley devotes an entire chapter to the issue of biblical inspiration. He defines inspiration as “the actuating energy of the Holy Spirit by which Holy men chosen of God have officially proclaimed His will as revealed to us in the Sacred Scriptures” (169). He doesn't give much attention to the idea that God continues to inspire us as we read the Bible today.

A number of what Wiley calls “credentials” support the Christian claim that God inspired the writing of the Bible. Those credentials include miracles, the presence and fulfillment of prophecy, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Bible itself is evidence God progressively reveals more and more truth over time.

Wiley outlines three theories of biblical inspiration: 1) mechanical/dictation, 2) intuition/illumination, and 3) dynamical/mediating.

Wiley rejects the mechanical/dictation theory. It is narrow and insufficient. Scripture itself often talks about the role the writers play in writing the Bible. The authors were not robots whose hands God controlled unilaterally.

He also rejects the intuition/illumination theory. This theory is too rationalistic, and it implies that natural human insight was merely lifted to a higher plane. It doesn’t emphasize God’s activity enough.

Wiley likes the dynamical/mediating theory of inspiration. It “preserves the scriptural truth that God speaks to human agencies,” he says “but insists that the agent is not reduced to a mere passive instrument” (176).

Throughout these sections, Wiley mentions the role of “plenary” inspiration of the Bible. By this, he means “the whole and every part is divinely inspired.” Plenary inspiration does not require the mechanical theory of inspiration, says Wiley, “only that the results of that inspiration give us the Holy Scriptures as the final and authoritative rule of faith in the Church” (184).

The final segment of Wiley’s exploration of the Bible addresses what Christians call the biblical “canon.” Questions about the canon typically pertain to the decisions Christians made about which ancient writings to include in the Bible. The Bibles read by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians have writings not included in Protestant Bibles. This is an area contemporary biblical scholars have explored in much greater depth than what Wiley offers here.

ERRORS

I was particularly interested in the way Wiley talks about biblical inconsistencies, ambiguities, and/or errors. As I read Wiley, I thought about Michael Lodahl’s little book describing Wiley’s writing of my denomination’s article of faith on the Bible.

Wiley never addresses the topic of biblical inerrancy in a direct or thorough way. But he occasionally makes statements pertaining to the subject.

For instance, Wiley says, “only as we are convinced that the writers were aided by a supernatural and divine influence, and this in such a manner as to be infallibly preserved from all error, can the sacred Scripture can become a divine rule of faith and practice” (173).

In this quote, Wiley surprisingly claims the writers themselves – not the text – are “infallibly preserved from all error.” This is a strong claim, given that he rejects mechanical/dictation theories of inspiration!

Perhaps more importantly, Wiley says infallibility is important insofar as the Bible becomes “a divine rule of faith and practice.” This sounds like the line he wrote for my denomination's article on the Bible, because it emphasizes the importance of the Bible revealing what is necessary for salvation.

A few lines in these long chapters sound like Wiley affirms absolute textual inerrancy. He says, for instance, that “God so guides those chosen as the organs of revelation that their writings are kept free from error” (171). While statements about the inerrancy of the text are rare, and the casual reader might conclude that Wiley believed in absolute textual inerrancy.

In the final segment of his long discussion of revelation, however, Wiley addresses the “integrity of the Scriptures.” By this, he means, the Bible has been “kept intact and free from essential error, so that we may be assured of the truth originally given by the inspired authors” (212).

Notice that Wiley inserts the word “essential” in this sentence. The Bible is free from "essential" error. In the same discussion, he writes, “No proof has ever yet been furnished of essential alterations” (212). He even makes the bold claim that proof of essential alterations could never be found in the future!

Of course, there is an important difference between saying the Bible has no “essential” errors and saying the Bible has no errors at all. Its the difference between some and none.

At the end of his discussion, Wiley addresses the textual differences in the oldest biblical manuscripts. The Bibles we read today come from these ancient documents. Scholars in Wiley’s day had fewer ancient manuscripts than are available today. But he knew that many differences exist in the oldest Bibles.

Wiley says that our Bible has integrity despite inconsistencies in the ancient manuscripts. Part of his argument is that Jewish copyists working prior to the printing press would “reduce to a minimum any errors in transcribing” (213). Notice Wiley never says copyists would make no errors whatsoever. He even quotes a scholar named Dr. Kennicott as “having found many variations, and some grammatical errors; but not one of which affected, in the smallest degree, any article of faith and practice” (213-214).

Wiley does not address in his work any specific discrepancies or errors. He is more interested in general theories than rooting out specific texts. But he realizes Christians have no access to the original biblical autographs. And he knows discrepancies exist among the manuscripts that are available to translators.  His main claim is the Bible expresses the essential Christian message without error.

CONCLUSION

As I finished reading Wiley’s thoughts, I wondered what he might say about the Bible today. His book was first printed seventy years ago. A great deal has changed in biblical scholarship. And much has changed in how we interpret the Bible.

My conclusion is that Wiley’s basic intuitions are still helpful. He doesn’t give the last word – or even the first word, for that matter – on how we ought to think about the Bible. And contemporary Christians must listen closely to the best biblical and theological scholars today.

But Wiley proves a valuable resource – especially for Wesleyans and especially for my own denomination. His writing remains helpful as we affirm the authority of the Bible in our postmodern world.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

13 Comments

What Should We Do with the Good News?

This is the final chapter in the short book I’m co-writing. The book presents the gospel in an understandable way. I'm interested in your evaluation...

By the way, I’m especially happy that the readability statistics for this book score at a fifth grade level. It’s not easy for a scholar trained in technical theological language to write for a wide audience!

As a summary, here are the subjects of the previous four chapters:

1)     The Christian Good News of Love

2)     A Loving God Creates

3)     The Problems in Life and their Sources

4)     Jesus Christ Overcomes Our Problems

This fifth and final chapter explicitly asks readers to make a decision about the good news of God’s love. It also talks about Christian community and the gifts and fruit of the Spirit. The chapter concludes with an invitation to share this good news with others.

Please offer comments about this chapter or the book in general!

Chapter Five -- What Should We Do With This Good News?

There is no better news than the news in this book.

Were someone to declare that vast wealth would be yours, this news would not compare to the good news of God’s love. Were you told of future fame, power, or pleasures, such news would pale in comparison to the news of God’s love. Even life itself is not as important as love.

Nothing compares to knowing God loves you and to loving God and others as yourself!

Receive the Good News

So what should you do in response to this good news?

Receive it! Accept it! Act on it!

Let the good news of God’s love orient your life. Let it become your first, foremost, and all-encompassing truth. Let God’s loving leadership be the center.

Most people pray to begin accepting God’s loving leadership. Some ask God to forgive them. Some seek God’s healing. Some people express their fears, frustration, and confusion. Some let go of their problems and ask God for help.

Just about any prayer is appropriate. Words are not as important as the desire to accept God’s love and live in it. God knows our deepest thoughts even when words are not fully adequate. God accepts everyone.

You may want to put down this book and pray. In fact, we encourage you to do so. It may be the most important thing you will ever do.

Right now, accept God’s love and commit yourself to living a life of love.

Living a Life of Love

The Bible often calls accepting and receiving God’s love “believing.” Two of Jesus’ followers, Paul and Silas, put it this way: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31).

By “believe,” they mean more than affirming ideas about Jesus. They mean committing our lives to receiving God’s love and living like Jesus. “Believing” involves accepting God’s loving leadership both now and throughout life.

Often in this book, we said love is the heart of the good news. Love is the central theme of the Bible and Jesus’ central message. In fact, Jesus said two commands sum up our basic instructions for living:

1.     Love God with everything that you are.

2.     Love your neighbors in the way you love yourself (Mark 12:28-34).

 When we do these things, we cooperate with God in bringing about the salvation God intends for everyone. We enjoy the good life that following Jesus provides. We join in the work God is doing in our world.

Following Jesus means imitating him. Jesus loved God, and he loved others as himself. Jesus loved friends and those who considered themselves his enemies. He loved family members and strangers. He lived a life of hospitality. Jesus’ self-giving love is our ultimate example.

God empowers us to love like Jesus. Without God’s power, we cannot love. But with God, love is possible.

We should embrace a life of love.

Living the Good News Together

Living a life of love is not something we should do alone. Following Jesus is something we do alongside others.

Those who follow Jesus are part of a worldwide family of believers called “the church.” Followers of Jesus meet in groups to seek and promote the good life to which God calls.  God wants us to live in loving community with others who follow Jesus.

In the Bible book of John, we find a prayer Jesus prays for his followers. He says:

   “Father, you give the good life to all who know you and me. I have made your name known to the world. As you have sent me into the world, so I send them.”

   “I ask that they become one, so the world may believe you sent me. And I ask that you make them one, so the world will know you love them even as you love me.”

   “I have made your name known to them -- and I will continue to make it known -- so the love with which you love me may be in them” (John 17).

Jesus cares about his followers. He wants them to thrive in community as the church. In the John’s book, Jesus teaches his followers these things: 

   “I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who live in me and I in them bear much fruit. Apart from me, you can do nothing.”

   “As the Father has loved me, so I love you. Live in my love.”

   “If you keep my commands, you will live in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and live in his love.

   “This is my command: love one another as I have loved you” (John 15).

The majority of the Bible was written by and for Jesus followers. As the church, Christians come together to follow the life-giving command to live in God’s love.

A number of activities help Jesus’ followers grow in God’s love. You have already done one: you prayed.

Christians pray alone and together. They study the Bible and learn from other holy resources. They frequently receive the bread and juice of the body and blood of Jesus. They sing praises and worship. Christians share their joys and sorrows, talk about temptations and spiritual victories, and encourage one another. They help one another and those not yet in the church.

When we respond to God’s empowering love, we find God healing the world, our communities, and our lives. When we meet together, the world and we become better.

In the church, the power of love grows exponentially!

God’s Loving Spirit Active Today

God’s love has always been active in the world. When the community of Jesus’ followers emerged, God revealed love in even more powerful ways. God, who is an invisible and universal spirit, empowers them.

Christians call God’s empowering activity “the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Jesus told his followers they could do greater things than he had done (John 14: 12-13). This is possible because God as the Holy Spirit empowers the church.  Whenever those who follow Jesus’ way of love gather together, the Spirit is present in a special way.

One special event occurred when Jesus’ followers met together in Jerusalem soon after Jesus had departed his earthly body. The Bible book of Acts reports this event:

The followers of Jesus were meeting together. Suddenly, a sound like the rush of a violent wind filled the entire house where they were sitting. The Holy Spirit filled them all, and they began to speak in other languages.

This dramatic event puzzled the people of Jerusalem. They heard Jesus’ followers speaking in various languages. They wondered if they had been drinking too much wine.

One of those present – Peter – explained what was happening. “God is pouring out the Spirit on everyone who will receive!” he said.

After describing some of the ways people might act when God’s loving Spirit empowers them, Peter said, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

This was not the end of his Peter’s speech. He also explained God’s action in history and especially Jesus.

Peter concluded, “Change your hearts and lives. Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so your sins may be forgiven. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise of new life is for you, your children, and for all who are far away – in fact, it is for everyone whom God calls” (Acts, chapter 2).

God’s gift of his own Spirit brought together Jesus’ followers as the church. They devoted themselves to learning together, eating together, prayer, sharing things in common, and giving to the poor. Amazing things – signs and wonders – occurred as the people responded to God’s empowering love!

Amazing things continue to happen today when we respond to God’s empowering and inspiring love. People are set free from addictions. Some are healed now, while others await full healing after they die. God removes the guilt of sin. God restores broken relationships and mends wounded hearts. Many feel the joy that comes from living life abundant.

God does miracles as we respond to the Holy Spirit!

The Gifts and Fruit of the Spirit

We have seen that God as Holy Spirit is active in all creation. God calls us – no matter our race, gender, looks, or intellect – to do good.

But there is even more good news: God gives abilities, talents, and capacities. Paul talks often about these gifts. He says we should use them to increase the common good.

When talking about the gifts from the Holy Spirit, Paul makes a comparison. He says we each have one body. But our bodies have many different parts, each with different functions.

Similarly, there is one worldwide community of people who follow Jesus Christ. That community is the body of Christ. But each person has been given different talents, abilities, and capacities. Each person plays a part in the body. The one body is most effective when each member uses his or her unique gifts.

Some people are good at warning others of potential problems. Other people serve extraordinarily well. Some are gifted teachers. Some excel in encouraging others. Some people have special talents in generosity. Others are natural leaders. Some people are models of cheerful kindness. There are many different kinds of gifts.

People are different, and their gifts differ.

No matter what the gifts, all people should “hate what is evil,” says Paul. They should “cling to what is good.” The gifts of the Spirit help us “be devoted to one another in love” (Romans 12:3-10).

The Bible provides other lists of gifts. These gifts reveal that God’s Spirit guides us to work for the common good.

For instance, some people are given the gift of wisdom. To others, the Spirit gives great knowledge or faith. Some have special gifts for healing and miracles. Some people discern good and evil well. Others speak in unknown languages, and others interpret them.

“All these are the work of one and the same Spirit,” says Paul. God distributes these gifts to us (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).

Not only does the Spirit give gifts to those who follow Jesus. But the lives of those who respond well to the Spirit’s activity show the positive results of love. These results are the fruit – the effects – of the Spirit.

God calls us to love. The Spirit give us joy, it urges us to promote good life. The Spirit helps us be patient, kind, and generous. These are the fruit of the Spirit.

One of the most important things the Spirit does is help us control ourselves. We must have self-control so that we do not orient our lives toward gratifying our own desires.

Unfortunately, some people do not respond well to the Spirit’s leading. They disobey. They seek to gratify their own desires.

Paul lists problems that arise when people reject God’s loving leadership. For instance, they sometimes have sex with those to whom they are not married, they act impurely, they waste good resources, they idolize created things, they seek power in witchcraft, they start fights, wars, and quarrels, they unnecessarily divide themselves from others, they get drunk and celebrate irresponsibly, or they waste their time on stupid activities.

Those doing these things are not living under God’s leadership!

Paul says we who follow Jesus must live according to God’s loving Spirit. We must let the Spirit guide us to follow Jesus and not our sinful desires (Galatians 5:13-25).

Sharing the Good News with Others

You should share the good news you have read. News like this should not be kept secret.

There are many ways to share this good news. In fact, there are not enough books to describe God’s love and how we can share it.

The Bible lists several ways. These lists help us in practical ways. Some lists describe leadership roles and activities. Other lists offer guidelines for living. These guidelines help us discern what love might require (Luke 6:1-11; Romans 13:8-10).

We want to conclude this book with two general ways you might share the good news of God’s love.

One way involves helping those with problems. Jesus was asked what it means to love our neighbors. He told this story in response:

   “A man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. But on his way, he was robbed. The thieves stripped him of his clothes and beat him. They left him half-dead.”

   “A religious leader happened to be going down the same road. When he saw the man half dead, he passed by on the other side.”

   “A law-abiding citizen also came down the road. He saw the half-dead man and also passed by on the other side.”

   “But a stranger came where the man was. When the stranger saw the robbed and beaten victim, he had compassion. He went to him and bandaged his wounds. He put him on a donkey, took him to an inn, and took care of him.

   “The next day, the stranger gave some money to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ the stranger said, ‘and when I return, I will repay you for any extra expense.’

After telling this story, Jesus asked his listeners, “Which of these men do you think loved the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The listener answered, “The one who had compassion on the beaten man.”

To this correct response, Jesus said, “Go and follow his example.”

This story tells us that one of the best ways to share the good news of God’s love is to help those with problems. Sharing the good news can mean acting in generous and compassionate ways.

In fact, Jesus said we should do to others the loving things we want them to do to us (Luke 6:31). Sometimes that includes loving strangers and enemies (Matthew 5:38-48). Sometimes it involves loving family and friends. Sometimes it includes forgiving those who have wronged us. Often it means helping those with problems.

The second general way to share the good news involves speaking. It involves telling others what you have learned.

At the conclusion of his book in the Bible, a follower of Jesus named Matthew tells of Jesus’ final meeting with his followers. Jesus’ last words were these:

   “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and help others in all nations learn to love. Encourage them to follow me. Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything I have commanded.

   “And remember,” said Jesus, “I will always be with you – to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).

Sometimes sharing the good news involves telling stories of God’s love. Those stories witness to God’s ability to help us. They remind us that God is always with us. God leads us to a good life, if we follow God’s leadership.

Sometimes sharing the good news involves teaching. Sometimes encouragement. Sometimes it means explaining God’s love in helpful ways.

There are many ways to share the good news. This news is too good to keep silent!

So… What Happens Now?

We invited you to accept God’s loving leadership.

Actually, we think God is really the source of this invitation. We are simply following God’s loving leadership by writing this book for you. It is really God who invites you to accept his loving leadership and to begin a life of love.

If you have done that, you should be excited! The Bible says all heaven is excited when people accept this good news!

The most important next step is to find others who follow Jesus. As soon as possible, find a church community. Others can help guide you in the Christian life. Do this quickly, because you need help from others and you have a part to play in the body of Christ.

If you have a Bible, study it with others. This can help you learn how best to respond to God’s loving leadership. You will never understand everything in the Bible, of course. But you can learn more about God’s love and what God desires.

Christians do many things to respond positively to God’s love. They give generously. They worship together often. Christians help the poor and those with problems. They take the bread and juice to celebrate Jesus death and resurrection. They share the good news with others.

Christians also often pray. We encourage you to do that. Tell God your problems and joys. Ask God for guidance. Seek courage from God. And when you pray, listen for the Holy Spirit’s nudging to lead you to live a good life.

Living in God’s love means your life changes. But it is change for good!

Welcome to God’s family!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

30 Comments

Thanksgiving Theologies

The Thanksgiving holiday is a terrific time to talk theology. But some theologies make more sense when offering thanks to our loving Lord.

Whether the setting is private or public, secular or sacred, hundreds of millions express gratitude. Often, even the day’s newscasts are laden with words of Holy appreciation.

For what, however, are we to thank God? What credit is due the divine? And which theologies best account for our desire to express gratitude?

Atheists

One group giving thanks consists of those who consider theology a mere form of language without a Referent. There is no Holy Reality, they say, to which their rituals relate. Theology is nothing more than anthropology. Giving thanks to God is merely an expression of a shared cognizance that life is not entirely within our control.

These folks can utter the words, "Thank you, God." But their disbelief in a Being exists to whom they should be grateful makes their theological sleight of hand far from satisfying.

A Controlling God

Many eager to express their indebtedness at Thanksgiving have ties to a second option in Christian theology. This view says God either directly or indirectly controls everything. When someone from this tradition says, "Thank you God for _____," he or she can fill the blank with any event.

Such events in that blank may be joyous and hopeful. But others are utterly evil and horrific. The God of this theology is responsible for respect and rape, peace and pain, havens and holocausts. God directly or indirectly controls everything.

Most in this theological tradition express gratitude at Thanksgiving only for events they deem good. Reminding them their view implies God is also responsible for evil dampens their holiday spirit.

Classical Free-will Theology

A third theological alternative at Thanksgiving takes the form of classical free-will theology. Those in this tradition believe they sidestep theological potholes in which other believers fall. They thank God for good and benevolent acts, while blaming free agents or natural forces for evil.

A closer look at classical free-will theology, however, reveals that the God of this theology is culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil. Classical free-will theology says God voluntarily gives freedom to others, but God essentially retains the ability to prevent genuine evils by taking that freedom away or failing to provide it in the first place.

The God with the capacity to control others entirely by either failing to provide, withdrawing, or overriding their freedom is ultimately culpable for failing to prevent dastardly deeds. Although free creatures initiate evil in classical free-will theology, the view implies that God is ultimately culpable for whatever occurs. After all, this God has the capacity to control others entirely should God so decide.

Those affirming classical free-will theologies could insert any event into the “Thank you God for _____” phrase. The God they espouse voluntarily permits free creatures to use their freedom to cause genuine evil.

Essential Kenosis Theology at Thanksgiving

A fourth option may be more adequate as the theological framework for this year’s Thanksgiving prayer. I call this framework “essential kenosis,” because it says God necessarily loves in each moment without ever trumping creaturely agency and/or freedom.

Essential kenosis says God’s eternal nature of love includes giving freedom and/or agency to creation. Because God’s nature is this kind of love, God cannot fail to provide, cannot withdraw, and cannot override the freedom and agency God necessarily gives.  

Essential kenosis theology says God’s loving actions in each moment present a spectrum of possibilities to each creature for response. This is not deistic theology, in which God sits uninvolved on the sidelines. God actively creates, provides, and interacts with creation.

Not only does the God of essential kenosis offer possibilities, God also calls creatures to respond to the best possibilities. Our loving Creator inspires and empowers creatures to love. Genuine evil results from the responses these creatures make contrary to God’s call.

Essential kenosis theology affirms at Thanksgiving that every good and perfect gift originates in God. God alone is the source of good. But the good things we enjoy also require creatures to respond well to God’s loving activity. In other words, we should thank God for being the source of goodness, but we should also thank the chef for making a great Thanksgiving meal!

Without scruples, the Christian adopting essential kenosis theology can offer thanks to God for being the source of all this good and not the one responsible for causing or allowing evil. She can also thank God for inspiring, empowering, and creating others to act in love, peace, and beauty.

A Short Thanksgiving Prayer

"Our loving God, in deepest gratitude, we thank You for the good you have done and are doing. We thank you for empowering and inspiring us to respond well to your perfect goodness. We are grateful now and forever. Amen!"

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

66 Comments

Evangelicals Accept Evolution

I chose my blog title to acknowledge that a growing number of Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. I also chose my title to argue that Evangelicals should accept evolution as compatible with faith.

I spent a good portion of last week at a BioLogos meeting. I talked with leading Evangelical pastors, scientists, philosophers, and theologians. Our main goal was to help the Evangelical family realize that the general theory of evolution is not a threat to authentic Christian faith and not a threat to biblical authority.

A full explanation of the compatibility of biblical Christianity and evolution would require at least a book. Here I want to point quickly to five reasons why some of my fellow Evangelicals accept evolution as compatible with Christianity. These are the same reasons I think other Evangelicals should follow their example.

The Evidence Points to Evolution

The first point may be obvious, but it bears repeating. The evidence from a variety of sciences – but especially biology – points to evolution. Various dating mechanisms, the similarities of bone structures across species, fossil continuity, genetic sequencing, and more point to evolution as the general theory that best accounts for the emergence of life over a long period of time and the common descent of species.

The overwhelming majority of the scientific community – those people who study the data most carefully – affirms the general theory of evolution. There are certainly differences of opinions on the mechanisms and means for evolution amongst scientists. But the vast majority affirms the general theory.

We Evangelicals are adamant that we seek truth. Simply put, the general theory of evolution best accounts for the biological evidence we find in our world. Not accepting evolution means not accepting the best overall theory available to account for the data we find.

God Creates Through and Alongside Evolutionary Mechanisms

Some Evangelicals reject evolution, because they think it allows no place for God to be Creator. Unfortunately, they seem to be listening to a small but loud contingency of atheistic philosophers and scientists who claim evolution has no place for God. They want to force Evangelicals to choose between science and faith.

But Evangelicals can and should believe that God works through various evolutionary mechanisms as the initial and ongoing Creator of all things. There is no scientific reason to reject that God creates through evolution. I believe God works through or alongside natural selection, genetic mutation, self-organization, and other evolutionary mechanisms.

Unfortunately, many young Evangelicals feel like the church forces them to choose between their faith and the best that science has to offer. The stories of those rejecting faith in the face of evolutionary evidence saddens me. It’s time for the church to help those wrestling with these issues to see they can believe both in God as Creator and evolution.

The Bible is Consonant with Evolution

The Bible doesn’t talk about evolution. In fact, Genesis and other books assume a worldview that has little in common with contemporary science. Biblical authors typically assume an ancient view of the world, in which the earth is flat and a dome covers the earth. It makes little sense to try to read evolution or other contemporary scientific theories into the Bible when they simply aren’t there.

The key to seeing the Bible as consonant with evolution, therefore, is to ask about the purpose of Scripture. Evangelicals regard the Bible as reliable for revealing God’s will concerning salvation. They should not consider the Bible a scientific textbook against which contemporary science – including evolution – be judged. 

An old saying in Christian circles seems helpful on this issue: “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”  My own more evolution-oriented saying is that the Bible tells us how to find abundant life, not the scientific details of how life became abundant. In short, Evangelicals should look to the Bible for theological truth.

New Creation, Transformation, and Evolution

The idea that creatures can undergo dramatic change is part of the Christian gospel. In fact, the Apostle Paul emphasized the importance of at least humans being God’s new creations.

I doubt the Apostle Paul affirmed evolution, of course. But the notion that something different can emerge from the created order fits the general evolutionary claim about the emergence of creation over time. We might even say the spiritual sense of new creation mirrors the physical sense of evolutionary creation.

It should make sense to Evangelicals that God is in the business of doing new things. The Bible tells us that God cares about establishing the kingdom, and God works to redeem all creation. God is doing and creating new things today! Hallelujah!

Free Creatures are Created Co-Creators

In the first verses of Genesis, we find God asking creatures to join in the work of creating. God tells them to “bring forth” others. In fact, we might call creatures “created co-creators.” This label does not mean that creatures are equal with their Creator.  But it does mean that creatures make a real difference in shaping God’s creative and providential activity.

Many Evangelicals also believe that God lovingly gives freedom and agency to those God creates.  This emphasis on creaturely freedom and agency fits well in evolutionary theories that are not deterministic. 

This belief is part of why Evangelicals who affirm evolution also reject the view that evolution occurs entirely through absolute randomness. Both God and creatures have roles to play in the emergence of life as we know it. Evolution tells us a great deal about some of the creaturely roles in that evolutionary creation process.

In sum, Evangelicals should affirm the evidence for common descent and an ancient universe. They can do so while still affirming God’s creative and designing activity. And they can affirm that creatures in particular and creation in general possess agency, freedom, and purpose.

Evangelicals accept evolution. 

Evangelicals: accept evolution!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Theology and Science

Add comment

Comments

14 Comments

Measuring Love

For the past decade or so, I’ve been thinking about the love, science, and theology interface. The questions about how these three relate are complex. These questions require complex but understandable answers.

At the very heart of theological and scientific love research are two largely unanswered questions. The first – and more typically scientific question – has to do with measuring...

How should we measure love?

To some, the idea of measuring love is sheer foolishness. Love escapes any measuring mechanisms, in their opinion. Pressing them to identify how they know which action is loving and which is not, however, reveals quickly that they do adopt some measurement methods. The measurements they adopt are tacit or largely unconscious.

Part of the scientist’s task is to make explicit and conceptually coherent love assumptions that may currently remain implicit and incoherent. In future blog essays, I answer this first question by offering my definition of love. In addition, I will offer general measuring domains scientists might use to pursue research on creaturely love.

My definition of love involves three domains as essential to love:

1) intent/motives

2) embodiment/environment

3) consequences/outcomes

The second question is theological in nature...

If God’s love makes a difference in the world, can we measure it?

In coming blogs, I propose a method for measuring the effectiveness of God’s love. I build on my theory of Essential Kenosis for this task.

Essential Kenosis says God acts as a loving causal agent in every agent and/or event. But God never entirely determines anything. To put it another way, God never totally controls others.

God's love varies, however. God’s persuasive influence oscillates as creatures respond appropriately or inappropriately. And God expresses diverse forms of love.

I will argue that scientific researchers (and the rest of us) can justifiably make inferences with regard to the degree of divine love’s effectiveness. We infer God’s effectiveness by observing creaturely action.

While we presuppose for various reasons the fact THAT God loves everyone all the time, we can measure how effective God’s love is by looking at creaturely responses.

I’m thinking of developing these blogs into a scholarly book. So I welcome your evaluation of these essays!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

12 Comments

Augustine’s Love Problems

I’ve come to believe that Augustine’s theology fails on the central issue of Christian faith: love.

In my new book, The Nature of Love: A Theology, I devote an entire chapter to talking about the inadequacy of Augustine’s theology of love. I quote directly from his book, Teaching Christianity, to show problems with his views.

God Doesn’t Love Us

Early on in his discussion of love, Augustine says love either enjoys the other or love uses the other. To enjoy someone is to love him or her as an end. To use someone is to love that person as a means to something else worthy of enjoyment.

Love’s true object, says Augustine, is that which “which we love for its own sake.” We should use, however, whatever does not make “us perfectly happy or blissful.”

Augustine knows that the Bible says God loves creatures. Given his two ways of understanding love—enjoyment and use—he poses a question for himself: “How does God love us?” In other words, does God use us or enjoy us?

If God “enjoys us,” says Augustine, “it means he is in need of some good of ours, which nobody in his right mind could possibly say. Every good of ours, after all, is either God himself, or derived from him.” For God to enjoy us, we must be able to contribute something God would find worth enjoying. Augustine thinks we have nothing to contribute.

Besides, Augustine believes God has no desires we could possibly satisfy. We do not contribute to a God who has all value eternally in God’s unchanging person.

The only way God can love us, according to Augustine’s categories, is to use us. “He does not enjoy us, but makes use of us,” he states bluntly. “Because if he neither enjoys us nor makes use of us, I cannot find any way in which he can love us.”

God Does Not Love for Our Own Sakes

There are all kinds of problems with saying love uses others for the sake of something else. Augustine places these problems on God. Despite the fact that God created us and all creation and called what God created “very good” (Gen. 1:31), God doesn’t really enjoy us for our own sakes.

According to how Augustine understands love, God doesn’t act to promote our well-being. Augustine believes God uses us for the sake of something else.

To say God doesn’t enjoy us but uses us seems contrary to Jesus’ words in John’s classic biblical passage: “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…” (3:16). It seems to oppose the apostle Paul’s words that “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Rm. 5:8). It seems in opposition to the Psalms, which speak of God’s steadfast love (chesed) for creation. These biblical passages and others indicate that the world and its creatures are recipients of God’s well-being-providing love.

God Does Not Even Love by Using Us

After admitting God only uses us, Augustine realizes he has another problem. His notion of use implies God desires something other than those whom God uses. But this cannot be, according to Augustine’s system of belief. God is the only valuable one.

Augustine eventually confesses that actually God “does not make use of us, either.” God does not use us, that is, “in the same way as we use things.” “Our making use of things is directed to the end of enjoying God’s goodness,” he says. But “God’s making use of us is directed to his goodness.” In sum, God only loves himself.

According to Augustine, therefore, God cannot love us in the sense of enjoying us. To do so would mean we have some value God does not yet possess. God cannot love us in the sense of using us. To do so would also mean God lacks something that God does not already possess. God cannot love us in either sense of enjoy or use—the only two ways Augustine thinks anyone can love.

A Needed Alternative: A Relational God of Love

Augustine’s love theology reveals the importance of a relational love theology. Instead of defining love in terms of enjoyment and use, love in relational theology (and in the vast majority of biblical passages) is defined as promoting well-being.

The idea that God might need creation is, according to Augustine, something "no one in his or her right mind would say." This statement shows the influence of Greek philosophy, which privileges absolute independence and plenitude over the give-and-receive of relational love.

Christians should learn two key lessons from Augustine’s inadequate theology of love. First, love should not be defined primarily in terms of desire to enjoy or desire to use. It should be defined primarily in terms of acting to promote abundant life, blessedness, peace, the kingdom of God, and shalom: i.e., promoting well-being.

Second, Christians should understand God as a relational being who lovingly enters into relations with others. God's active love involves both giving and receiving. A relational God of love depends on the responses of others for the love relationship to deepen and mature. While God’s essence remains unchanging, the divine experience changes in love relations with others.

Augustine helps us think deeply about some issues of theology. But when it comes to a theology of love, I recommend Christians look elsewhere.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

41 Comments

The Bible and the Inspiring God

The older I get, the more I appreciate the Bible. Scripture is my principle authority on matters of Christian faith and practice. God uses it to encourage and teach me.

One of my favorite passages is 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It’s probably the passage most cited as evidence for the high regard Christians have for the Bible.

Paul writes to his young friend, Timothy. He notes that from childhood, Timothy was taught “the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Of course, the sacred writings – scriptures – were not the Bible, as we know it. Paul was referring to Jewish writings, many of which make up what most Christians call the “Old Testament.”

Salvation

These scriptures teach us about salvation, says Paul. Despite being written long before Jesus was born, they tell us about the salvation Christ provides.

In the context of talking about salvation, Paul says,

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

The verse identifies specific ways God uses the Bible to offer salvation.  The salvation God offers involves our being taught, reproved, corrected, and trained in righteousness. The scriptures, therefore, are tools for the saving work God wants to do in us.

Inspiration

Many commentators say the word “inspire” means something like “breathed into.” Instead of thinking of God as one who makes and controls us like robots, God enlivens the words of scripture. God uses them as a source to spark abundant life in us.

Paul says God’s inspiration occurs in the present, as we read or hear the scriptures. The phrase, “is useful,” is present tense.

The inspiration mentioned here has less to do with God’s communication to writers long ago (although I believe it also speaks to this). It has more to do with God’s communicating, empowering, and calling us today -- as we read the scriptures (both Old and New testaments).

I like the way the verse ends. The purpose of scripture is to promote well-being. God uses the Bible to equip us for doing good – which is what I think is the best way to talk about love!

In fact, there is an integral relationship between 1) God’s in-spiring, 2) salvation, and 3) doing good.

Ultimately, this verse seems to be saying that the Bible is not simply an end in itself. It is a means God uses to love us by offering salvation.

Thanks be to God!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

44 Comments

Diversity and Love

Charles Darwin wisely said, “the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure.”  I’ve been thinking lately about the potential helpfulness of diversity in the Church.

Darwin realized that wide varieties of plants, insects, and animals thrive if diverse conditions are present in an environment.  Difference is good for growth.

This general principle in biology – that increased growth requires diversity – emphasizes the importance of avoiding uniformity.  Development needs diverse methods, organizations, and arrangements.  Only a few organisms can live in a homogeneous environment.

The Body of Christ

The Apostle Paul must have had something like this in mind when he compared the Church to a living body.  The body functions well when comprised of many parts, he said.  Each diverse part must contribute to the whole body if the body is to thrive. 

A body cannot function if comprised only of elbows and livers.  It needs the many.

While the importance of diversity is difficult to overstate, we should not equate diversity with chaos.  Life cannot thrive in utter chaos. 

We can be tempted to confuse diversity with chaos when we’re overwhelmed with the novelty we encounter.  But we must not stifle creative difference when diversity expands out of our control.

We who desire to see a strong and growing Church would be wise to heed these principles from the Bible and biology.  Let me be specific:   

Principle 1 -- Growth is strongest when structures are diverse. 

In a world of diverse people with diverse backgrounds and diverse dreams, the Church must risk diverse adventures in ministry. 

The same old, same old, leads down a path of barrenness.  If it is to thrive, the Church must be brave enough to venture in many directions simultaneously.  Let a thousand flowers bloom.

Principle 2 -- Diverse structures need a shared point of reference.

Just as a body needs a head, the Church needs unity.  Just as an environment needs some stable conditions, so the Church requires overarching harmony.  The Church needs a clear point of reference amidst a variety of voices beckoning for supremacy.

Of course, Christ is the head of the Church that is functioning well.  At their best, Christians are what theologians call “Christocentric.”  No book, no leader, no image, or location, no other things – no matter how holy these other things might seem – can rightly replace Christ as central to the Christian and the Christian community.  Christ is Lord.

Principle 3 -- The love revealed in Christ is the shared point of reference for the Church. 

Love is what unifies the diverse expressions of a living and growing Church.  Christ reveals this love in his life, message, actions, death, and resurrection.  The God who is love is the same God who calls creatures to love.  We are to “imitate God, as beloved children, and live a life of love, in the way that Christ loved us…”

Love comes in a million forms.  It takes a thousand shapes.  Love cannot be reduced to a one-size-fits-all formula.  In fact, love requires diversity.

Love retains at its core the impulse to promote abundant life.  It seeks to be a blessing, seeks genuine peace, and works for justice among those who need justice most.  Our acts of love are proper responses to the God who is love.

Perhaps in addition to the truth that “the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure,” we should also say that the greatest expressions of love are supported by the greatest diversification of love opportunities. 

May the Church foster diverse opportunities to love! 

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

5 Comments

Jesus Christ as Good News

Writing a short chapter that argues Jesus Christ answers or solves the problems of life proves difficult. Very difficult!

The major difficulty is deciding what we should leave out.  There is so much more we could say. But in a short and accessible book, we don’t have space to include everything important.

I found two issues in particular pushed me to think differently as I and my co-author, Bob Luhn, put this chapter together.

First, we chose the phrase “God’s Loving Leadership” instead of “the Kingdom of God.” This was Bob’s suggestion, and I really like it!

I’m convinced that too many people do not think of love when they hear the word “kingdom.” And yet I think Jesus understood the Kingdom of God primarily in terms of love. I plan to use the phrase “God’s Loving Leadership” often in the future.

The second issue that pushed me to think differently was atonement. I admit this is a tricky area to talk about well.  Many atonement theories imply that God is not really loving after all. We want to avoid talking about Jesus’ death, for instance, in a way that implicitly undermines God’s love.

I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions on this key chapter. We have already changed in significant ways our previous chapters after getting feedback from blog readers.

Thanks for helping us!

God’s Loving Leadership Becomes Reality

The best news you will ever hear is God loves you and all creation. God loves you despite your problems, addictions, sinful habits, bad choices, and destructive behavior. God created you and everything else. And God loves you, us, everyone, and every creature!

Because God loves us all, God works to overcome our problems. Overcoming problems is part of what love does. God empowers us to cooperate with this overcoming work.

The Center of the Good News

Jesus of Nazareth is the heart of the good news of God’s love and the center of overcoming our problems. Many call him “Jesus Christ,” and those deciding to follow him often call themselves “Christians” or “Jesus followers.” The labels are not as important as his love and our responses to God’s call in our lives.

We earlier explored stories Jesus told to explain God’s love. What Jesus said and did are also central for understanding the best news we will ever hear. In Jesus, we understand God’s love best.

Jesus was clear about his purpose: “I came so that you can live an excellent life.” Following him is the way to a right relationship with God and the way to deal with our problems (John 10:10; 14:6).

Jesus Christ is the focal point of God’s loving work. He is God’s chosen one, and many call him “the Messiah.” He expressed love consistently in his life, words, death, and – perhaps most surprising – his resurrection from the dead.

Jesus is the center of the good news of God’s love.

Jesus is the Way to Excellent Life

It would take many books to tell Jesus’ full story. But we want to tell some highlights here. These should be enough to explain why decided to follow Jesus. We tell them to encourage you to be a Jesus follower too.

Since the beginning of history, God has been present and expressing love to everyone, all the time. But many people remained confused. They lived in darkness. Many did not understand the depth and extent and nature of God’s love.

Then … Jesus entered history.

Jesus’ coming was like a light emerging in darkness. He was born in a humble place – Bethlehem -- and few people initially knew of his birth. Today, many know. We celebrate Christmas in remembrance of his humble beginning in Bethlehem.

History provides little information about Jesus’ childhood and early life. But in the years that followed his thirtieth birthday, he provided the best representation of God we have ever witnessed.

Jesus loved everyone. He healed the sick and helped the poor. He did amazing miracles to help those in need. He fed the hungry. He loved his enemies. Jesus freed people imprisoned by their own sinful habits, released them from the grip of evil ones, or healed them from sin (Luke 4:14-44).

Jesus was a savior.

Jesus loved so consistently and did such amazing things that his followers believed he was both human and divine. He said things to encourage this belief. For instance, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). (By “Father,” he meant God.) He also said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9).

Followers of Jesus’ way saw the connection between Jesus, God, and the life of love. Paul, for instance, advises followers to “imitate God, as those who are loved, and live lives of love, in the way Jesus loved” (Ephesians 5:1). When we imitate God, we love like Jesus. And when we imitate Jesus, we love like God.

Jesus invited those he met to follow him. In fact, when he began his public life of loving service, he said to his listeners, “follow me” (Mark 1:17). People have been following Jesus’ way of love ever since.

Jesus provides the best example of how we should live.

Jesus announces God’s loving leadership.

The message Jesus delivered focused often on God’s loving leadership.  He called this leadership, “the kingdom of God.”

Jesus’ first recorded words of public ministry sum up his message: “The kingdom of God is at hand; change your way of life and believe this good news!” (Mark 1:15) Those who believed found their lives transformed. God’s loving leadership became a reality for them.

Jesus told his listeners to make God’s loving leadership top priority (Matthew 6:10, 33). The kingdom of God is more desirable than anything else. It is like a treasure in a field for which someone sells everything to buy the field to get the treasure.

God’s loving leadership is also like a beautiful and expensive pearl for which a person sells all possessions to buy (Matthew 13:44-46). Allowing God’s loving leadership guide our lives is worth giving up everything. Whoever loses his life for God’s sake will gain an excellent life in exchange.

To illustrate the kingdom of God, Jesus said it is like a little mustard seed growing into a huge plant. It becomes fruitful in unexpected ways. God’s love changes lives, heals, liberates, and empowers us to turn from sin and evil. We are not the same when we follow God’s loving leadership. We are transformed.

Jesus taught that we should cooperate with God’s loving leadership wherever we find it. It ought to be the focus of our individual lives, our communities, and larger societies.

We should not exclude any part of ourselves or existence from God’s loving leadership.

Jesus heals us from sin.

An angel told Jesus’ mother the objective of his life. “He will save the people from their sins,” the angel said. Saving people from sin is part of what it means to heal them and provide an excellent life.

Critics sometimes criticized Jesus for being a friend to sinners. He ate with sinful people, walked with them, and spent time in their homes. He cared more about being helpful than about having a good reputation. He entered the messiest and bleakest situations to help people with problems.

On one occasion, Jesus’ critics brought him a woman for judgment. The woman was found having sex with someone to whom she was not married. Instead of condemning her, Jesus had compassion. He forgave her and said, “Go and sin no more.”

Another man, Zaccheus, robbed people by charging extra taxes. Just about everyone hated him. Jesus, however, chose to be his friend. He ate dinner with Zaccheus. Because of this friendship, Zaccheus changed his behavior. He began a new life of generosity and repayment.

Jesus not only saved from sin those he met long ago. He continues to save from sin today. He calls everyone to leave sinful ways and enjoy the excellent life that comes from living in love. He heals from sin those who ask.

At the end of his life, Jesus’ critics nailed him to a tree. He was punished for no good reason. A true criminal hang beside him. The criminal asked Jesus to forgive him, in the name of God. Jesus did immediately. God always forgives those who ask.

God forgives sins today. God will forgive your sins and ours. God forgives even the worst things we have ever done.

Nothing we have done is too big or too bad for God to forgive.

We find that asking God to forgive us brings a sense of peace that surpasses complete understanding. When we say, “God, I’m sorry for what I’ve done,” or “I’m sorry for causing so many problems,” a heavy burden lifts from our shoulders. We feel release.

The best word we know to describe this feeling is “joy.” We feel joyful!

God not only forgives. God makes it possible for us to live a very different life. We can be healed from the destruction of sins we committed. God begins healing the pain others inflicted on us too.

The excellent life Jesus provides involves becoming free from the devastating effects of our own sin. We can be free from bondage to evil habits. Bad habits destroy us and others in the world. God gets us out of the mess we have created for ourselves.

God calls and empowers us to live a life free from the chains of sin!

God suffers with us and transforms our lives.

We not only benefit from Jesus’ life. We also benefit from his death. And we benefit from the good news that God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 5:8).

This news is shocking. But it’s true. Even death cannot stop God’s love!

Despite loving everyone consistently, Jesus was betrayed. One of his followers – Judas – assisted those who wanted Jesus dead. After an absurd trial, he was condemned to death.

Jesus was killed like a common criminal of his day – soldiers nailed him to a wooden cross.  He suffered and died there. It was tragic.

Jesus was dead nearly three days. He lay lifeless in a cold tomb. But God raised him from the dead. Jesus was resurrected!

God validated Jesus’ life and words of love by giving him life again. Jesus was vindicated in the face of his critics and enemies. God gave him the divine stamp of approval.

Jesus’ followers still consider his death and resurrection important. His death reminds us that, in an important sense, we must also die. Jesus’ followers must go through a spiritual death to their sinful ways so God can resurrect them to live life to the fullest. Jesus’ resurrection gives us hope that love – not death or evil – will have the last word.

Christians use various descriptions for how Jesus’ death benefits us. Some say he gave his life as a ransom for us (verse). Jesus took our sins upon himself so that we can be right with God (2 Corinthians 5:21). His death reconciled creation to its Creator (Ephesians 2:16). All of these descriptions and others proclaim the truth that Jesus died “for our sake” (Romans). We benefit.

Jesus’ suffering on the cross reveals that God feels pain and cares deeply. In Jesus, God experiences the kind of suffering we experience. God is the fellow-suffer who understands our problems and pain. God empathizes with us.

But God also overcomes suffering. The resurrection of Jesus gives us hope that our own problems and the widespread problems of life can be overcome. Overcoming problems is something that begins now and continues after we die.

God has already overcome some of our problems. We believe others will be overcome in the future.

Jesus’ followers remember his death and resurrection today by eating bread and drinking from a cup together. Just before he died, Jesus ate this simple meal with his followers.  He said the bread and wine they consumed were his broken body and shed blood. He asked his followers to remember him every time they ate and drank together.

Christians celebrate today by eating this same simple meal. They call it “Eucharist,” “communion,” or “the Lord’s supper.” The shared meal becomes a powerful event for God to overcome some of our problems.

We not only benefit from Jesus’ past death, we also benefit from God’s presence with us here and now.

Jesus invites us to respond to God.

From the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus called his listeners to respond to his message of love. Today, God calls you and me to respond.

We must choose to follow Jesus. We must choose to live a life of love.

What Jesus said long ago applies to us: “Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be open” (Matthew 7:7). God gives good gifts to those who ask (Matthew 7:11).  These gifts involve living an excellent life. As we seek God’s loving leadership, these good gifts will be given to us.

We – the authors of the book you are now reading – have asked for that excellent life. And we have received it. We have decided to follow Jesus. We asked forgiveness for our sins, and we enjoy living lives transformed from bad to good. God’s loving leadership brings us joy!

God invites you, us, and everyone to cooperate with God’s work to transform our lives and the world in which we live. We must play a role in God’s work to overcome our problems and give us new life. We must ask for and accept God’s loving leadership.

When we say “Yes” to God’s invitation, our lives have genuine meaning and real purpose. Saying “Yes” doesn’t mean we now know the answers to every question. But living in God’s loving leadership provides a way to make sense of life. It gives life real meaning.

God invites us to a life free from the ruin of our sins. That life makes it possible to live in harmony with others – as much harmony depends on us.

The excellent life God provides helps us escape the problems that arise when we act selfishly. We can live for the common good, not our own selfish desires. This is life in community, enjoying mutual affection, and expressing brotherly and sisterly love.

An Excellent Life Continues after We Die

Like most people, followers of Jesus believe we continue existing after our hearts stop beating. In some way or another, we go on having personal experiences after our bodies die.

The good news is that God not only guides us to live an excellent life now.  God also offers us a good life after our bodies die! Our personal experiences after death can be even more excellent than when our bodies were alive. The word most people use to describe this good afterlife is “heaven.”

Earlier we read Jesus’ words that “God loved the world so much that he gave his only son.” Whoever believes in the son will not die spiritually. That person can enjoy an excellent life (John 3:1-16).

This excellent life entails a good quality of living that begins now. But we can continue to enjoy a good life in the afterlife. God cares about lives here and now. But God also makes possible an excellent life after our bodies stop working.

We have seen that choosing sin causes huge problems. Choosing other than love causes destruction. It results in spiritual death.

The same is true in the afterlife. Choosing other than love causes “wailing and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:29-30). The life of disobedience to God’s loving leadership leads to a dark existence -- both now and later. Christians often call this miserable experience “hell.”

Our hope for a good life here and now is God’s loving leadership. Our hope for a better society and planet is God’s loving leadership. Our hope for a good life after our bodies die – heaven -- is also God’s loving leadership.

God’s love is our hope here and now and forever!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

28 Comments

Why I Love the Church—and (usually) Like it Too

Not long ago, author Ann Rice said she has decided to “quit being a Christian.” Her decision prompted many to ponder the current state of Christianity and the church.

I’ve been thinking lately about these issues too. I can understand why Rice would say she’s “committed to Christ” but “it’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”

Christians have sometimes not acted lovingly. They have sometimes seemed more intent on settling petty disputes than following God’s loving leadership.

I don’t know if Christians personally attack Rice. But I know from personal experience such attack can be demoralizing. It tempts one to paint all Christians and Christianity itself, as she puts it, “quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous.” Christians can be so cruel to fellow Christians.

In contrast to Rice, I recently reaffirmed my commitment to the group known as Christians and the beliefs of Christianity. I cast my lot with this sometimes ragged crowd of fellow adventurers.

I don’t deny that some Christians display the negative traits she lists. But I think there are good reasons to remain part of the Christian community.

I remain in the church partly because I think it’s important to affirm beliefs in common. For instance, I believe what Christians call “the Apostle’s creed.” I believe the articles of faith from my own denomination, the Church of the Nazarene.

Of course, were ten Christians to sit down and write a list of statements they each believed, we’d find ten different lists. Even though Christians share much in common, they also think and believe differently. Both unity and diversity exist.

For instance, I teach theology with some great university colleagues. We agree on many things. But we also disagree amongst ourselves. On some issues, we agree to disagree … peacefully.

I can’t imagine what it would be like to be “locked in” to believing the exact same things throughout a lifetime. I don’t agree with everything I once believed … even everything I only recently believed!

There is great power, however, in believing statements in common. There is great power in working as a community to reshape those beliefs in language that makes sense to each generation. Theology is dynamic, not static. When done well, it’s a community project.

At its best, the church is a loving household of faith. Family relationships themselves sometimes need to be the glue that keeps together those who don’t believe everything in common.  Common worship and shared Eucharist are also important for maintaining unity.

At their best, Christians build one another up. They support one another, even when they disagree. They act as saints who care for their brothers and sisters and for those outside the community of believers. Christians express mutual affection, and they act for the common good.

Christians don’t always act their best, however. Instead of building up, they tear one another down. Instead of standing for the way of love, they fearfully defend ideas and practices that were once helpful but are less so today. They sin instead of live lives of love.

One of my favorite professors as a graduate student compared the church to Noah’s ark. “So many different animals could generate a lot of manure,” he said. “But it’s better floating in a boat with animals than drowning in the ocean alone.”

I choose to remain in the church, even though it and its members have very real problems. After all, I too have problems. My choice to remain sometimes causes my family and me great heartache. Sometimes people say things that literally make me cry. Sometimes I feel ill when I’m around people who have hurt me or say things I think are foolish and I cannot believe.

But the church and her people are also the ones who have taught me most about God and about living abundant life. Christians have been the most positive role models for me. They have loved me despite my sin and ignorance. Saints have worked with God to influence me in profoundly positive ways.

I love the church, so I reaffirm my commitment to contribute to her well-being.

I also like the church – most of the time, at least.

I enjoy traveling with others on the road of life, seeking to imitate the way of love expressed by our community’s leader: Jesus.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

11 Comments

Something Has Gone Wrong!

This third chapter of the book I'm co-writing was harder to construct. Talking about the sources of evil isn't as easy as I thought it would be. It was especially hard knowing how best to talk about Satan and demons.

My coauthor, Bob Luhn, and I wrote several drafts of the Satan and demons section.

In many cultures, the demonic plays an important role in how people make sense of their experience. We plan to distribute copies of our completed book around the world, especially to those in Africa. So addressing the demonic is important.

In most communities in the U.S. and Europe, however, the idea of individual beings called "demons" and a ruler of demons called "Satan" is not so prevalent. In these settings, people are quite aware of the powers and consequences of evil, of course. They just don’t usually think the source of such evil are evil invisible beings.

There are many theories why “first world” and “third world” cultures are different in this way, some theories more plausible than others. You’ll see in this chapter that we don't attempt to offer reasons for this difference.

The New Testament speaks of demons, Satan, and the demonic fairly often. Jesus seemed to think such beings existed. The Old Testament, however, rarely refers to such beings. Those instances we commonly believe are referring to Satan (e.g., the serpent in the garden or the story of Job) don't actually name him. Some scholars don’t think Israel had a developed theory of Satan until they were taken into captivity and were influenced by other religious traditions.

It’s all pretty complicated. A number of approaches to the subject seem legitimate. In the end, we tried to be true to what we thought was both biblically justified and helpful today. Let us know how you think we did.

You'll see we also talk a bit about what is often called "natural evil." While we don't offer a full-blown solution to the problem of evil, readers may get an idea what we might and might not think are good answers to the vexing issue of why our loving and almighty God doesn't prevent genuine evils. Someday I hope to write a whole book on this subject aimed at a wide audience.

As usual, we'd like to hear your feedback. When offering your thoughts, remember that we're writing for a broad audience. And we want to write a fairly small book...

Something Has Gone Wrong

God always and extravagantly loves you, us, and all creation. God created all things long ago and continues to create today. So…

Why are there so many problems?

Why does pain, suffering, death, and evil occur? Why do we get sick, become confused, or hurt ourselves and others? Why are we victims of hurricanes, drought, tornados, floods, volcanic eruptions, and unexpected extreme temperatures?

And why do we do bad things? Why do we lie, cheat, and steal? Why do we murder, steal, rape, and torture? Why do we hate, gossip, and become addicted?

If a good God created a good world with good creatures, why are things sometimes bad?

The First Answer

Humans have wondered why life has problems since the beginning. The Bible provides several answers.

The first answer comes near the start of the Bible. The book of Genesis says God created a good world, and it offers a story to answer why we have so many problems. The story is about two humans named Adam and Eve.

God created Adam and Eve and asked them to care for the earth, plants, and animals. But God warned Adam and Eve not to eat fruit from one of the trees. Eating fruit from this tree, said God, results in death.

One day, a serpent talked with Eve about the forbidden fruit. The serpent said, “You will not die if you eat this fruit. In fact,” said the serpent, “eating this fruit will make you like God.”

Eve believed this lie and ate the fruit. She gave some fruit to Adam, and he ate it.

Almost as soon as they had eaten, Adam and Eve felt regret. They were ashamed of their disobedience, and they tried to hide. They were afraid God would be angry.

God asked Adam, “Have you eaten from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?"

Adam did not want to take the blame for disobeying. “It is not really my fault,” he said. “You gave me a partner, Eve. She gave me fruit from the tree.”

Eve quickly defended herself, “The serpent lied to me, and I ate.” She also did not want to be blamed for disobeying.

Hearing this, God was sad.

God knew negative consequences come from disobedience. Spiritual death comes to those who choose to do other than love as God asks. God said, “Because you have done this, I know you will be under a curse” (Genesis 2).

Throughout history to the present, those who disobey God experience the curse disobedience brings. Disobedience causes harm of many sorts. Disobedience is the main reason we have problems today.

At its heart, this story says creatures – not their Creator – are the source of life’s problems. We should not blame God for bad things or for problems we face.

Much later in the Bible, James says God is not the source of evil. In fact, God is not even the source of temptation. The true sources of our temptation, says James, are our natural desires. Problems arise when we follow our natural desires in improper ways. When we act improperly, we fail to do what God wants.

Our Biggest Problems Come from Failing to Love

God calls us all to live lives of love. When we choose to live otherwise, we and others suffer.

Paul uses an agricultural analogy to talk about the consequences of our choices. “You reap whatever you sow,” he says. If you plant your life in fulfilling natural desires improperly, you will reap spiritual death. But if you plant your life in fulfilling your desires as God desires, you will reap abundant life.

Paul concludes his analogy by counseling his readers:  “Let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time. So do not give up.” Whenever we have an opportunity, he says, “let us work for the good of all…” (Galatians 6:7-10).

Jesus told a story about the negative consequences that come to those who do bad. He said obedient and disobedient people could be divided in two groups, like a shepherd divides sheep from the goats.

In Jesus’ story, the sheep are blessed. They live a good life, because they help others. They feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, care for the sick, and visit prisoners. Those who act in these ways demonstrate God’s loving reign in their lives.

The goats, however, live cursed lives. They disobey and do not do good. They do not help the members of God’s family or creation. They do not demonstrate God’s loving reign.

Jesus concludes by saying the sheep enjoy eternal life. But the goats endure punishment (Matt. 25:31-46).

Our biggest problems in life come from failing to love as God asks us to love. When we do what God asks, we gain the joy that comes from an excellent life. If we do not love, everyone suffers.

We all have disobeyed. Adam and Eve are not the only people who disobey God. We have all acted like goats sometimes. We all have sown our seeds – our lives – improperly.

“Sin” is the word that best describes disobeying God. The Bible talks a lot about sin, because the Bible examines the problems we find in life.

In his letter to Jesus’ later followers, Paul says, “everyone has sinned and falls short of God’s glory” (Romans 3:23). To sin is to fail to do the loving best God asks. To put it plainly: to sin is to fail to love as God wants us to love. This is disobedience.

The consequences of sin are destructive. Sin always leads to spiritual death and sometimes to physical death (Romans 6:23). Sin makes our lives and the world worse than it would have been had we responded rightly to God’s call to love. Sin destroys.

The most profound sadness and harm we experience often come from our own sin. Our spiritual death is our own doing.

Good People Sometimes Have Problems

Not all our problems come from our own disobedience, however. One story in the Bible addresses this issue directly. It is the story of a man named Job.

The story begins with a strange conversation between God and the evil one. God says, “Have you noticed Job, my good and faithful servant?  He always obeys and loves.  He is a good man and example of virtue.”

The evil one replied, “Job only obeys you, because he knows avoiding sin leads to an excellent live.  But if Job were to experience pain and suffering, he would curse you.”

God answered, “I doubt you are right about Job.”

In an attempt to prove his point, the evil one inflicted misery, pain, and suffering on Job. Job’s crops failed, his animals died, and his children were even killed. His life was miserable.

Job was not living a happy life! 

Despite these problems, Job remained faithful to God. He continued to obey God’s leading. He lived like a loving son committed to a loving Father.

Job’s friends thought only those who sin undergo pain and suffering. They believed Job must be disobeying God to be experiencing such misfortune. Even Job’s wife suggested he curse God and kill himself to end his suffering.

Job did not follow his wife and friend’s advice. He remained faithful to God and avoided sin. He continued to live a life of obedient love.

This story has a happy end. The evil one did not prevail. Job endured the problems, and God restored his life. Job eventually resumed his happy life.

The moral of this story is that good people sometimes suffer because of what others do. Our own bad decisions are not always the source of our pain. Problems can come to those who do right.

At the time of Jesus’ birth, a jealous king named Herod tried to eliminate the infant Jesus. Herod feared Jesus would grow up to rival his throne.  So Herod gave orders to kill all the little boys in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born. 

None of those little boys deserved death.  Their families were not reaping the consequences of their bad choices. And yet these people suffered greatly because of someone else’s evil.

What we do – good or bad – influences others. We are interrelated. This means that we sometimes suffer because of someone else’s bad choices. Our pain is not our own doing.

We Have Spiritual Enemies

The Bible also tells us we have an enemy who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (I Peter 5:8).  Biblical writers call this enemy a variety of names: tempter, accuser, liar, Satan, evil one, and the Devil who has been sinning from the beginning.  The Bible also talks about “fallen angels” who carry out evil schemes. 

Satan tempted Jesus to disobey God. We are also tempted in this way. The Bible says Satan, not God, is sometimes the source of the temptations we feel.

Biblical writers attribute many evils to Satan. For instance, Luke reports that Satan crippled a woman for eighteen years (Luke 13:16). But Jesus healed that woman. Jesus encountered other people whom Satan influenced so much they were “possessed” or owned by evil (Matthew 7:6; 9:32).

The followers of Jesus battled the demonic realm. Paul experienced torment, and he called it a messenger of Satan (II Cor. 12:7). When he tried to return to visit one church, he said Satan stopped him (I Thess. 2:8).

Jesus and his followers faithfully followed God. But they faced temptation and torment from evil ones. Sometimes, the Bible says Satan even thwarts the plans of those who mean to do good.

We have real enemies who tempt us to disobey God. They try to persuade us not to live a life of love. According to the Bible, these evil ones are sometimes the source of pain, sickness, and suffering.

Sometimes Nature is the Problem

Sometimes our problems come from nonhuman sources, like extreme weather, disease, and volcanic eruptions. Natural evil occurs on our planet.

The writers of Genesis describe the negative effects Adam and Eve’s sin had upon creation itself. Their sin even affected the soil God had created. Although still capable of producing fruit, the soil became cursed and produced weeds that choked some good plants.

Sometimes our pain and suffering come from no choice at all. Evil simply comes from accidental events or random mutations.

Jesus acknowledges that some of problems come from random malfunctions in the created order. He and his followers once met a man blind from birth.  His followers assumed someone’s bad choice was to blame. They asked Jesus, “Whose sin caused this blindness? Was it the man’s or his parents?”

Jesus replied, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned” (John 9:1-3). Jesus was saying sometimes bad things just happen. Things don’t always function correctly.

Jesus mentions other such accidents – what might be called “natural evils” – that are not anyone’s fault (see, for instance, Luke 13:4). Sometimes bad things happen without warning. Droughts and famine occur periodically.  Diseases mutate and spread across the world killing thousands, even millions.  Innocent babies get sick and die.

Paul describes the problem by saying the good creation has been “subjected to frustration.” He says that creation itself longs for the day when it “will be liberated from its bondage to decay” (Romans 8:20-21).

God Works to Squeeze Something Good from Bad

Why would a good creation created by a good God cause these natural problems?

Part of the answer is that sometimes good comes from pain and suffering.  Sometimes we need harsh weather to kill viruses, for instance.  Sometimes volcanic eruptions are needed to replenish the soil with nutrients.

God inspired the writers of the Bible to remind us that good can come from suffering.

Paul says this in his letter to the Romans: “We know that suffering produces patience, and patience produces character, and character gives us hope. And our hope will not disappoint us, because it is based on the love God has given us” (Romans 5:3-5).

The natural obstacles we face can sometimes help us mature.

But we should not think that all pain and suffering was meant to make us or our world better. Some evil is pointless. Some evil comes from our sinful disobedience.

We do not need to think that all natural disasters are ultimately good. A loving God is not the source of all problems hurricanes, drought, disease, and eruptions cause. God does not need sin so goodness can increase.

Unfortunately, some people say God causes all these problems. They think God sends or allows evil to test us. Sometimes people say God sends our problems for some greater good. We don’t need to agree with this.

Instead of saying God causes or allows problems, we believe God squeezes some good out of problems God did not want in the first place. God redeems.

God works to bring good from the problems we and others cause. But this doesn’t mean God planned these problems from the beginning or caused them in the present. God does good, not evil.

Paul talks about this when he says, “God works for good in the midst of everything that happens. God invites those who love him to join the work to bring about good. This is part of God’s purpose for our lives” (Romans 6:28).

No matter how bad things get, God is with us. God feels our pain and suffering. God works for good in the midst of bad. And God calls us to join in this rescuing work.

When We Are the Problem

To this point, we have seen that sometimes the source of our problems is our sin and the sins of others. Sometimes evil ones cause problems. Sometimes we experience pain and suffering because of destructive natural events in our world.

We’ve also emphasized that God is love. God is not the source of our problems. Our loving God wants to help in the midst of pain and suffering.

These answers are important. But we need to add yet another dimension to the question of why we have problems. Perhaps we might best introduce this dimension by asking you a few questions:

Have you ever done something that hurt another person? Have you said something unkind? Have you failed to love? 

If you’re honest, we’re sure you answered “yes” to at least one of the questions.  And we wonder if you find yourself asking, “Why do I act like that? Why is it hard to love people on a consistent basis?  Why can’t I just be good all the time?”

Behind our words, actions, and attitudes lies something deeper.  The Bible describes this with several phrases. Sometimes it is called a “sinful nature.” Other times it is called “the flesh” or “sin living in me.”

We are not just people who sin occasionally or fail to love from time to time. We have actually become sinners. Sin has so controlled our lives that it has become our identity: sinful is who we are. Sin has become habitual.

On one hand, we are made in God’s image and God deems us good. On the other hand, we all have sinned, and disobeying God has become a habit. Sin so dominates that we became bad people despite being created to do good.

Paul describes this dimension:

     “I feel controlled by my sinful habits. Maybe this is the best way to put it: I’m a slave to sin! The things I don’t want to do, I end up doing. The good I want to do, I don’t do. I hate it!”

     “The powerful habits of sin rule me. I don’t feel like I’m myself! I really do want to live the life of love. But I feel a hostage to the habits of improper pleasure and selfishness. In my mind, I know God’s law of love is right. But the habits of sin hold me captive.”

     “I’m dying here! Who can help me out of this mess?” (Romans 7:13-25)

We’ve got problems. We’ve all got problems. Sometimes those problems are not our own doing.

But the problems that suck the life from us almost always originate from ourselves. Sometimes we are the problem.

Who can help us out of this mess?

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under

Add comment

Comments

11 Comments

From Big Tent to Networks

Participating in the recent Big Tent Christianity gathering was an enriching experience. I realized anew how much I share in common with Christians of other traditions, despite our real differences.

The Larger Gathering

Two Big Tent Christianity gatherings met simultaneously. My contribution to the larger gathering came as the final ten-minute talk of the event. Thirty-four folks had spoken previously! The crowd was undoubtedly suffering from information and inspiration fatigue. Yet, those remaining listened sympathetically to my voice.

I spoke about my own tribe – the Church of the Nazarene – and my own journey. I talked about differences and similarities I see in the body of Christ today.

My primary message was simple: love unites us as Christians despite our differing opinions on many things. It was a message I have learned through many experiences, and one shared by John Wesley in his sermon “Catholic Spirit.”

The Smaller Gathering

I spent most of my time during the three days with a smaller gathering of leaders.  Leading the group were Brian McLaren and Philip Clayton.

Although the group was diverse in many ways, I was one of the few in attendance who accepts the label “Evangelical.” Despite being in the minority in that respect, I felt very welcomed by the group.

We talked about many things, some of which have been given the label “emergent/emerging church.” My sense is that what Phyllis Tickle calls “the great emergence” is still under way. That is, a large number of people both inside and outside the church hunger for a new experience and understanding of God. We are in a transitional age.

I include myself among those looking for a “third way” beyond the usual approaches to issues of concern today. For instance, I look for a third way beyond “conservative” and “liberal.”

Inspirational Metaphors              

Often during hours of conversation, I pondered the metaphors that might prove most helpful to inspire us to cooperate with God. I thought about the language we should use as we respond to the work of transformation to which the Spirit calls and empowers.

The conference metaphor – Big Tent – has advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that it invites us to think about how different people and groups could join together under common beliefs. A disadvantage, however, is that we often wonder how big the tent needs to be to include diverse views on theology, social issues, and Christians practices. In effect, we ask, “Who is under this big tent, and who must we leave out in the rain?”

An alternative metaphor discussed by the group was the great Yellowstone fire.  Many years ago, raging fire destroyed Yellowstone’s forests and grasslands.  The green shoots that emerged after the fire, however, renewed Yellowstone to its glory. In a similar way, we often need fire to destroy aspects of the church – especially its institutions – to bring about new creation. We need new wineskins.

A disadvantage of the fire metaphor, however, is that it seems to presuppose that nothing valuable now exists in Christian institutional structures worth preserving. I disagree with that presupposition, because I see so much that is useful in the church as it now exists.

A less dramatic metaphor is the idea of creating new hospitals on the sites of current ones. One might say the work of the church is to build new hospitals with many of the materials of current hospitals, all the while continuing the work of healing patients.

Networks Create a Web

The metaphor I like best has to do with networks that create a gigantic web. This metaphor says people and organizations connect with one another for common purposes. Personal relationships and shared concerns bond Christians of diverse persuasions in the work of God in the world. These networks of relations form a gigantic web of love endeavors.

Particular nodes on the network extend relations with other nodes on the web. These other nodes extend relations to still more nodes. On it goes. In this way, we build bridges to many, many groups of our own choosing -- without constraining other groups to work only with those we would choose.

The web grows huge, as God does far more than we could ever think or imagine.

A Third Way

I left the Big Tent Christianity gathering encouraged and challenged. I was encouraged by testimonies to the work of God in Christian groups and people outside my own denomination/tribe and outside Evangelicalism. I was challenged to help those in my own tribe work with the Spirit in this age of transition. God is doing a new thing!

I am proud of so many aspects of my own tradition. I don’t want to see it burned to the ground so that new growth can emerge. But I also believe much in my tradition could be improved.

I encourage others to join me – no matter their traditions, but especially those in the Evangelical world – in embracing the work of the Spirit occurring both within and beyond our usual realms of engagement.

A new Christian movement – a third way – seems to be gaining momentum. I invite others to join with me in following God’s leading to discern how we might participate in that movement.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Postmodern Philosophy, Theology, and Culture

Add comment

Comments

8 Comments

Presenting the Gospel - Ch. 2

The second chapter of the book I'm co-writing speaks of God as Creator. Like the first chapter, I'm hopeful the writing is accessible and the arguments winsome.

I thank those who made comments on the first chapter. I found them helpful. Of course, no book can appeal to absolutely everyone.

Only particular audiences will find our book attractive.  We are not appealing to the "cultured despisers of religion," to use Schleiermacher's phrase.  Instead, we're appealing to those without much higher education. We think this crowd needs a book that presents the gospel in a straightforward and understandable way.

I look forward to hearing your comments on this chapter...

Chapter Two - God is a Good Creator

God Creates a Good Universe

“In the beginning, God created the earth, stars, and galaxies” (Genesis 1:1).  This is the first sentence of the Bible. Without going into details, it tells us God is our Creator.

After hovering over the waters and formless materials, God created all things. God repeatedly calls “good” whatever he creates. The heavens, light, earth, skies, animals, seas, plants, and people are all very good (Genesis 1:31).

In the creating process, God asks creatures to “bring forth” others. Those whom God creates are to “be fruitful” and “multiply.” Our good God calls upon creatures created good to join in creating more good creation. It is an amazing project!

The book of Genesis places special emphasis upon God’s creating humans. The first two chapters report that God makes male and female humans for nurturing companionship with one another. They are created in the image of God. And God asks them to take a special role in caring for the rest of creation.

After this original creative activity, God rested for a day. This day of rest is considered holy. Resting occasionally is something God asks us to do too. We need to take a break periodically. Too much work is not good for us.

The Beauty of Creation

If we look around our world, we can see God’s creative activity still active today. One of the songs in the Bible puts it like this: “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies show God’s handiwork” (Psalm 19:1).

The beauty and complexity of creation evokes awe. Many people feel compelled to erupt in worship and praise God.  Another songwriter puts it this way:

       When I consider your galaxies,
       the work of your fingers,
       the moon and the stars,
       which you have set in place,

       I am amazed you focus your attention on tiny humans!
       I am amazed that you care for our children!

       You made humans a little lower than the heavenly beings
       and crowned them with glory and honor.

       You put humans in charge of caring for all you made.
       You put creation under their loving supervision:

       all flocks and herds,
       and the beasts of the field,

       the birds of the air,
       and the fish of the sea,
       all that swim the paths of the seas.

       O LORD, our Lord,
       how majestic is your name in all the earth!  (Psalms 8:3-9)

God – who made all creation – is our source of help in time of trouble. Another song in the Bible celebrates God as creator and our helper with these words:

       I lift up my eyes to the hills

       where does my help come from?

       My help comes from the Lord,

       the Maker of heaven and earth.  (Psalm 121:1-2)

The one who created and continues to create all things cares about us. God wants to help us in our time of trouble. It is amazing!

Creation Points to God as Loving Creator

One of the most important early Jesus followers, a man named Paul, says creation points to God. Creation gives us clues about the kind of God who created all things.

“Since the creation of the world,” Paul says, “God's invisible qualities—God’s eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen. Creation reveals these invisible qualities. So humans already know something about God” (Romans 1:19-20).

Creation tells everyone who will look and ponder that God exists.

Perhaps the most important thing creation tells us is God loves us. An early follower of Jesus named James says God is not only creator but also the source of all good:

“Every good and beneficial gift is from above,” says James, “These gifts come to us from the Father of the heavenly lights. God’s love does not change like shifting shadows. God gave us a second birth through the word of truth.  We are like the first fruit of all God created” (James 1:17-18).

Those who are born again are creatures who especially witness to God’s love. They are living evidence – first fruit – of God’s love at work in creation.

God loves those who do good. But Jesus tells us God also loves those who do evil. God loves those who want to be friends and those who consider themselves enemies of God. To love in this way is to do good to others.

When Jesus instructs his listeners to love all others, he uses nature to talk about God’s love. “God causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). God does good to everyone!

God is still in the business of creating and doing good. Another songwriter whose words are in the Bible prays to God. He says, “When you send your Spirit, they are created. You renew the face of the earth” (Psalms 104:30). Every creature -- from humans to ants and beyond -- depends upon God’s creative and sustaining presence.

This creating continues in a special way for those who say “yes” to God. We saw in the last chapter Jesus said those who say “yes” to God are born a second time. They experience new birth.

The Bible says God can make us “new creations.” Paul says that for such people, “the old has gone and the new has come.” God has made a right relationship possible for us as new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17-18). God continues to create and call creation “good.”

Creation and Science

Some statements in the Bible may seem strange today. They do not sound like scientific statements. Scientists are not likely to talk about God creating when writing their scientific articles and books. Science and the Bible do not always go about things the same way.

Some people think they have to choose between what the Bible says about God and creation or what science says about the universe. They think they should either believe God created the world and continues to create. Or they should believe what scientists call the big bang and evolution of life.

We think we can choose both. We can believe the Bible’s words about creation. And we can affirm the best work of science.

The Bible gives a true and faithful witness to God as the creator. The Bible talks about who created – God (with creatures joining in). And the Bible tells us what was created – all things. It gives us clues as to why we exist and why there is so much beauty and love.

But we also think science can give a true and faithful witness about the world. Science gives us a natural account of how things come to be and how they exist. It gives us part of the answer to the “why” question. It doesn’t address the God issues. But science can help us live more safely and effectively.

We might sum up the differences between the Bible and science like this: The Bible tells us how to find abundant life. It does not tell us scientific details about how life became abundant. The Bible also tells us how to go to heaven. It does not provide the science to tell us how the heavens go.

Science and the Bible are not enemies. We consider them partners for helping us discover truth about who God is and what God’s good creation is like.

Together, science and the Bible can help us sing these words with the Psalmist:

       The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies show God’s handiwork!

       O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

26 Comments

Implications of Inerrancy

In anticipation of the 2011 conference, The Bible Tells Me So, I recently blogged about errors and inconsistencies I’ve discovered in the Bible. My main point was that the Bible doesn’t have to be in all ways inerrant for God to use it when offering us salvation.

I appreciate the responses I’ve received to my earlier blog on biblical inerrancy. They have pushed me to think in new ways.

There is another reason Christian scholars are uncomfortable using the word “inerrant” regarding the Bible.  The Bibles we read today did not come directly from original manuscripts or autographs.

As far as we know, those original copies no longer exist. The Bibles we today read have been translated from various bits and pieces of scripture. The oldest manuscripts available were printed centuries after the books were originally written.

The issue of original biblical manuscripts gets a twist when we consider the books Christians generally call the “Old Testament.”  These books were written in Hebrew.  By the time of Jesus, however, Jews were no longer speaking Hebrew.  Instead, Jesus and others spoke Aramaic and Greek. 

Hebrew words of the original Old Testament writings did not have vowels.  It was not until centuries after Jesus was resurrected that a group of individuals called the Maserites invented and inserted a system of vowels in the Hebrew text.  The biblical Hebrew we have today is partly the result of their work. 

This means that the texts used to translate the books of the Old Testament were altered long ago.  And even if the “autographs” were miraculously found in some cave, knowing exactly how each word should be translated would be impossible.

So… how have Christians dealt with these issues over the centuries?

I find it helpful to remember that contemporary Christians are not the first to acknowledge that the Bible has inconsistencies and errors. Many important Christian leaders in history acknowledged that the Bible is not inerrant. 

Take the great 16^th century reformer Martin Luther, for instance.  Most would argue that Luther -- who argued for “scripture alone” -- had a high regard for the Bible.  Yet, he was quite critical of some of it. 

For instance, Luther argued …

(1) God’s prophets in the Old Testament were sometimes in error,

(2) the book of Kings is more reliable than the book of Chronicles,

(3) the book of Esther should have probably been left out of the Bible,

(4) not all the Gospels are of equal value,

(5) the writer of Hebrews erred when he said that there is no possibility of a second repentance,

(6) the author of James “mangles scripture” and the whole book should be burned like worthless straw,

(7) the book of Revelation reveals nothing. 

Luther does not stand alone in these criticisms.  Most well known Christian theologians from the past join him in at least some.

When confronted with this information and the information I presented in an earlier blog, some of my fundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters argue that the original manuscripts of the Bible are without error.  They admit that the Bibles we use today have errors. But they cling to the claim that the originals were inerrant. 

This, of course, is a claim that is impossible to verify.  As far as we know, the originals do not exist.  

Perhaps more importantly, it is ultimately a worthless claim.  The Bibles we use today were not directly derived from the original manuscripts. 

In other words, “inerrancy,” in this sense, does not describe our Bibles -- or, for that matter, the Bibles used by 99.9% or more Christians who have ever lived. Don’t we ultimately want to know how to best talk about and use the Bibles we have today?   

Because some Christians point to original autographs we don’t have, they fail to assert convincingly the authority of the biblical text we do have.  We end up asking basic questions, “What authority does this Bible have?” “Are our Bibles inspired by God?” “What can we really mean by ‘inerrant’?” These are precisely the kind of questions we’ll be considering at The Bible Tells Me So conference.

In addition, if God thought having an absolutely inerrant Bible was so important, why didn’t God take care to preserve the text from error?  Surely, the God who has the power to deliver a manuscript without the slightest error also has the power to ensure that no errors are inserted or the text changed! 

In my view, the word "inerrancy" directs our attention to the small difficulties in the Bible rather than to the salvation truths of its proclamation.

God has been using Bibles with errors or inconsistencies to offer people throughout history the possibility of abundant life in Christ.  God uses the Bible – flaws and all – to inspire believers to attain a deeper relationship with their Creator.

I think it’s important to consider the errors and inconsistencies and study biblical details. Biblical scholarship of this sort is very important. But I think it’s most important to discover the message of salvation God inspired the authors to write and the Church to proclaim.

The message of salvation isn't based upon and doesn't require an inerrant book.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

2 Comments

A catholic Spirit for a Big Tent

Yes, I know the “c” in the title is not capitalized. I’m using the lowercase letter, because I’ve been thinking about John Wesley’s sermon on catholic spirit in light of the “Big Tent Christianity” event.

Being catholic

Wesley uses an obscure biblical passage to begin what many considered one of his most important sermons, "A Catholic Spirit.” By “catholic,” he means something like “universal church.” (The upper case spelling, “Catholic,” today refers to the Roman Catholic Church.)

The obscure passage Wesley uses is 2 Kings 10:15. Below is the passage as it appears at the beginning of his sermon:

      “And when he left there, [Jehu] met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him, and he greeted him and said to him, “Is your heart right, as my heart is with your heart?” and Jehonadab answered, “It is.” [Jehu said], “If it is, give me your hand.”

With this passage as his text, Wesley begins by saying that we ought to love everyone – family, friends, and enemies. Christians owe “a special love… to those who love God.” The love for sisters and brothers in Christ is especially important. But love ought to rule all our relationships.

Unfortunately, says Wesley, daily experience shows us that not all people practice this kind of love. Christians sometimes do not love other Christians. The main reason for this lack of love: Christians think differently and worship differently from one another.

Christians Think and Worship in Different Ways

Wesley admits such differences in thinking and worship are proper grounds for meeting as different congregations. He understands that we will not see eye to eye, and gathering together in likeminded communities is natural.

But he thinks these differences in thinking and worship should not prevent us from being united in affection for one another: “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?” he asks. “Without a doubt, we may,” he says in answer to his own questions.

To think differently about life and to have worship preferences is part of what it means to be human. In the present life, says Wesley, people will not see all things alike.

Further, he says, none of us can “be assured that all of his own opinions, taken together, are true.”  Like the philosopher Rene Descartes, Wesley knows that we all have been mistaken about our perceptions, views, and opinions. None of us is omniscient.

Given our inherent limitations, the wise Christian “will allow others the same liberty of thinking that he desires they should allow him.” And, says Wesley, the wise person “will no more insist on their embracing his opinions than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs.”

After all, says Wesley, we know that in all ages, people “have differed in nothing more than in their opinions concerning the Supreme Being.” The result is that “in nothing have they more differed from each other, than in the manner of worshipping him.” Even among Christians, says Wesley, “the particular modes of worshipping God are almost as various as among the heathens!”

In love, therefore, we must allow others the freedom to think and worship in ways they feel so convicted.

Love Avoids Extreme Relativism

This does not mean, however, that extreme relativism reigns. (Wesley’s word for “extreme relativism” was “latitudinarianism.”)

Each person ought to have strong convictions about which ideas and theologies he or she thinks is best. Each person ought to have convictions about worship styles and modes. And each ought to follow those convictions.

Having a catholic spirit does not mean abandoning all personal convictions and beliefs. A person with a catholic spirit, says Wesley, may be “clearly convinced that this manner of worshipping God is both scriptural and rational.” In fact, such a person may believe that in the entire world there are no better particular views and forms of worship than his or hers!

Wesley was also against the idea that a Christian could thrive outside Christian community. Each person should participate in and be a member of a local congregation. And believing one congregation was better than another was a natural part of being people with preferences.

And … theology really matters.

In a section of the sermon 800 words long, Wesley reels off a series of theological questions that matter. Those questions range from “Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?” to “Are you more afraid of displeasing God than either of death or hell?” to “Do you love as yourself, all mankind without exception?”

Wesley gives no specific answers to these questions. He offers answers in his hundreds of other sermons and writings. The answers we give these questions, thinks Wesley, really make a difference.

To have one’s heart right with another, and to give one’s hand to another, says Wesley, entails a few things. He lists these by using himself as the object of concern:

1. 1. Love me. “Love me with a very tender affection, as a friend that is closer than a brother, as a brother in Christ,” he says. “Love me as a companion in the kingdom and patience of Jesus, and a joint heir of his glory.” In particular, says Wesley, “Love me so as to think no evil of me. Love me with a love that covers all things, is always willing to think the best, to put the fairest construction on all my words and actions.”

2. 2. Pray for me. “Commend me to God in all your prayers,” says Wesley.

3. 3. Prompt me to love. “Encourage me in the work that God has given me to do,” says Wesley, “and instruct me how to do it more perfectly.”

4. 4. Love me not in word only, but in deed and truth. “So far as in conscience you can (retaining still your own opinions, and your own manner of worshipping God), join with me in the work of God,” says Wesley. “And let us go hand in hand.”

Near the conclusion of his sermon, Wesley sums up his overall understanding of what it means to have a catholic spirit:

       While a person with a catholic spirit “is steadily fixed in his religious principles in what he believes to be the truth as it is in Jesus, while he firmly adheres to that worship of God which he judges to be most acceptable in his sight, and while he is united by the most tender and closest ties to one particular congregation, his heart is enlarged toward all mankind, those he knows and those he does not. He embraces with strong and cordial affection neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies. This is catholic or universal love. And he that has this is of a catholic spirit. For love alone gives the title to this character: catholic love is a catholic spirit.”

Big Tent Event

The final lines of “A Catholic Spirit” offer advice I plan to heed as I participate in the Big Tent Christianity conference. The conference brings together Christians of various stripes and persuasions to, as the website puts it, “proclaim what unites us as followers of Jesus Christ and as His disciples in this modern world.”

I’m looking forward to meeting with some of diverse people who comprise the contemporary Christian church. I honestly don’t know what to expect. But I want to heed the message of Wesley’s sermon. And I want to follow the advice Wesley gives in his sermon’s last sentence:

      “Keep an even pace, rooted in the faith once delivered to the saints, and grounded in love, in true catholic love, till you are swallowed up in love forever and ever!”

Amen!

* I thank Dennis Bratcher for the edited version of Wesley’s sermon I consulted for this essay.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Postmodern Philosophy, Theology, and Culture

Add comment

Comments

17 Comments

Presenting the Gospel

I’ve been writing a little book that presents the Christian gospel plainly. The project is stretching me in many ways.

I try to write some books for the academy and some for the “person on the street.” I wrote two books recently -- Defining Love and The Nature of Love -- for those with plenty of education.

I’m coauthoring this new book to persuade readers to become Christians. It’s an evangelistic book, plain and simple. I feel like God is calling me in this direction. I care deeply about the salvation of the world!

This book project is stretching me in several ways.  First, I am trying very hard to use understandable words. That means choosing words that may not be as precise but are accessible.

Second, I’m working hard to avoid technical theological extrapolations. For someone like me who thinks carefully about theological details, this is not easy!

Perhaps what stretches me most is choosing how best to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  In one sense, of course, the gospel message is easy: I once was blind, but now I see.

In another sense, however, the order and shape of the gospel presentation says something about what I think is important.

For me, the gospel begins with God’s love.  So that’s how this book begins.

At present, the book looks like it will be about eight chapters.  I offer the first chapter below. I am submitting it as a blog entry so I can get your feedback.

So… here’s how the book begins:

A Father’s Love

A father had two sons he loved very much. One day, the younger son said, “Father, give me today my share of the estate I am to inherit.” The father granted his request. He divided what he possessed between the two sons.

The younger son took his part of the inheritance and set off for a distant country. While there, he squandered the inheritance in wild living. He wasted his money on selfish desires, prostitutes, and foolish ventures.

After all the money was spent, a severe famine came to that country. Without funds for food, the young man became hungry.

In desperation, he asked a citizen of that country for work. He was given the humiliating job of feeding pigs. While doing his work, he longed to fill his own stomach with food he gave the pigs. But he had nothing.

One day, the starving son admitted how bad his life had become. He said to himself, “My father’s hired men have food to spare. But I am living among pigs and starving to death! I will leave this place and return to my father. I will say, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Would you take me as a hired man?’”

The young man left the land and returned home.

While he was still a long way from home, his father saw him. His father was filled with compassion. He ran to his lost son, threw his arms around him, and kissed him.

As the father hugged him, the son said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Please hire me as one of your workers.”

But the father said to his helpers, “Move quickly and bring the best robe and put it on my son. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and cook it. We are going to have a feast and celebrate! For my young son was once dead and is now alive! My son was lost, but now he is found!”

The helpers did what the Father instructed. A celebration began!

Meanwhile, the older son was out in the fields. When he came near home, he heard music and dancing. He asked one of the helpers, “What’s going on?”

“Your younger brother has returned,” the helper replied. “Your father is cooking the fattened calf to celebrate, because your brother is now home.”

The older brother had been working hard. He grew angry when he heard this news. He refused to return home to celebrate.

When the father heard his oldest son would not return, he went to plead with him.

But the son said, “It’s not fair! All these years I have been working hard for you, and I have never disobeyed. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. Now when this son of yours -- who has squandered his inheritance on prostitutes -- comes home, you cook the fattened calf. You celebrate for him but not for me!”

“My dear son,” the father replied, “I love you too, and you are always with me. Everything that remains is yours. But because your brother was dead and is alive again, and because he was lost and now is found, we had to celebrate and be glad!” (Luke 15:11-32)

What it Means

Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus of Nazareth told this story. He told it to describe God’s love. This story is good news for us.  The good news is this: God loves you, me, and everyone!

Sometimes we live like the younger son in the story. We waste our gifts, talents, and resources on wild living. We lived a life of selfishness and unhealthy pleasure.

As a result, we feel like we are feeding pigs. We feel as though we are starving to death. The life of wild living leads to destruction and death!

Sometimes we live like the older son in the story. We are angry that others get more than they deserve. We believe we deserve more. We work hard thinking we must earn approval. We work hard to never disobey but fail to relax in God’s love.

Working in the field to earn the Father’s love leads to resentment and bitterness. This way of living sucks the joy out of life.

The good news is that whether we are selfish or resentful, God loves us. God forgives us and calls us home. God offers us a joyful life of celebration.

Like the father in the story, God wants to embrace us with open arms. When we return from the excess of wild living or the bitter life of trying to earn love, God and others celebrate! God comes out to meet us, because God loves us extravagantly.   

This Book is for You

We wrote this book to tell you the best news you will ever hear: God loves you and is calling you home! In fact, God loves everyone and is working to establish the reign of love everywhere.

God has always loved you and always will. Divine love is deeper than the deepest ocean and wider than the universe. God’s love never fails. It constantly seeks to save those who are lost.

God’s love is steadfast, enduring, and everlasting. God is faithful to us and loyal to all creation. His love never fails. We can count on God to love ALWAYS (Psalm 36).

As the authors of this book, we believe God is calling you home. Why? There are many reasons.

One reason we think God is calling you home is we have heard God’s loving call in our lives. We are responding to that call by returning home and living lives of joy in God’s family.

Another reason we think God is calling you home is that we believe the Bible tells us this. In fact, we are convinced of this. This story and others in the Bible describe God’s deep love for you and all creation.

As you read this book, you will discover that we draw from the Bible often to talk about the good news of God’s love.

The Bible is a very old collection of writings that God inspired in a special way. It will be our primary resource for understanding God’s love for us and why we should love others as ourselves.

You will often see names and numbers parentheses at the end of sentences in this book. They will look something like this: (Luke 15:11-32).

The names in parentheses stand for the writings in the Bible called “books.” These books have poetry, letters, teachings, historical accounts, songs, and more. The Bible is a massive collection of writings.

The numbers in parentheses indicate the particular verses in the Bible to which we refer. Long ago, scholars divided the books into small segments called verses. These small segments have numbers to help us locate them.

We encourage you to read the Bible on your own. But you do not need to read the whole Bible to understand the book you are reading right now. We plan to give a concise presentation of the good news. But you will want to study the Bible more in the future.

There is a third reason we think God is calling you home. We believe God quietly stirs within our hearts a desire to come home to love. And we think that while you read this book, we think you will probably feel that stirring.

We think that God is already “talking” to you. God’s way of communication is usually a small voice in you. A “stirring” is like an intuition or sixth sense. Some call is a strong feeling.

In your heart of hearts, we think you have probably already heard God saying, “Come home and live in my love.” God seems to be inviting everyone in this subtle way.

We encourage you to say “yes” to God.

God Loves You and Me

We have already said that God’s love is deeper than the deepest sea and wider that the universe. The Bible tells us that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16).

Sometimes in life, we need to know that God loves us individually.

To put it personally, God loves you in particular! God cares about you and wants you to live a life of meaning and joy. In fact, Jesus said that he offers us all an absolutely excellent life (John 10:10).

Jesus talks about how much God loves each of us. He told two stories to illustrate God’s care. One story was about a shepherd and a lost sheep.

A loving shepherd lost one of his 100 sheep. He did not rest content with the ninety-nine safely in his care. Instead, the good shepherd searched for one that was lost. Because his love extended to all the sheep, he went out to search for the missing one.

When the shepherd found the lost sheep, says Jesus, “he joyfully put it on his shoulders and went home. Then he called his friends and neighbors together and said, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’”

Jesus also said that God is like a woman who loses one of her ten silver coins. After discovering her loss, she will not say to herself, “No problem. I still have nine coins. I don’t care about the missing one.”  Instead, she will get a light and search her home carefully.

When the woman found the lost coin, says Jesus, “she called her friends and neighbors together and said, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’” 

Like the shepherd searching for the one lost sheep or the woman searching for her lost coin, God searches for us tirelessly. God never gives up – ever!

God rejoices whenever any of us come home to God’s love (Luke 15:3-10). God cares about each person. We can be assured that God loves us personally.

God loves you!

God Loves Everyone

Sometimes we need to realize God loves others too. God loves everyone. It does not matter one’s tribe, intelligence, past history, family, sexual behaviors, looks, wealth or poverty – God loves us all!

God cares for all creatures, great and small. The love of God extends to every last bit of creation in the whole universe!

A wise man came to Jesus one evening. He wanted to know about the reign of love Jesus was preaching and living. “If you want to live in that love,” Jesus said to the wise man, “you must be born again.”

This confused the man. How could a person be born a second time, he wondered? How could a grown person get back in a mother’s womb?

Jesus must have seen the puzzled look on his face. So Jesus explained what he meant. He said being born a second time involves spiritual rebirth. Jesus came to tell the good news that everyone can be born again spiritually.

“God loved the world so much that he gave his only son,” Jesus told the man. Whoever believes in the son will not die spiritually. That person can enjoy abundant life (John 3:1-16).

The writers of the Bible report that Jesus is the son whom God gave. Believing in Jesus means enjoying the abundant life of love God gives. The good live involves following Jesus’ example by living a life of love.

Notice that in the sentence above Jesus says, “God loved the world so much…” God loves the whole world. This means God loves everyone, not just you. Not just me. Not just a few. Everyone!

We are all God’s favorite children.

In fact, Jesus said that God is not interested in condemning anyone (John 3:17). God seeks to save us all.

God is not mad at us!

God does hate it when we hurt others and ourselves. Doing such things is called committing “sin,” and we’ll talk more about sin in later chapters. God hates sin and wants to save us from such destructive behavior. But God hates it when we hurt ourselves and others, because God loves everyone.

To enjoy the born again life, we must return to God’s love. We can live the good life when we follow Jesus’ example. Following Jesus involves living in the light and avoiding deeds of darkness (John 3:18-21).

In a letter to Jesus followers living in Rome, a man named Paul talks about God’s love. He says that when we were acting like God’s enemies, God reached out to us. God did not act like our enemy. Instead, God invited us to be reunited.

When we accept God’s invitation to be reunited, we can live an excellent life. Jesus makes this possible (Romans 5:10-11).

While each of us were living in a distant land or working in the fields, God already loved us. God always wanted to be reunited. It is time to embrace our loving Father.

We do not need to be afraid of God. God loves us! God loves others. And God loves all creation.

That is wonderful news!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

50 Comments

Clark Pinnock Passes on to Glory

One of the more influential and controversial Evangelical theologians in recent decades passed away Sunday afternoon, August 15, 2010.

Clark Pinnock was a giant in theology. His theological exploration inspired me and many others to follow the Spirit’s leading in seeking truth about God and creation.

I agree with much of what Clark proposed theologically in the latter years of his life.  In fact, I've written extensively about Clark's version of Open theology in past blogs. And one of my new books, The Nature of Love: A Theology, explores what I like about Clark’s thought, although I do propose some ways I think Open and Relational theology could be improved.

But some other aspects of Clark’s life have been especially exemplary. I’ll list four:

1.      1. Clark was not afraid to change his mind. He began his academic career as a quasi-fundamentalist with strong Calvinist leanings. He changed his mind about how we ought to read the Bible, how he should think of God’s nature, and what God knew about the possible future. I appreciated his honesty in his quest for strong theology!

2.      2. Clark was unafraid to draw from many sources in his theological quest. While the Bible was his primary tool, he dipped in Arminian theology, Calvinist theology, process theology, Trinitarian theology, and creation theology, among others. The best theology can draw from diverse sources, while keeping a coherence amidst generative differences.

3.      3. Clark was humble. Although he surely had convictions about how we should think theologically, he never presented himself as having all things figured out. When he and I disagreed about some issues, he was always ready to hear me out and learn from me. This made me more open to learning from him.

4.      4. Clark was creative up to the end. His scholarly and devotional output was amazing! Although Alzheimer’s disease eventually took over his life, he participated in several projects with me in his final years. In fact, two of his last essays are printed in books I edited: “Evangelical Theology after Darwin,” in Creation Made Free, and “A Cosmology of Love,” in Love Among Us.

I plan to attend Clark’s funeral this week. My friend, Jason White, passed along some details you may want to know if you also plan to attend the funeral or send a card to Clark’s wife, Dorothy.

The funeral will be Thursday evening, August 19, at Little Bethel Community Church. The church is located at 320 Paling Avenue Hamilton ON Canada L8H 5J9. Send cards to Dorothy Pinnock at this address.

I would have liked to discuss more issues with Clark. He was a good friend. I hope one day to continue our conversation in heaven.

Today as I think of Clark’s life, legacy, and our friendship, I’m reminded of the refrain of a hymn I sang as a youngster:

     When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be.

     When we all see Jesus, we’ll sing and shout the victory!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

1 Comments

A catholic Spirit for a Big Tent

Yes, I know the “c” in the title is not capitalized. I’m using the lowercase letter, because I’ve been thinking about John Wesley’s sermon on catholic spirit in light of the “Big Tent Christianity” event.

Being catholic

Wesley uses an obscure biblical passage to begin what many considered one of his most important sermons, "A Catholic Spirit.” By “catholic,” he means something like “universal church.” (The upper case spelling, “Catholic,” today refers to the Roman Catholic Church.)

The obscure passage Wesley uses is 2 Kings 10:15. Below is the passage as it appears at the beginning of his sermon:

      “And when he left there, [Jehu] met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him, and he greeted him and said to him, “Is your heart right, as my heart is with your heart?” and Jehonadab answered, “It is.” [Jehu said], “If it is, give me your hand.”

With this passage as his text, Wesley begins by saying that we ought to love everyone – family, friends, and enemies. Christians owe “a special love… to those who love God.” The love for sisters and brothers in Christ is especially important. But love ought to rule all our relationships.

Unfortunately, says Wesley, daily experience shows us that not all people practice this kind of love. Christians sometimes do not love other Christians. The main reason for this lack of love: Christians think differently and worship differently from one another.

Christians Think and Worship in Different Ways

Wesley admits such differences in thinking and worship are proper grounds for meeting as different congregations. He understands that we will not see eye to eye, and gathering together in likeminded communities is natural.

But he thinks these differences in thinking and worship should not prevent us from being united in affection for one another: “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?” he asks. “Without a doubt, we may,” he says in answer to his own questions.

To think differently about life and to have worship preferences is part of what it means to be human. In the present life, says Wesley, people will not see all things alike.

Further, he says, none of us can “be assured that all of his own opinions, taken together, are true.”  Like the philosopher Rene Descartes, Wesley knows that we all have been mistaken about our perceptions, views, and opinions. None of us is omniscient.

Given our inherent limitations, the wise Christian “will allow others the same liberty of thinking that he desires they should allow him.” And, says Wesley, the wise person “will no more insist on their embracing his opinions than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs.”

After all, says Wesley, we know that in all ages, people “have differed in nothing more than in their opinions concerning the Supreme Being.” The result is that “in nothing have they more differed from each other, than in the manner of worshipping him.” Even among Christians, says Wesley, “the particular modes of worshipping God are almost as various as among the heathens!”

In love, therefore, we must allow others the freedom to think and worship in ways they feel so convicted.

Love Avoids Extreme Relativism

This does not mean, however, that extreme relativism reigns. (Wesley’s word for “extreme relativism” was “latitudinarianism.”)

Each person ought to have strong convictions about which ideas and theologies he or she thinks is best. Each person ought to have convictions about worship styles and modes. And each ought to follow those convictions.

Having a catholic spirit does not mean abandoning all personal convictions and beliefs. A person with a catholic spirit, says Wesley, may be “clearly convinced that this manner of worshipping God is both scriptural and rational.” In fact, such a person may believe that in the entire world there are no better particular views and forms of worship than his or hers!

Wesley was also against the idea that a Christian could thrive outside Christian community. Each person should participate in and be a member of a local congregation. And believing one congregation was better than another was a natural part of being people with preferences.

And … theology really matters.

In a section of the sermon 800 words long, Wesley reels off a series of theological questions that matter. Those questions range from “Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?” to “Are you more afraid of displeasing God than either of death or hell?” to “Do you love as yourself, all mankind without exception?”

Wesley gives no specific answers to these questions. He offers answers in his hundreds of other sermons and writings. The answers we give these questions, thinks Wesley, really make a difference.

To have one’s heart right with another, and to give one’s hand to another, says Wesley, entails a few things. He lists these by using himself as the object of concern:

1. 1. Love me. “Love me with a very tender affection, as a friend that is closer than a brother, as a brother in Christ,” he says. “Love me as a companion in the kingdom and patience of Jesus, and a joint heir of his glory.” In particular, says Wesley, “Love me so as to think no evil of me. Love me with a love that covers all things, is always willing to think the best, to put the fairest construction on all my words and actions.”

2. 2. Pray for me. “Commend me to God in all your prayers,” says Wesley.

3. 3. Prompt me to love. “Encourage me in the work that God has given me to do,” says Wesley, “and instruct me how to do it more perfectly.”

4. 4. Love me not in word only, but in deed and truth. “So far as in conscience you can (retaining still your own opinions, and your own manner of worshipping God), join with me in the work of God,” says Wesley. “And let us go hand in hand.”

Near the conclusion of his sermon, Wesley sums up his overall understanding of what it means to have a catholic spirit:

       While a person with a catholic spirit “is steadily fixed in his religious principles in what he believes to be the truth as it is in Jesus, while he firmly adheres to that worship of God which he judges to be most acceptable in his sight, and while he is united by the most tender and closest ties to one particular congregation, his heart is enlarged toward all mankind, those he knows and those he does not. He embraces with strong and cordial affection neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies. This is catholic or universal love. And he that has this is of a catholic spirit. For love alone gives the title to this character: catholic love is a catholic spirit.”

Big Tent Event

The final lines of “A Catholic Spirit” offer advice I plan to heed as I participate in the Big Tent Christianity conference. The conference brings together Christians of various stripes and persuasions to, as the website puts it, “proclaim what unites us as followers of Jesus Christ and as His disciples in this modern world.”

I’m looking forward to meeting with some of diverse people who comprise the contemporary Christian church. I honestly don’t know what to expect. But I want to heed the message of Wesley’s sermon. And I want to follow the advice Wesley gives in his sermon’s last sentence:

      “Keep an even pace, rooted in the faith once delivered to the saints, and grounded in love, in true catholic love, till you are swallowed up in love forever and ever!”

Amen!

* I thank Dennis Bratcher for the edited version of Wesley’s sermon I consulted for this essay.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Postmodern Philosophy, Theology, and Culture

Add comment

Comments

39 Comments

Problems with Biblical Inerrancy

The Bible functions as key resource for helping me understand something about God and about life in general. But the errors I have discovered in the Bible prompt me to take care in how I think and talk about Scripture.

As a young person, I wanted a clear and unambiguous foundation to speak truthfully about God. This desire shaped the way I viewed the Bible. It seemed obvious that I should affirm the Bible to be absolutely inerrant: I wanted the certainty inerrancy seems to provide. I thought I needed an inerrant book to battle the errors I encountered in life.

Absolute biblical inerrancy makes sense. It makes sense, that is, if we begin with a particular view of biblical inspiration and a particular view of God. I had these views as a youngster.

If God can do anything and if God truly loves us, God would apparently want to deliver an absolutely clear and inerrant written revelation. Therefore, the Bible must not have any errors whatsoever. This was my view of the Bible as a young person.

Then I started reading the Bible carefully.

Instead of a crystal-clear, unambiguous, and inerrant biblical text, I found ambiguity and errors of various sorts. Through careful study and conversations with biblical scholars, I found no strong reason to continue to regard the Bible as absolutely inerrant.

I could not deny the Bible itself. It has errors. I could not honestly say otherwise. To be honest with myself, therefore, I had to admit the Bible contained errors.

Errors in the Bible

Let’s consider just these ten errors in the Bible:

1. Jesus curses fig tree and it withers immediately (Matthew 21:18-20).  Jesus curses this same fig tree and it does not wither immediately.  The disciples observe it withered the next morning (Mark 11:12-14; 20-21).

2. Mark records Jesus as quoting from Isaiah (Mk. 1:2), when the words are actually from Malachi (3:1).

3. Matthew records a quote and credits it to Jeremiah (Mt. 27:9), when the majority of the quote is actually found in Zechariah (11:12, 13) not Jeremiah.

4. Jesus heals one demon-possessed man (at Gerasenes/Gergesenes/Gadarenes) and sends the demon into the pigs (Mark 5:1-20). But in Matthew’s story of the same event, Jesus heals two demon-possessed men (at Gerasenes/Gergesenes/Gadarenes) and sends the demons into the pigs (Matthew 8:28-34).

5. Most Bibles have no verse 24 of Romans chapter sixteen. The text skips from verse 23 to verse 25. Some kind of error occurs here.

6. Those that died in Numbers 25:9 are 24,000; whereas 1 Corinthians lists 23,000 for the same event.

7.  Jesus tells the disciples to take a staff on their journey as recorded in Mark 6:8, but Matthew records Jesus as telling the disciples not to take a staff on that journey (10:9-10).

8.  2 Samuel says that God incited David to take a census (24:1-2); 1 Chronicles says that Satan induced David to take that census (21:1-2).

9.  Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds (13:31-32).  However, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds.

10. Matthew says that Judas hanged himself (27:5), while the writer of Acts says that Judas died after falling headlong and bursting open (1:18).

This is only a short list of biblical errors or inconsistencies.  This list is sufficient to make my point, however. After all, any difference, inconsistency, or error would mean that we could not strictly call the Bibles we read absolutely “inerrant.”

I’ve found many more errors in the Bible since my youth. I’m not saying that most of the Bible is false. That isn’t the case. But I also want to be clear that a significant number of errors exist. Honesty demands that I be frank about this fact.

Missing Autographs and Divergent Manuscripts

The errors I’m talking about here don’t even include the significant differences in the oldest biblical manuscripts from which we derive our current Bibles. Many Christians don’t know that the Bibles we read today did not come directly from original manuscripts or “autographs.”  Those originals no longer exist.  We only have copies penned many generations after the originals.

In fact, scholars over the centuries have translated various bits and pieces of ancient Bibles to construct the Bibles we read today. These bits and pieces were copied centuries after the Bible was originally written.

In addition, those ancient manuscripts from which our Bibles come sometimes differ.  Most differences are minor. But some are of greater importance. 

For instance, look at the end of Mark’s gospel.  Some ancient manuscripts end at verse eight of the last chapter.  Other manuscripts include verses nine through twenty.  Even others include an extra verse after verse fourteen.

Or take the story of the woman caught in adultery.  This story is usually located in John 7:53-8:11 in our contemporary Bibles. But the story itself is not included at all in most ancient manuscripts.  Those old manuscripts that do include the story place it in varying places in the Gospels.  If it were a matter of only including material from the oldest manuscripts available, the story of the woman caught in adultery would not be included in our bibles today.

It’s very difficult to claim the Bibles we read are inerrant when we realize the earliest manuscripts have differences.  The big differences I mentioned obviously create problems.  But even a slight difference between two ancient manuscripts – say, the difference between one having the word “for” and the other “with” – creates a problem for those who affirm absolute inerrancy. At the micro level, we find many errors and inconsistencies.

When some people raised in an Evangelical Christian community realize that the Bible has errors, they feel forced to make a choice. They can either ignore these errors and continue to claim absolute biblical inerrancy despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Or they can reject the idea that God had anything to do with the writing of the Bible.

   Wesleyan Approaches to the Bible

Fortunately, the theological tradition in which I live and affirm – the Wesleyan tradition – has important tools for overcoming the problem of errors in the Bible. It allows one to avoid choosing either of the two alternatives. It provides the basis for a third option. Let me note three tools from the Wesleyan tradition I’ve found especially helpful for making sense of errors in the Bible:

   Symbiosis not Dictation -- Instead of thinking of God’s inspiration as involving unilateral dictation to the biblical writers, my tradition argues that the writing of the Bible involved both God and humans. God inspired humans, but humans – who are error-prone and not omniscient – wrote what they believe God wanted. I call this model of biblical inspiration “symbiosis.” God acts first to inspire the writing of the biblical text, but the writers respond to God in their finitude. (By the way, this symbiosis principle also applies to biblical interpretation.)

   God Gives Freedom -- God does not exercise the kind of stifling sovereignty necessary to deliver a manuscript absolutely free from error. Instead, God lovingly created and continues to create free creatures – including biblical authors with freedom of their own. Because of the freedom God lovingly gives us all, creaturely errors in knowledge and action are possible.

   Salvific Inerrancy -- The main point of the Bible is to help us find salvation. Scripture need not be completely error free for God to use it in this way. Instead of claiming absolute inerrancy, many in the Wesleyan tradition affirm what I call “salvific inerrancy.” The Church of the Nazarene, for instance, affirms salvific inerrancy when it believes the Bible “inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation.” John Wesley puts it this way: “The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points.”

I believe God uses the Bible as an instrument to invite creatures to salvation. This instrument need not be perfect in all ways to be useful. The Bible need not be absolutely inerrant for God to use it inerrantly to invite us to salvation.

Given these Wesleyan tools, I have more respect for the Bible today than I had as a youngster. Although I no longer think of it as completely error-free, the Bible is my principal authority for matters of salvation. I cherish the Scriptures and trust God to use them to teach, rebuke, correct, and train me in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

The Bible Tells Me So

I realize more needs to be said on this subject. And there are many related subjects pertaining to the Bible that we need to ponder. I plan to write more on these subjects in the coming months.

Let this be an invitation to you to reflect with others and me on the Bible.  I am chairing a conference February 10-12, 2011 at NNU to discuss these issues. More than 40 scholars have committed to attend. I encourage you to be part of this important time of reflection.

Register soon and you’ll get a free book!

Tom

PS. Become a friend of The Bible Tells Me So conference on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

14 Comments

Top Ten Wesleyan Books

I’ve been thinking about the influence John Wesley’s theology has on my life. Here is my list of books that have been most influential in shaping my understanding of Wesleyan theology.

I am not listing Wesley’s own writings on this list. I toyed with constructing a list of the top ten pieces of Wesley’s own writing. But I decided I’d set aside the primary material and list those books that have helped me interpret and make sense of Wesley’s often divergent and sometimes scattered thoughts.

I should also say that after the first book listed, the rest are not ranked in order of importance. So, here goes…

1. Responsible Grace: John Wesley’s Practical Theology, by Randy L. Maddox. This book has been the most influential book of all for helping me to think through Wesleyan theology. I use the book every year in my courses, and I often discover helpful ideas that I missed in previous readings.

2. Reasonable Enthusiast: John Wesley and the Rise of Methodism, by Henry D. Rack. This book introduced me to the historical elements of Wesley’s life and surroundings. It helped me to see the genius of Wesley’s ministry and how he responded to the culture in which he lived.

3. John Wesley, edited by Albert C. Outler. This book actually has a great deal of Wesley’s own writings in it.  But I included it on this list, because Outler does a wonderful job of introducing the material and giving readers a sense of the scope of Wesley’s theology.  Besides, it was one of the first books on Wesley’s theology that I read carefully.

4. A Theology of Love: The Dynamic of Wesleyanism, by Mildred Bangs Wynkoop.  To be honest, the material on John Wesley’s theology in this book is not very well written. But Wynkoop shows the powerful connection between John Wesley’s thought and the centrality of love for Christian theology. For this reason, the book has been influential.

5. God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in Wesleyan Ways, by Michael E. Lodahl. Lodahl weaves together lines from a Wesleyan hymn with his ruminations on issues of creation, science, and theology of nature. The result is inspiring, and the reading is enjoyable.

6. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today, by John B. Cobb, Jr. I read this book as a doctoral student, and it provided a way to bring together some themes in process theology that I found helpful with themes in Wesley’s theology that I appreciated.

7. The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace, by Kenneth J. Collins. Ken’s book presents a strong argument for the superiority of Wesleyan theology in comparison to other theological options. And I like the way he concludes each chapter by relating Wesley’s material to contemporary issues.

8. Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays in Science and Theology of Creation, edited by Thomas Jay Oord. While editing the chapters (of which I do not have a contribution), I realized how important Wesleyan theology is for the contemporary science and religion dialogue. More needs to be written, however.

9. Grace, Faith and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology, by H. Ray Dunning. I read this book each year with my theology students, and I have been shaped by Dunning’s view of Wesleyan theology.  Over the years, I’ve come to disagree with Ray on some issues. But the book remains a largely persuasive effort to bring Wesleyan ideas into a coherent whole.

10. The Cambridge Companion to John Wesley, edited by Randy L. Maddox and Jason E. Vickers. I must admit that I haven’t read every entry in this companion.  But I find myself going to it often to peruse its essays on topics pertaining to Wesley’s thought and Wesleyan theology.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

14 Comments

Predestination, Hell, and Eternal Life

My recent book, The Nature of Love, concludes with comments about what theologians call “eschatology.” The eschatology I offer coheres with my Essential Kenosis theology, which I propose in the book’s last chapter.

Participatory Eschatology

Essential Kenosis theology calls us to place our hope for victory in God’s steadfast love. The Psalmist said, “The Lord delights in those…who put their hope in his unfailing love” (Ps. 147:11). The God who love us all is at work in the world, and God calls us to participate in that work.

Not only does the apostle Paul say, “in everything God works for good with those who love him” (Rom. 8:28). Paul also implores us to “work out our own salvation” (Phil. 2:12).  Both verses say that God empowers and inspires us to seek God’s good purposes (ends).

Earlier in his letter to the Church in Rome, Paul says something profound about placing our hope in God’s love to overcome suffering. After acknowledging the suffering we face, Paul says “suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us…” (Rom. 5:3b-5a).

The eschatological visions of many theologies would lead one to expect that the hope Paul mentions amounts to a guaranteed victory. However, Paul continues in that sentence by saying the purpose of hope is love! “And hope does not disappoint us,” he say, “because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us” (Rom. 5:5).

Essential Kenosis theology affirms Christian hope rests ultimately in the steadfast, kenotic, and noncoercive love of God. This hope has at least three dimensions. Our hope is God’s loving reign in this life, in the afterlife, and in the fulfillment of all things. Hope, in all of these dimensions, plays a crucial role in the Christian witness and well-placed confidence to live lives of love.

Eschatology and Eternal Life

Many Christians think of salvation as only pertaining to life after death. However, “eternal life” is a quality of salvific life that can begin now (Jn. 3:16). The “abundant life” that Jesus came to give can be enjoyed in this world (Jn. 10:10). The good life is possible, at least to some degree, in our present personal and social experience.

We should most often interpret the biblical phrase “eternal life” as referring to quality of life we can begin enjoying now rather than an infinitely extended quantity of life beyond death. The “eternal life” of John 3:16 is the new creation and abundant life Jesus presently provides and is also ours after death. For Paul tells us that in Christ we are new creations (2 Cor. 5:17). In his book, Surprised by Hope, N. T. Wright writes well about the importance of eternal life in the present.

God’s kenotic love—not coercive power—also provides hope for a heavenly existence after death. Essential Kenosis theology agrees with Paul when he says “if for this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19-20). The resurrection of Jesus Christ testifies to us that through love, God subjects death and the enemies of life. And this resurrection is our best reason to expect a resurrected life beyond our present existence.

Predestination

Participatory eschatology governed by God’s kenotic love, differs from eschatologies that presuppose God has or can coerce in determining the eternal destiny of God’s creatures. It differs from eschatologies that claim God’s subjecting of enemies occurs only when God forsakes persuasive love and resorts to coercion.

In the name of love, Christians have largely rejected the view that God coercively predestines some to heaven and others to hell. Predestination presupposes a view of divine sovereignty incompatible with the view that a loving God necessarily provides freedom/agency to creatures. It is incompatible with the view that creatures freely respond well or poorly to God, and these responses play a role in our immediate and eternal destinies.

Instead of interpreting the few biblical passages that mention predestination as referring to God selecting some individuals for salvation and others for damnation, Essential Kenosis theology follows the typically Wesleyan interpretation of these passages.  What has been pre-determined is the characteristics of the category of people who choose to respond to God’s love. We each can choose freely whether we will belong to the group of people who love or the group who does not.

Ultimately, the way predestination is typically interpreted makes God’s love arbitrary. Typical (and, I think, nonbiblical) views of predesintation consider God’s freedom to control more important than God’s love for all. A predestining God does not love steadfastly, because this God arbitrarily chooses some for salvation and others for damnation.

Universalism and Hell

Ironically, those who in the name of love affirm a universalism -- based on the idea that God soveriegnly sends all to heaven -- also presuppose that God exerts coercive power. Their view of God’s power is essentially the same as the predestinarian one. The God capable of controlling others entirely can unilaterally determine people to either heaven or hell.

The God who exercises all-controlling power to guarantee an all-victorious end-game scenario, however, is not a God who consistently enables creatures to choose freely. An essentially kenotic God neither predestines some to heaven and others to hell. But this God also does not unilaterally guarantee that all will be redeemed. God’s love neither predestines nor coerces creatures to either afterlife fate.

Essential Kenosis theology affirms the basic biblical view that our actions have consequences. On the one hand, our proper responses to God mean that we can be a blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). Proper responses promote overall well-being. On the other hand, the wages of our sin is death (Rm. 6:23).

While biblical writers mention hell infrequently compared with other theological subjects, Christians have largely affirmed some form of negative consequences for sin. What hell looks like, if it has a location, who experiences it—these are topics with widely divergent answers. The Bible provides clues to help formulate plausible answers without offering many specific details.

We should affirm the experience of hell, both as possibility in this life and the afterlife. We best describe hell as experiencing the negative consequences of choosing other than the loving best to which God calls. Hell does not mean, strictly speaking, separation from God. An omnipresent God never separates entirely from relational experience with others. Instead, hell is the opposite of what love promotes.

An eschatology whose God necessarily loves by giving freedom/agency to others affirms that God continues to love creatures in the afterlife. Even then, free creatures can freely choose to respond inappropriately to the God who calls them to live abundant life. Even then, creatures can choose hell.

Creatures who respond inappropriately to a loving God endure the negative consequences that come from choosing less than the loving best to which God calls. Failing to love—in both this life and the next—is to experience torment and gnashing teeth. Responding in love to the God who makes love possible is to experience a taste of heaven in this life and the fullness of heaven’s joy in the next.

Realistic Christian Hope

Essential Kenosis theology provides a conceptual framework for realistic Christian hope. Essential Kenosis affirms the hope of a final victory for all things at the end of history. It provides a basis for all creation to “be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rm. 8:21). God’s almighty and unwavering love is the basis for such hope.

Essential Kenosis theology does not guarantee a final victory through coercion, however, because God cannot coerce. But participatory eschatology also does not present God as weak, uninvolved, or inactive. God’s love and power combine as the most commanding force in the universe—past, present, and future.

The God whose very nature includes necessary love for the world—chesed—is a God who never gives up. The God who is almighty – the mightiest of all and exerting might upon all – is a God with immeasurable resources and authority.

In kenotic and noncoercive love, God gives to others and seeks their loving cooperative response. As creatures participate with God and appropriately respond to the call of love God gives, the loving reign of the Living Lord comes in fullness.

In this participatory eschatology, our hope is in God and our purpose—end—is to respond well to God’s call to promote overall well-being. Our hope is that God will ultimately win. With the Apostle Paul, “we hope for what we do not see.” Those who work with God and live in love “are called according to his purpose [end]” (Rom. 8:25, 28).

Ultimately, God’s powerful love is our hope -- in this life and the next.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

6 Comments

Books I’m Reading…

From time to time, friends ask what I’m reading. I rarely start and finish a book in one sitting. I usually dabble, dive and resurface, and drift from one book to another. I read many books simultaneously.

With the summer slipping by, I thought I’d post a few comments on books I’m currently reading.  These aren’t thorough reviews, nor are they endorsements for “the best books I’ve ever read.” Instead, they are books that pique my interest and continue to keep it for one reason or another.             

So, here goes…

1.                Freedom of the Self: Kenosis, Cultural Identity, and Mission at the Crossroads (Pickwick) is written by Jeffrey Keuss, professor at Seattle Pacific University. It’s a fascinating and eclectic read. I actually finished it earlier this summer and wrote an endorsement for the back cover. Here’s what I wrote:

“Take insights from the emergent church, add a strong dose of continental philosophy’s focus on the other, sprinkle in insights from virtue ethics, include open theology's view of a loving God whom Christians should imitate, add missional theology’s concern for engaging culture, and then place at the center a persuasive Christology of kenosis. Cook elements slowly; let ingredients intermingle and flavors mix. What emerges is this provocative book -- a theological feast that nourishes and inspires!”

2.            Everything You Know about Evangelicals is Wrong (Well, Almost Everything): An Insider’s Look at the Myths and Realities (Bakerbooks) is co-written by Steve Wilkins and Don Thorsen. This book is a delightful read.  It succinctly makes the kind of arguments I find myself making when people look puzzled after telling them I’m an Evangelical. The chapter titles give you a good idea of the book’s content:

“Evangelicals are not all mean, stupid, and dogmatic;  Evangelicals are not all waiting for the rapture; Evangelicals are not all anti-evolutionists; Evangelicals are not all inerrantists; Evangelicals are not all rich Americans; Evangelicals are not all Calvinists; Evangelicals are not all Republicans; Evangelicals are not all racist, sexist, and homophobic; Conclusion: People of the Great Commission.”

3.            The God Biographers: Our Changing Image of God from Job to the Present (Lexington Books), by Larry Witham, is a trade book summarizing various views of God, especially as they relate to the big questions on human freedom, evil, and God’s knowledge. At the heart of the narrative is recent work in openness and process philosophies. Here’s a blurb from the back of the book:

“In the twenty-first century, our image of God is being shaped by new human experiences and the findings of science. Today, the debate between the old biographers and the new is playing out in the forums of modern theology, courtrooms, and social movements. Larry Witham tells that panoramic story in an engaging narrative for specialists and general readers alike.”

4.            A Theology of Love (T&T Clark), by Werner G. Jeanrond, was recommended to me by a friend. With my own two books on love coming out in recent months, I thought it would be good to see what this book provides. I’m finding Jeanrond’s approach is different from mine. Of course, I prefer my own approach when we differ.  But I’m finding much on which we agree. I hope to dialogue with Jeanrond in person some day to hash out the details.

5.            Crucified with Christ: The Life and Ministry of William Marvin Greathouse (Trevecca) is co-written by William J. Strickland and H. Ray Dunning.  Greathouse has immense influence in my denomination, and his insights have been formative in my own life. This biography tells his life story in an engaging way. I consider him a fellow love theologian in the Wesleyan tradition.

6.            Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Eerdmans), by Richard A. Burridge, offers an approach to biblical ethics that takes seriously and regards principally the place of love. I discovered it while looking for alternatives to Richard Hays’s influential book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. I agree much more with Burridge than Hays!  (I wrote a blog on reasons I don’t like Hays’s approach.)

7.            Transforming Christian Theology – for Church and Society (Fortress), by Philip Clayton (with Tripp Fuller), has really inspired me this summer!  I’ve been pondering for some time issues about theological education and dialogue among academics and laity. But this book pushed me to think in new ways and offered new insights. I plan to require my students to read this book in the fall. (I wrote a couple of blogs on this book.)

8.            Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins (Lion), by Keith Ward, takes on atheism. Keith’s specific target is Richard Dawkins, probably the most well known and most aggressive atheist writing today. Keith both draws upon classic arguments for God’s existence and offers some contemporary reasons for affirming belief in God.  The style is largely philosophical, but it is an easier read than most books offering philosophical arguments.

9.            The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil (Westminster John Knox), by Christopher Southgate, addresses issues that I think about often.  I like the way he sets up the arguments. Like me, he argues for a multi-faceted answer to the problem of evil. But he and I disagree on how to think of God’s power. The last two chapters of my two recent books provide my alternative view of God’s power that, I argue, could help Southgate’s project. Of course, I'm biased! : )

10.         Spiritual Bankruptcy: A Prophetic Call to Action (Abingdon), by John B. Cobb, Jr., is a unique book.  I’ve long admired John for his heart of concern and his theological intelligence.  He’s also brave enough to propose ideas that may go against the grain. In this book, John proposes what he calls “Secularizing Christianity.” Christians can make a transformative difference in education, economics, and culture if they focus on their ministry and mission in this world rather than on otherworldly issues or inwardly. The book moves through issues of religion and secularity in history and philosophy to argue that Christians must be engaged in contemporary concerns for the sake of Christ and the world.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

15 Comments

Biology and the freedom to love

In recent decades, biology has moved to the fore of love research.  The role of evolution, the function of genes, selection pressures, and group interaction play a prominent role in contemporary biological discussions of the possibility and nature of love. 

One particularly salient issue, however, is the issue of freedom. I define love so as to require some degree of freedom as one of love’s essential aspects.

It’s important that we not think we or other creatures possess limitless freedom.  Unlimited freedom does not exist.  However, love that is entirely coerced or unintentional is not love at all.  And even if one’s nature necessarily includes love – as I believe is the case for God – some measure of freedom must be present if love is to be expressed.

Contemporary theories in biology rely heavily upon the role of genetics.  Unfortunately, genetic-oriented theories in biology tend to describe organisms as genetically programmed or controlled. 

Biologists rarely attribute freedom and spontaneity to the organisms they study. They do not do so, in large part, because biological theory is thought to be based upon the work of examining external results while ignoring any possible internal experiences. 

Biologist Sewell Wright summarizes this prevailing assumption in biology when he says, “science must restrict itself to the external aspect of things.”  Wright continues that science is “concerned with the external and statistical aspect of events and incapable of dealing with the unique creative aspect of each individual event.” 

The practice of restricting scientific purview to observations of external behavior and refusing to infer what such behavior suggests about internal motivations is, however, not actually a restriction many biologists practice when they offer explanations of what’s “really happening.” Richard Dawkins, for instance, uses language suggesting creatures are entirely controlled by their genes.

Contemporary biology rejects questions of freedom and self-organization, in part because it rejects the view attributed to an early evolutionary biologist: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.  Today, Lamarck is mainly known for the view that creatures can intentionally pass to their offspring the traits acquired through their own efforts.

The giraffe is the Lamarckian’s classic example of a creature that, through its own efforts, can change its own characteristics and passed those changes to its children.  As giraffes intentionally stretch to reach leaves residing high in trees, Lamarckians believe that they gradually lengthen their necks.  Their offspring inherit longer necks as a result of their parent’s efforts.

The vast majority of scientists today, however, reject the view that traits acquired during a creature’s lifetime can be passed to offspring.  Each generation must learn these behaviors anew by imitating their elders.  Beneficial behaviors, such as giraffes stretching for leaves atop trees, are not transmitted through genetic encoding. 

A view accepted in contemporary biology, however, is the Baldwin effect.  Named after James Mark Baldwin and first proposed at the turn of the 20^th century, this theory says that the sustained behavior of a species or group in response to its environment is gradually assimilated into the group’s genetic structures.  Learned behaviors cannot be directly inherited, said Baldwin.  But the general propensity to act well in the organism’s environment is supported by genetic mutations and becomes part of the offspring’s genetic inheritance.

Science-and-religion scholar, Ian Barbour, uses bison and horses to illustrate how the Baldwin effect works.  The common ancestors of bison and horses may have either charged enemies or fled their enemies.  Strength, weight, strong skulls, and other bison-like qualities would have enhanced the survival of those who charged their enemies.  Those who survived by fleeing enemies would have benefited by speed, agility, and other abilities we see in horses.  “The divergence of bison and horse,” suggests Barbour, “may have arisen initially from different responses to danger, rather than from genetic mutations related to anatomy.”  Barbour concludes, “organisms participate actively in evolutionary history and are not simply passive products of genetic forces from within and environmental forces from without.”

The Baldwin effect offers a way to account for the free initiatives of organisms to have significant long-term consequences. Barbour speaks of creaturely “interiority” that evolves “starting from rudimentary memory, sentience, responsiveness, and anticipation in simple organisms, going on to consciousness with the advent of nervous systems, and then self-consciousness in the case of primates and human beings.” 

While it is not difficult to attribute freedom to complex creatures like humans, chimps, canine, and dolphins, most biologists are reluctant to infer that less complex creatures also possess a measure of self-determining agency. To argue that organisms at varying levels of complexity exhibit self-organization, spontaneity, or self-determination, however, does not require one also to argue that less complex creatures are free to the same degree as more complex creatures.  Nor does it require one to deny the powerful influence of a creature’s genes.  Instead, one can appeal to the possibility that creatures of varying complexity possess varying degrees of freedom, interiority, or self-organization.

The late biologist Charles Birch suggests that degrees of creaturely freedom are of great importance.  “Determinism by genes is not an all-or-none affair,” says Birch.  “There can be different degrees of freedom.  There is all the difference in the world between 100 percent determination and 99 percent determination.  One provides no room for choice and purpose.  The other does not.” 

Speculating that organisms at all levels of complexity possess some measure of spontaneity does not, of course, scientifically demonstrate that freedom is present throughout existence.  But speculating that creatures are robots blindly programmed by their genes is also not scientifically demonstrable. 

It may be that freedom and self-organization emerged at some point in the evolutionary process.  Relatively simple organisms may not possess self-determination. Instead, freedom emerged as creatures increased in complexity.  This view, often called “emergence,” is attractive to those who wish to acknowledge the freedom apparent in human experience and apparently present in other complex creatures.  This version of emergence also allows one to resist the claim that the least complex entities of existence -- atoms for instance -- are to some degree free. 

Theologian and philosophers of science, Philip Clayton, advocates this emergent view of creaturely self-determination.  Clayton argues that human freedom should be “understood in terms of a developmental story that includes the role of physical laws, biological drives, and the increasing latitude of behavior in more complex organisms – features both shared with other animals and distinguishing us from them.”

Ian Barbour argues for a different emergent view, which posits a minimum of interiority at even the most basic levels.  Barbour’s argument is partly, as he says, for “the sake of metaphysical consistently and generality.”  Barbour says that we ought to generalize from the human experience of freedom.  “We are part of nature,” he argues, and “even though human experience is an extreme case of an event in nature, it offers clues as to the character of other events.”

Which version of emergence theory – the one Clayton advocates or the one Barbour advocates – best accounts for biology is debatable.  Resolving the question, however, may not be necessary for love research in the biological sciences.  Even if molecules have interiority and subjectivity, few scholars are likely to describe molecular activity as loving.  But as creatures increase in organizational and mental complexity through evolution, the importance of freedom rises. 

If humans share significant continuity with their nonhuman companions, it seems plausible that freedom and intentionality are present in the earliest biological stages of evolutionary history. Whatever the case, we would do well to speak today about creatures capable of love as also possessing at least some degree of freedom.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Theology and Science

Add comment

Comments

37 Comments

Imitate God—Take Risks!

Mission is risky business. It means taking chances and being susceptible to failure. But God seems the biggest risk-taker of all!

Mission requires vulnerability.  It involves a measure of dependence upon those not always dependable.  Convincing others – through our lives, our relationships, and our ideas – means risking rejection.  Mission requires humility.

A Kenotic God on a Mission

More and more Christians are coming to believe that God is on a mission.  God is not resting alone, content, and disengaged.  God has not predestined all things with a blueprint set in stone long, long ago.

A missional God – missio dei, if you think the Latin words sound cool – is a God who becomes vulnerable, dependent, and risks rejection.  A missional God, to steal words C. S. Lewis used in his description of Aslan, is “on the move.”

Perhaps the scriptural passage that best expresses this is the hymn in Paul’s letter to the Philippians.  This so-called “kenosis” passage – Greek words can be just as cool as Latin – expresses the kind of humility present in effective mission. 

Biblical scholars translate kenosis in many ways, but they most often render it “self-giving” or “self-emptying.”  Paul suggests that Christ, whose nature is divine, took the form of a servant.  This servanthood included being, as I like to say, “humbled to death” on the cross.

Humility is risky.  And yet God took the ultimate risk in the self-giving love of Jesus.

In our everyday language, “risk” is often preceded by “foolish.”  Unfortunately, this combination of words – “foolish risk” – occurs so frequently that we may assume risk-taking and wisdom are antithetical. 

If God is supremely wise, the kenosis passage suggests risk and wisdom can be joined.  Instead of “foolish risk,” God’s risks are judiciously chosen for the possibility of promoting abundant life.  But they’re still risks.

I’m reminded of another C. S. Lewis line.  What a Narnia character says of Aslan, we might also say of God: “He’s not safe.  But he is good.”

God Creates Free Creatures

In a God-created world of free creatures, there are few sure bets.  This God-intended-freedom-formula allows for the possibility of beauty and ugliness, happiness and pain, love and sin. 

God apparently thinks the risk of creating and empowering free creatures is worth the chance those creatures would by inappropriate actions generate ugliness, pain, and sin.  Apparently, God’s desire for beauty, happiness, and love motivates a divine gamble.

People take risks all the time.  Economists tell us that we live in economically risky days.  No kidding!  Buying, selling, investing – it’s a crap shoot right now.  A college buddy of mine now works as a white-water rafting guide.  Next to bull-riding, it’s as risky a livelihood as I know. 

But I’ve come to think that the riskiest business is the love business.  Love takes chances. All bets are off.

God is Partly Dependent

I mentioned earlier that risk also involves a degree of dependence.  Love involves dependency too.  Both rely upon responses from others.

To say that love and risk entail depending on others is to imply the potentially unsettling notion that God is dependent.  I say “unsettling,” because we’ve sometimes been led to believe that God doesn’t really need us.  God is wholly independent and gets along just fine without us, thank you very much.  Many have considered God fully self-sufficient, self-contained, or, to use Aristotle’s word, “unmoved.”

While it makes sense to think God is self-sufficient in some ways – e.g., God doesn’t depend on us for God to exist – the lessons of love suggest that God also depends on us in other ways.  After all, it’s odd to think that a totally independent person can have genuinely loving relationships.  Love takes (at least) two (baby).

I sometimes tell my wife how much I need her.  I tell her I depend on her.  When I say these things, I don’t mean I would stop existing or fail to be human should she die.  I don’t mean that I would evaporate in a puff of smoke were she to stop loving me.  Rather, I’m acknowledging that my love includes my depending on her to do her part to establish and maintain a full and satisfying relationship.  The logic of love requires this kind of dependence.

Besides, what’s so bad about depending on others?  Isn’t it the rugged individualist – detached, alone, and aloof – whom we worry is emotionally and socially stunted?  Do we really want to imitate the recluse?

More and more Christians are realizing that risking some dependence on others is not only a risk worth taking but essential for what it means to live a healthy life.  Community matters.

Be Like God

Paul not only says that in kenosis God is self-emptying, he also writes that we should “imitate God, as beloved children, and live in love as Christ loved you.”  Paul’s instruction to “be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving one another” precedes this imitatio dei command (just had to throw in the Latin again).

I sometimes wonder if our fears of divine risk and dependence reflect more our deference to modernity than a thoughtful analysis of divine love.  If we truly wish to imitate the One we consider worthy of worship, we too need to embrace the risk and dependence that love requires.

Missional theology attempts to describe a risk-taking God … on a mission.  And it suggests that we ought to join with God as “fellow workers” or “co-laborers” on that adventure.  Missional strategies may gain significant traction if we welcome the logic of love in missional theology.

But beware that it’s risky business!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

14 Comments

Academy and Congregation

I feel called to speak theologically both to the academy and to congregations. This calling presents unique challenges.

On the face of it, speaking to both seems simple.  But in reality, the task is a constant challenge. In many ways, I feel like a missionary attempting to bridge diverse cultures.

I feel strongly that Christians should play leading roles in intellectual exploration. Rather than follow, at least some Christians should lead society to develop the life of the mind. The Christian scriptures often recommend the pursuit of such wisdom.

Doing this kind of intellectual work, however, sometimes gets me in trouble. In the age of the internet and rapid communication, what I say to intellectuals at major conferences can easily be relayed to those in congregations without much formal education. More than once, laity has criticized me for my academic work after they read material meant for trained eyes.

In fact, some Christian laity develops a profound mistrust of scholars. Anti-intellectualism can sometimes set in. Some think that all scholars live in academic ivory towers, far removed from the practical concerns of daily living.

Part of what I feel called to do involves overcoming unhealthy stereotypes some congregations have of those in the academy. For me, that often means following John Wesley’s charge to use plain language to reach plain people.

In early June, I spoke to Christian pastors and lay leaders in Ghana, Africa. The two days of education were quite successful, and the reviews I got from participants were very positive. I instigated this event, and I paid my way to attend. This is something I’ve done in Africa a few other times before.

My Ghana host – a former graduate student of mine – remarked after the conclusion that he wondered about my ability to communicate to the pastors and laity.  Because I had asked him to read highly sophisticated theological material in his graduate classes, he worried that I would use the same sophisticated language when teaching pastors.  He was relieved and pleased to find that I met students at their own level. I work hard at meeting people – wherever they are in the world – at their own place of intellectual and theological development.

In fact, the Ghana visit came just after I co-directed a weeklong school on science and religion in Venice, Italy. The lecturers and students at that event represent the very brightest intellectuals in the world. More than a dozen countries were represented, and the participants came from differing religious perspectives, including a few atheists.

The annual Venice School on Science and Religion, which I administrate and co-direct, provides scholars the opportunity to push themselves to think in new ways.  We discuss values, evolution, religion, philosophy, cosmology, altruism, and a host of other topics.

Scholars often have as many misconceptions about laity as laity has about scholars. In fact, I think the percentage of laity who are anti-intellectual is about the same percentage of scholars who rightly qualify as living in “academic ivory towers.” It’s a low percentage for both – although the sheer number of laity overwhelms the number of scholars in the world.

Given my calling to speak to both congregations and the academy, I try hard to develop appropriate language for both.  This requires me to attend and speak at various conferences, seminars, retreats, camps, etc. And it means writing books aimed at both types of people.

One of my strategies for addressing both groups is to alternate my publishing efforts. After publishing material for the academy, I write for the laity. After publishing for the laity, I write again for the academy. And on it goes. I find satisfaction in writing both types of material.

My two recent books, Defining Love and The Nature of Love are largely aimed at those with intellectual training.  The one I co-edited and published prior to the two love books – Postmodern and Wesleyan? – is meant for a wide audience. The book I am currently co-writing – Good News – is meant to be accessible to a wide audience.

In the end, I realize that trying to fulfill my call to speak to both the intellectually trained and the largely untrained means controversy and misunderstanding will sometimes come my way. I don’t enjoy this.

But my hope is that those in both domains will find some benefit from my work. And perhaps in some way, my life and work will help both those in the academy and those in congregations come to understand and encourage one another.

God, please help us all.

Amen.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

1 Comments

New Ministry Mag Out!

A new magazine has published its inaugural issue. This denominationally oriented publication is a harbinger of deeper and more creative ministry in the Church of the Nazarene.

The magazine’s title, Grace and Peace, has a holistic, generous, and almost liturgical ring. Its subtitle, Ministry in a Connected Culture, suggests reality is relational and culture is theologically significant. 

In his opening piece, editor Bryon McLaughlin identifies the Church of the Nazarene as large and diverse – a big tent. The denomination has grown in many ways since its early days, and that growth is a source of its current diversity. A big tent denomination needs a magazine that approaches ministry holistically.

McLaughlin explains the magazine’s title by addressing readers directly:

“Grace and Peace is meant to communicate at several levels, just as these words have multiple layers of meaning. We want to affirm your role as an ambassador of grace and peace in your church and community. Whether you serve in an urban, suburban, small town, or rural congregation, or another type of assignment, your work is of value to the Kingdom.” In addition, says McLaughlin, the magazine “is intended to remind us of those things that bind us together.”

What impressed me most while reading the inaugural – collector’s! – issue was the depth and quality of the essays. While these are not Ph.D. dissertation excerpts, they are also not fluffy. As one of my professorial friends put it, “this is a denominational magazine that I will actually read voluntarily!”

I’m tempted to make numerous comments on articles in the magazine.  Dana Hicks’s featured piece is excellent. Leonard Sweet’s interview is enlightening. But I’ll refrain from lengthy comments. There are so many strong offerings in the magazine!

The magazine also has a website.  As you might expect, more material is available online than what can be provided on the printed pages.

Let me end this endorsement blog of Grace and Peace by quoting Bob Broadbooks’s concluding article. After noting some of Martin Luther King's struggles, Broadbooks says to his readers,

“You have known the majestic struggle of sharing the grace and peace of Christ. My prayer is that this inaugural edition and all subsequent editions of Grace and Peace, our new USA/Canada magazine/website, will do the same for you. You need grace for your soul and peace for your body May you find it here through the benevolent hands of Jesus, and may your majestic struggle be enriched!”

Amen!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under John Wesley, Holiness, and the Church of the Nazarene

Add comment

Comments

9 Comments

Comparing Bible and Qur’an

Michael Lodahl’s new book, Claiming Abraham: Reading the Bible and the Qur’an Side by Side, is simply an exciting read! His theological interpretation of these sacred texts should help Christians and Muslims identify their theological similarities and differences.

While a significant amount of historical and cultural research informs the book, Michael’s greatest insights – and the thrust of the book itself – are theological. At its basis, Lodahl’s argument is that “the Bible and Qur’an often construe God, humans, and the world as a whole in noticeably different ways—and in ways that make for significant differences both in theology and in practice” (4).

Lodahl masterfully presents differing Jewish, Christian, and Muslim trajectories of interpretation in the chapters of the book. The differences are theologically important. 

I considered a chapter-by-chapter review of the helpful insights I discovered in Claiming Abraham. But such an approach would make for a lengthy review. So I’ve decide to pick out what I think are major highlights.

The following are highly oversimplified summaries of what I regard as some of the more exciting insights from the book...

Revelation

Muslims are people of a book -- the Qur'an. Christians are people of a person – Jesus Christ.

Revelation in Islam is neat and clean; while “revelation in Christianity is inevitably and inescapably a messy and ambiguous phenomenon,” says Lodahl. Interestingly, the Muslim view of Qur’anic inspiration and infallibility corresponds rather well with Christian Fundamentalism, not the historic Christian (especially Wesleyan) view of sacred scripture.

Jesus and Qur’an

Muslim scholars debate whether the Qur’an, as a heavenly book, was created or uncreated. This debate parallels the historic Christian discussion of whether Jesus was created or uncreated. This parallel gives strong clues about what each religion believes is its central revelation.

God as Creator

Muslims view God’s creative activity as unilateral. God says, “Be,” and it is. 

The Bible views God’s creative activity as inviting creatures to join in the creation process. For instance, Genesis says God asks humans to name creatures, while the Qur'an reports that Allah has the names eternally predetermined.

Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an explicitly supports creation from absolutely nothing.

Submission vs. Cooperation

Allah’s will shall be done no matter what creatures do. The efficacy of God’s will, by contrast, rests at least in part in creaturely cooperation.

Allah demands submission; God seeks cooperation. To put it simply: Allah exerts power over, while God empowers others.

God and an Open Future

Allah acts from a stance in which all things are eternally settled. God, however, is open “to new possibilities, perhaps even to surprises,” says Lodahl, “in our world of human creativity and open futures” (90).

A small group of Muslims known as Mu’tazilites taught that Allah faced an open future. But this Islamic sub-tradition was silenced. Christian scriptures better support the view that the future is open even for God.

Prevenient Grace

The doctrine of prevenient grace provides a beginning point for a Christian theology of Muhammad’s significance. Christians can affirm God’s influence upon Muhammad without affirming that Muhammad’s ideas are infallible or even better than Christian ideas.

Eschatology and Divine Power

The Qur’an teaches that the world will end in God’s display of apocalyptic and supreme power.A omnipotent God will unilaterally end all things.

The Philippians passage in the Christian Bible, by contrast, suggests that “it is not God’s nature to insist upon ‘being God’,” says Lodahl, “but instead always to be self-giving, self-emptying Spirit-outpouring” (195).  Lodahl argues that because there is “no evidence that God is interested in coercing Christians into a life together,” we have no good reason to “expect that at some point God will resort to coercion, a kind of divine violence, in order to usher in a world of righteous love” (198).

Conclusion

To close this brief review, I want to quote the second to last paragraph in the book. It is preceded by Lodahl’s argument that a Christian interpretation of God and God’s activity in creation “should be unafraid and unashamed to acknowledge the role of human beings, or ‘the human element’.” The Christian view differs radically from Islam, because it affirms “God’s profound investment in divine-human collaboration” (206).

Here’s the second to last paragraph in the book:

“A full appreciation of the theological vision of colaboring moves us, I believe, to resist the recurring temptation to demand closure, to formulate easy answers, to seek deliverance from ambiguity of the happy burden of interpretation which is our lot. It appears that we – Jews, Christians, Muslims, and many other from virtually countless religious traditions – shall continue to open, which means to reopen, the texts of Holy Writ and of the world in which we find ourselves. May we become faithful readings in the spirit of humble prayer” (206).

Amen!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

76 Comments

Love Stinks! and other Love Lyrics

I’ve often thought it would be fun to write a scholarly essay on love using song lyrics.  Music plays such an important part of our lives, and I confess that music has profoundly shaped the way I see the world.

The essay I might write could include grand statements such as, “All you need is love,” from the Beatles.  It could include a song many artists have sung over the years: “Love makes the world go around.”  I might add the lyrics of a song from Utopia, “Love is the answer.”

My essay would praise love’s immense capacity using lyrics from Huey Lewis and the News: “It’s strong and it’s sudden and it’s cruel sometimes. But it might just save your life. That’s the power of love.” Or I might use the lyrics from a song sung by Air Supply and Celine Dion, “Power of love.”

Popular music has plenty of advice about love too.  My essay might include these lyrics from the band, Sweet: “Love is like oxygen. You get too much you get too high.  Not enough and you're gonna die.”

I could include lyrics from the hymns and spiritual songs I learned as a child.  I might include “Jesus loves me, this I know,” “I love you, Lord,” and “Love divine, all loves excelling.”  The chorus of one of my favorite hymns says, “The love of God, how rich and pure!  How measureless and strong! It shall forevermore endure: the saints’ and angels’ song.” 

Acknowledging the link between God and love isn’t limited to the church.  Howard Jones memorably sings, “I need an everlasting love. I need a friend and a lover divine -- an everlasting, precious love.”  The multi-artist, feed-the-hungry hit, “We are the World,” tells us that “We are all a part of God's great big family. And the truth, you know love is all we need. We are the world; we are the children. We are the ones who make a brighter day so let's start giving…”

But love doesn’t always get great reviews in the lyrics of the songs we enjoy.  Tina Turner wonders, “What’s love got to do with it?” The J. Geils band complains, “Love stinks, yeah, yeah!”  With all the credit and blame given love, U2 asks, “In the name of love…what more in the name of love?”

Actually, I could probably write the whole paper using U2 love lyrics! I find myself often belting out U2’s new song, “Stand up for your love!”

Perhaps the perfect love lyrics for a paper on what love is and how we should express it comes from the band, Foreigner.  The vocalist sings: “I wanna know what love is.  And I want you to show me.”  Although the band likely had romance in mind, these lyrics express major questions in the wider study of love. 

The phrase, “I wanna know what love is,” expresses the ongoing question of how we best understand the meaning of love.  I’m really interested in this question, and I’ve written a great deal on this subject, including my recent book, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement.

The second phrase in this Foreigner song – “and I want you to show me” – asks for evidence.  We want to see love in action, not merely know what love is.

Of course, if we don’t have some inking of love’s meaning, we won’t know whether the action we observe deserves the label, “loving action.” Defining love and expressing love go hand in hand, although we don’t have to define love perfectly to express love well.

My hope is that by studying and practicing love, we will love more consistently. And if we love more consistently, perhaps the song lyrics of tomorrow will express what we mean by love even better. And they may better inspire us to act!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

9 Comments

Hiking and Photographing the Owyhees

In the last five months, I’ve done more hiking than I have in the last 15 years. I find trekking the wilderness inspiring.

Most of the time, I hike alone.  My days are typically filled with interactions with numerous people. I like that. But getting away occasionally rejuvenates me.

My favorite places to hike are the Owyhee Mountains of southern Idaho. I can get to them and start hiking after a 35-minute drive.  There are benefits to living in Idaho!

I typically head out to hike in the early evening. I have several objectives for this kind of adventure. I’ve already mentioned one: I need solitude from time to time.

I also spend a great deal of my time taking photos when I hike. The “perfect” days for hiking photos have wild weather. I look for swirling clouds or sunrays shining through darkened skies. Great clouds and varied light make all the difference!

Part of my motivation to hike is exercise. I typically hike steep hills and mountains, and I often break a serious sweat. I prefer stair stepping in the wild to stair stepping at the gym.

Sagebrush, rock, and desert ravines motivate me to hike. Perhaps my experience growing up in the open spaces of eastern Washington State draw me away from forests and toward open deserts.

A couples days ago, my hike was especially enjoyable.  In previous weeks, the rains have descended in uncharacteristic May fashion.

The upside to rain, however, is that diverse desert flowers bloom. I don’t know their names, but their colorful hues appeal to my sense of beauty – especially when those flowers mix with green and golden crabgrass and green and gray sagebrush.

Two does scampered away from behind rocks while I hiked up a steep grade that day. The deer bounced off and paused after reaching a safe distance of about 60 yards. They disappeared after briefly glancing back at me. Unlike the deer I see while jogging near home, these does aren’t accustomed to seeing people.

I typically avoid trails when I hike – unless I think the trails are narrow enough to have been cleared by deer. There’s something about trekking on virgin soil that enlivens me. I could have been a fossil hunter or anthropologist if my earlier life had been different.

Sometimes I imagine finding an old miner’s campsite or Native American granary. I watch for pictographs and scan the rocks for caves. I’m also looking for animal dens and rattlesnakes. Exploring is second nature.

Last week, I followed the edge of a cliff that must have been 200-300 feet high. Rocks jutted out at weird angles. Portions of the edge had eroded. A half a dozen ravens circled below me.

While walking along the rim, I spotted a small pocket of water on a ledge.  I eased my way down to the pocket to take photos. I felt especially vulnerable – like prey exposed to an eagle’s eye and talons.

That evening the wind was especially brisk. Being on a cliff ledge makes the wind feel even stronger.

Despite the gale, I sprawled out next to the pocket of water.  I put on my wool hat and gloves, and buttoned my jacket tightly. Folding my arms on my chest to keep warm, I relaxed and enjoyed my perch.

I sat for about a half hour. The sun disappeared over the mountains in front of me. The ravens flew near to check on my status. And the wind swirled incessantly.

I lay suspended over the deep ravine, and I marveled at the beautiful creation.

Time well spent.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

2 Comments

Postmodern and Wesleyan 2

The following is the second half of a lecture on postmodernism and the Wesleyan theological tradition I gave about a year ago. In a previous blog, I proposed five ways in which revisionary postmodernism coheres with Wesleyan theological concerns. In this blog, I propose the final five.

The following is the second half of a lecture on postmodernism and the Wesleyan theological tradition I gave about a year ago. In a previous blog, I proposed five ways in which revisionary postmodernism coheres with Wesleyan theological concerns. In this blog, I propose the final five.

In my previous blog, I qualified how I use the word “postmodern” and why I refer to the Wesleyan tradition among Christian theological traditions.  I encourage readers to review that essay briefly before reading this one.

6. An ethics of love

People give various reasons for why humans ought to act morally. Some affirm an ethics of duty: do _x_ because it’s the right thing to do. Modernist Immanuel Kant offers a sophisticated version of this approach. Duty-based ethics runs into significant problems, however, when people have largely different notions of what the right thing to do really involves. And this approach to ethics tends toward legalism.

Others affirm what they typically call “utilitarian ethics:” do _x_ because it provides the greatest good for the greatest number. John Stuart Mill is often identified with this approach. The problem with this approach is that it requires sophisticated rational calculation. And it has a difficult time accounting for what many believe are inalienable rights.

Still others say we ought to do what God commands. In its premodern form, this approach to ethics relied primarily upon the Church. If the Church says it, God commands it. Modernity saw moral authority shift to an individual’s interpretation of the Bible. If an individual’s reading of the Bible suggests God commands a particular ethics, it must be so. In the case of either the Church or the individual, God commands morality.

Various postmodern traditions offer new approaches to ethical justification or return to old ones. Narrative postmodernism criticizes the view that the individual decides right and wrong. It calls for a return to the community/church to be ultimate arbiter.

Liberationist postmodernism privileges the work of emancipation as the ultimate ethical goal. Breaking the chains of oppression – personal, communal, or global – is the right thing to do. Less often does this postmodern tradition provide a constructive answer to the question, “Freed to do what?”

Deconstructive postmodernism typically criticize all attempts to universalize or prescribe right and wrong. Having shown the weaknesses in other alternatives, however, it typically offers no constructive alternative.

All of the ethical theories mentioned have advantages that postmodern ethics should incorporate into a robust view of morality. Revisionary postmodernism does this, but it also shares with the Wesleyan theological tradition a fundamental commitment to love as the core of ethics. This commitment doesn’t mean that all other ethical approaches are unhelpful or invalid. But it does argue we should be primarily concerned with expressing love in each moment and becoming loving people – in community.

Many people today – even those who do not believe in God – intuitively know love should be their ultimate concern. In this way, revisionary postmodernism expresses well a central cry of our time.

Douglas Coupland, the one who coined the label “Generation X,” illustrates this cry in his book, Life after God

“Here is my secret: I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words.  My secret is that I need God – that I am sick and can no longer make it alone.  I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.”

Revisionary postmodernists can agree with John Wesley when he argued that love is the foundation for theology and ethics. Wesley said:

“There is nothing higher in religion [than love].  And when you are asking others, ‘Have your received this or that blessing?’ if you mean anything more than love, you mean wrong.  ….You are to aim at nothing more, but more of that love described in the thirteenth of the Corinthians.”

7. Progress is possible

One hallmark of at least some modern philosophy was the idea progress is inevitable. Philosopher Bertrand Russell serves as a good example of this view, but he essentially tied progress to science. Science tells us truths about the world, said Russell, and in doing so forces out the false myths of religion.

Some modern theologians agreed with the idea of inevitable progress. Chicago theologian, Shailer Matthews, linked his belief in an almighty, benevolent God to the march of science and progress of evolution. For Matthews, there were good theological and scientific reasons to know better days were inevitable.

Not all modernists thought progress inevitable, however. In fact, some denied genuine progress was even possible. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for instance, scoffed at the idea things were getting genuinely better. For Niebuhr, creation required God to rescue creation sometime in the future.

Postmodernists do not agree among themselves whether to affirm or deny progress. Revisionary postmodernism, however, argues that progress is possible but not inevitable.

With its fundamental commitment to genuine freedom, revisionary postmodernism says creatures can choose good or ill.  Their choices have genuine consequences. These consequences can make the world better or worse. Progress is possible, but creatures much choose well.

John Wesley shares this optimism about the possibility of progress. Wesley allegedly said, “The best is yet to be.” This pithy saying coheres with his basic conviction that genuine spiritual growth is possible in sanctification. Wesley believed the new creation began in this life.

Wesley used the word “perfection” to talk about the progress possible in the Christian life. What he meant by perfection, however, differs from what we typically mean today. I prefer the word “transformation” instead of perfection to speak of progress in Christian holiness.

Because Wesley also affirmed genuine creaturely freedom and the sin that comes from using freedom wrongly, his view fits well with the revisionary postmodern belief progress is possible but not inevitable. Sin has negative consequences. It can thwart the growth in grace God desires. But our cooperation as God’s “fellow workers” can further establish the kingdom of God here and now.

8. Relational plausibility

The question of truth has perplexed humans from earliest recorded history. Premodern and modern people attempted to grasp absolute truths absolutely.

Some modern Christians attempt to establish absolute truth by claiming the Bible is absolute truth. This typically means claiming the Bible has absolutely no errors whatsoever. The Bible is inerrant, they say.

The modern project of establishing the absolute truth of the Bible by affirming its inerrancy, however, collapses upon itself. The Bible itself cannot support the project, because it has multiple errors of various types. Fortunately, the vast majority of errors are of minimal consequence.

As a response, some modernists claiming the original biblical manuscripts were error-free. But his response offers no help for establishing that the Bibles we actually have now are absolutely true.

Deconstructive postmodernism reacts to the modern search for absolute certainty by pretending that seeking truth is unnecessary. In its crassest form, this version of postmodernism suggests truth is whatever the individual decides truth to be. The consequences: radical relativism. Such relativism undermines the attempt to make sense of reality.

Narrative postmodernism asks us to seek truth in the stories of the communities. While denying that reason is universal, narrative overcomes individual relativism by seeking truth in the form of life a people share.

Critics of narrative postmodernism charge, however, its approach to truth only moves relativism from the individual to the corporate level. When communities affirm contradictory truths, no grounds remain to resolve this difference. This would mean, for instance, narrative postmodernism implies it to true for Christians that Jesus is the way to salvation and while equally true for atheists that Jesus is not the way.

Rather than seeking the self-assuredness of absolute certainty, revisionary postmodernists seek a humble confidence that some statements or views of reality are truer than others are. In this, they follow the ancient path to seek universal truth, while also acknowledging that some truths are local or based on individual experience.

Revisionary postmodernists are open to and sometimes recast, generalize, and adapt what they believe to be true in light of new experiences and information.  For this tradition, experiences of all types – personal, communal, religious, and even the experiences recorded in the Bible or enjoyed Scripture – can lead to ultimate truth. But we should speak about ultimate truth believing we know in part not the whole.

While not specifically constructed with revisionary postmodernism in mind, I believe the Wesleyan quadrilateral fits with the sensibilities of revisionary postmodernism. The quadrilateral claims Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience all contribute to finding truth. These resources cannot provide absolute certainty. But they can provide grounds to claim greater plausibility for some views rather than others.

The pluralism of the quadrilateral – four sources – and the multi-faceted nature of revisionary postmodernism’s knowledge sources fit comfortably together. Truth can be pluriform and yet unified.

9. Cooperation with God

The two final ways revisionary postmodernism coheres with Wesleyan theology are specifically theological.

Over the centuries, those who believe in God have talked about divine activity in many ways. But one dominant way – represented well by some of what John Calvin says – is that God is in complete control.  Nothing happens except that either God causes it or allows it to happen.

Modernists of various stripes rebelled against this view of an all-determining God. For some, it is better to claim creatures are autonomous, independent, and entirely free vis-à-vis God. God created the world, but humans are now able to act freely.

Revisionary postmodernism affirms with Wesleyan theology a middle way between the God who controls everything and the view that creatures are entirely independent agents.

Wesleyans and revisionary postmodernists typically affirm what John Wesley called “preventing grace” and what today we know as “prevenient grace.” All creatures rely upon God’s empowering and inspiring activity in each moment of existence. But God acts so that creatures may freely respond. God does not control all things; but creature are not entirely independent of God.

Prevenient grace goes by other names, including “cooperative grace,” “responsible grace,” and “enabling grace.” Most versions of this theory argue that part of what it means to be God is lovingly to provide freedom/agency to others. Divinely initiated synergy is possible.

I want to choose an uncommon (and perhaps unique) illustration to show how we might understand a central Christian practice in premodern, modern, and revisionary postmodern terms. The practice I have in mind is the celebration of the Eucharist.

Some Christians believe that in receiving the Eucharist, God uses the elements to determine one’s salvation entirely. In this case, the Eucharist becomes a kind of “power pill,” unilaterally effective no matter what the receiver does.

Some modernist Christians, however, think of the Eucharist as something we partake to remember the death of Christ. Christians who view the Eucharist as memorial typically consider God’s action something done in the distant past for us to recall in the present.

When celebrating the Eucharist, revisionary postmodernists and Wesleyans can affirm God is truly present and active in that celebration.  But the effectiveness of the meal is partly dependent upon how the receiver responds to God in and through the wine and bread. God is truly present; the past is truly remembered. But the celebration involves divine call and human response today when celebrating God’s love and our love for God, others, and ourselves.

10. Relational God

Just as believers throughout history have understood God’s activity in various ways, so too have Christians thought differently of God’s capacity to relate to others.

A strong tradition in premodern times said the Father is unaffected by creation. This view denied “patripassionism,” because it said that while Jesus suffered on the Cross, the perfect Father remained unaffected. With Aristotle, these believers believed that God (at least the Father) was the unmoved mover.

Two prominent modern theologians largely continued the tradition of denying patripassionism. Paul Tillich, for instance, described God as “Being Itself.” Tillich could not understand God well as a Person(s) with give-and-receive relations with creatures.

Karl Barth worried philosophers considered God so similar to creatures that they stripped God of divinity. In response, Barth claimed God was “Wholly Other.” If we take this label seriously and literally, God cannot be understood or talked about in any constructive way. Barth appealed to the revelation of Jesus Christ as a way to overcome this problem. But this appeal was only partly helpful, because it wrongly assumed our statements about Jesus were free from philosophical categories.

Revisionary postmodern and Wesleyan theology envision God as relational. This view fits well with the biblical witness. God enjoys genuine give-and-receive, mutually influential relationships with creatures. God is the most moved mover.

The importance of a relational vision of God is hard to overemphasize. It is crucial for understanding God’s love, as I have argued in many publications. It makes constructive language about God plausible. And it seems central to making sense of the heart of the gospel message.

One important but sometimes overlooked implication of the view God is relational is its impact on how we understand religious experience. If God is relational -- both in Trinity and toward creation -- we can discover powerful clues about how we might imitate God. God can be our example for what it means to establish and maintain loving relationships with others. Personal and communal Christian formation involves reciprocity, friendship, and sacrifice for the good of others.

Conclusion

There is much, much more I could say about each of these subjects. Blogs reward brevity, however, and I’m already worried that my reward has diminished! For now, I hope this post and the previous provide an outline of ten significant ways revisionary postmodern coheres with the Wesleyan tradition.

It bears repeating that Christians in other theological traditions may affirm most if not all the ten items I list. Wesleyans surely don’t have the corner on revisionary postmodernism!

But I do think the Wesleyan tradition naturally coheres with this postmodern tradition. And this natural coherence bodes well for both Wesleyans and this postmodern perspective.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Postmodern Philosophy, Theology, and Culture

Add comment

Comments

37 Comments

Extra Mile Love

I challenged my university students to go “the extra mile” this semester to show love.  I was impressed with how they responded!

In my course studying the philosophy and theology of love, I challenge students to select a supererogatory love project.  “Supererogatory” means going beyond what others would normally expect.

The project had parameters: students had to accomplish the project during the semester, it had to “stretch” the student beyond his or her comfort zone, and it had to promote well-being in others.

My class of forty students responded in some remarkable ways! I’ve chosen six examples of “extra mile” love to share.

Blake Wenner, met the challenge by providing rebuilt bicycles for student use on the NNU campus. Blake was able to collect and purchase 15 “junkie bikes” and rebuild them. The project provides an environmentally friendly form of transportation for students who do not have bikes. Known as “Zip Bikes,” these bright yellow, green, and pink bikes now belong to the university community. Students can ride from point A to point B, leaving the bike at point B for another student. Blake plans to continue his work in the years to come.

Andrea Hills planned her extraordinary love project in response to a need she discovered while writing an article for the school paper. Andrea interviewed a volunteer from the Lifeline Pregnancy Care Center. She found that young mothers, especially teens, are often very vulnerable and need extra support. Andrea responded to this need by putting together care packages for Lifeline. The care packages are given young mothers after having a baby. Andrea’s care packages containing diapers, bottles, clothes, and other baby items are greatly appreciated. But she discovered the greatest need at Lifeline is clothes for older children – a need that Andrea hopes to fill in the future.

Student Braeden Gray decided to clean public restrooms as an act of loving service. Braeden went to a local store, purchased an array of cleaning supplies, and proceeded to a local gas station. After receiving bewildered looks from a very confused gas station attendant, he cleaned the station restroom at no charge. Several days later, the attendant asked Braeden why he would do this kind thing. Acts of love have the potential to leave others bewildered but appreciative. 

Courtney Michelson responded to the challenge by writing letters to a woman battling severe depression at the Sierra Tucson Treatment Center in Arizona. The letters started as generic introductions. But as time went on, the letters became more personal. Her letters had made a positive impact in the life of its recipient. Through this process, Courtney came to realize that “acting in love is more than getting immediate results. Sometimes, the most loving things take time.”

The project of Allison Dietz reveals how a person can show love using personal interests. Allison loves to take portraits. She decided to offer free photography sessions (each session between 1-2 hours) for interested parties. She placed fliers around the Nampa community. Before long, Allison was receiving many calls to schedule these sessions. She edited the portraits and made CD’s of the shots for customers. Allison provided free of charge professional quality engagement photos, senior pictures, family photos, etc.

Kylie May responded to the love class challenge by informally mentoring two younger girls. She met the pre-teen girls at coffee shops read with them Captivating – a book aimed at teaching young girls to become godly women. Kylie was shocked to discover the severity of problems these young girls face. They or their friends suffered from depression, had attempted suicide, and had been molested. In the midst of these trials, Kylie was able to offer hope. She acted as a role model for these younger girls. And like most loving relationships, the benefits were reciprocal: Kylie grew personally as she helped to form these young girls.  

There were many other inspiring projects. It reminds me again that talking about love and defining it well is important. But showing love in action is often most important.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Love and Altruism

Add comment

Comments

16 Comments

Open Theology’s Problem with the Problem of Evil

Open theology offers an impressive theological framework. But Open theology has a problem with the problem of evil.

In my newly published book, The Nature of Love: A Theology (Chalice), I argue that Open theology’s basic proposals work well for constructing a theology of love. Open theology offers biblically oriented ideas to overcome problems for love in conventional theologies. It helps make sense of love from biblical, rational, and experiential perspectives.

My own theology of love is a form of Open theology.

The Role of Freedom in Love

My theology of love draws some from Clark Pinnock’s theology.  I am indebted to his wisdom and scholarship.  But I disagree with him on an important issue: how we best understand God’s power.

The issue of God’s power is important to solving the problem of evil. Pinnock offers what he calls a “logic of love theodicy” to answer that problem.

Central to his logic of love theodicy is his belief in genuine creaturely freedom—a theory sometimes called “libertarian freedom.” “The Bible itself assumes libertarian freedom when it posits personal give-and-take relationships and when it holds people responsible for their actions,” argues Pinnock. “On this matter I am moved by the Bible itself.”

“Forced love is a contradiction in terms,” Pinnock says, “and God does not force his love on us.” “Love woos, it does not compel.” “It is love’s way not to overpower but to be gentle and persuade,” asserts Pinnock. “Grace works mightily but does not override.”

Pinnock summarizes his theodicy with the following brief statements:

1.         God created for the sake of loving relationships.

2.         This required giving real freedom to the creature so that it not be a robot.

3.         Freedom, however, entailed risk in the event that love was not reciprocated.

4.         Herein lays the possibility of moral and certain natural evils—those which appear irredeemably malicious and demonic.

5.         God does not abandon the world but pledges a victory over the powers of darkness. In such a theodicy, God does not will evil but wills love and, therefore, freedom that opens the door to things going right or wrong.

6.         Though God does not protect us from ourselves, God is there redeeming every situation, though exactly how, we may not yet always know.

Pinnock's Version of Open Theology is Inconsistent

To the question, “Why do genuine evils occur?” Pinnock offers a strong answer: free creatures, the natural constraints of creation, and/or demonic powers are to blame. God does not cause genuine evil. Because of love, God created others as free agents, and they (and other created agents and forces) are culpable for causing evil.

To the more difficult question, “Why doesn’t God prevent genuine evils from occurring?” – Pinnock’s theodicy breaks down.

Sometimes, Pinnock says God does not act coercively. God’s power is not “the power of a puppeteer, the power to make everything else surrender,” he says. Instead, God “makes free agents as creators and movers in their own right.” God “made a kind of covenant of noncoercion with creatures,” Pinnock decides. “Love and not sheer power overcomes evil,” he explains, and “God does not go in for power tactics.”

Other times, Pinnock believes God is coercive. “God is not bound to persuasion alone,” he claims. “Coercive power is available to God, even if he uses it sparingly.” God sometimes acts coercively, because “God has the power to intervene in the world, interrupting (if need be) the normal causal sequences.”

The typical version of Open theology is inconsistent on this crucial issue. If love acts persuasively by granting freedom and yet God sometimes coerces, God does not love consistently.

Pinnock says that love does not command, does not overpower, does not force, does not compel, and does not override. But this means God does not love when God does command, does overpower, does force, does compel, and does override. We cannot have it both ways.

To account for events in which God seems to express all-controlling power, Pinnock thinks God can coerce and occasionally does so. If God “controls nothing, little room is left for miracles and the final victory,” he says.

God “was uniquely active in that strand of history that culminated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus,” says Pinnock. And the resurrection of Jesus requires more than persuasion.

Accounting for these events is not only admirable. In my opinion, accounting for them is crucial to the Christian witness to the good news.  But believing God must use coercive power to accomplish these things inhibits us from offering a good answer to why a God capable of coercion doesn’t also prevent genuine evil.

God’s Freedom Is Relatively Irrevocable?

Pinnock’s strongest—yet still unsatisfying—answer to why God could prevent genuine evil but doesn’t pertains to God’s freedom-giving activity.

A “relative irrevocability of freedom and the stable natural order God has set in motion,” says Pinnock, means God cannot simply terminate creatures and creation. “To prevent his creatures working evil would be to act against the liberty God gave them and removing the freedom would show God was not serious in giving it in the first place,” declares Pinnock.

This response initially sounds promising -- until one realizes Pinnock believes God’s gift of freedom is relatively irrevocable. Relative irrevocability means God retains the ability to coerce.

Sometimes God exercises coercive power, says Pinnock. His version of Open theology “does not recognize inherent limitations in God.” God has become voluntarily self-limited when giving freedom to others. This self-limitation—because it is voluntary—is not absolute. Nothing could stop God from becoming un-self-limited to prevent any genuinely evil event.

Because Pinnock’s version of Open theology says God occasionally coerces, he cannot solve the most important obstacle to constructing an adequate theology of love: the problem of evil. A perfectly loving and voluntarily self-limited God should interrupt creation’s causal sequences to prevent genuine evil.

As Pinnock sees it, God is able to prevent evil but not always willing.

God’s Love Must be Steadfast

Part of what it means to love steadfastly, I argue, is to act continually to promote overall well-being. The God whom Pinnock describes possesses coercive power but sometimes fails to thwart genuinely evil tragedies, holocausts, catastrophes, and horrors. This is not steadfast love.

To his credit, Pinnock admits his proposal cannot solve the problem of evil. He “laments God’s inaction in respect to evil.” He believes “God could be doing more than he is doing and wonders why [God] isn’t doing it.”

Those who point out that his version of Open theology fails to solve the problem of evil, admits Pinnock, “make a good and, to me, painful point.”

We Need a Different Doctrine of God’s Power

When it comes to conceiving of God’s love and power, we should look for an Open theology option other than the one Pinnock proposes. We should agree with him “it is love’s way not to overpower but to … persuade.” To present God as consistently loving, however, we must deny God can totally control others.

The doctrine of divine power we affirm should support Christian doctrines of miracles. It should support the resurrection of Jesus and a victory at the end of history. It should support a biblically oriented doctrine of creation.

But a more adequate view of God’s love and power should account for these important Christian events while denying God ever coerces.

My Own Proposal

One of the main reasons I wrote The Nature of Love: A Theology was to offer a theology of love that combines God’s power and love adequately. I call my proposal “Essential Kenosis.” My proposal overcomes the problem of evil and presents God as steadfastly loving.

Essential Kenosis offers a way of understanding God’s power, while affirming the occurrence of miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, hope for a final victory at the end of history, and a biblically supported doctrine of creation.

I look forward to dialoguing with readers now that the book is finally published!

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under Open and Relational Theology

Add comment

Comments

4 Comments

Transforming Christian Theology II

I complete my brief review of highlights from Philip Clayton's book. And I propose my own ideas about theology's role in transformation.

Telling our Stories

Testimony is an essential part of the Christian transformation we need today, says Philip Clayton in his recent book, Transforming Christian Theology. Clayton spends a great deal of time talking about the central role theology must play if transformation can occur. “We have to learn to tell our story, as individuals and as communities,” he says, “together with Jesus’ story.”

Formulating theologies involves creating a powerful statement of what we believe, says Clayton. This statement can guide and motivate the transformative action God seeks in us and in the world.

Telling our own stories lifts our implicit beliefs about God into consciousness. Doing so helps us become explicit about the beliefs we affirm. This process also makes it possible for us to compare our beliefs with other ways of thinking about God. And this comparison, in turn, helps in our quest to affirm a more adequate theology.

A personal theological testimony doesn’t require us to formulate a sophisticated theological treatise. “At the end of the day, don’t you just have to work out the best answer you can give,” Clayton asks rhetorically, “whether the others like it or not, and tell people honestly what you think?”  

When we tell our own stories, we also need not think our story reduces theology itself. Christian theology is much greater than we are! But we cannot own our beliefs until we find our story in the grand Christian story.

Leadership

Christian leadership plays a key role in the transformation God wants to accomplish. Leaders today have been given a rare opportunity to be catalysts for change.

Unfortunately, many Christians in leadership roles see a decline in church and denominational membership. Clayton observes many in the highest echelons of Christian leadership determined that their denominations not collapse on their watch. He urges leaders to be out in front of change, rather than trying to manage change after the fact.

Christian leaders should think of themselves as hosting others, rather than controlling them. Good hosts build and maintain networks. And good leaders create positive links with other networks. Perhaps we could call the ministry now needed from many Christian leaders, “networks theology.”

A Big Tent

At the heart of the postmodern spirit is the quest to find common ground with others, while simultaneously voicing the distinctive features of our own faith story.

Clayton is particularly interested in a big tent view of contemporary Christianity. This approach emphasizes the gospel of hope all Christians share. It deemphasizes without denying the historical differences that have divided Christians over the centuries.

Of course, some claim not to identify with a particular theological tradition. Many people claim to be spiritual but not religious. They distrust institutions and traditions. Yet these same people often end together in new communities of like-minded people. Part of a leader’s ministry today is to deal effectively and appreciatively with this phenomenon.

As important as institutions are, they are not what motivate people to seek transformation. Genuine transformation requires stoking the fires that fuel the passions of many who seek change. “The kingdom of God would be a lot better off,” says Clayton, “if people went hunting for the kinds of conversations and actions that brought the sparkle of excitement to their eyes.”

Where I Go From Here          

After reading Clayton’s book and a few others, I’ve identified a contribution I might make to this conversation. I want to identify the kinds of theologies that typically foster transformation.

I don’t think every theology I hear expressed is of the same value. Some theological visions are better than others are. But a variety of theologies can foster creative transformation today. We don’t have to agree with one another on all issues of importance. A big tent of diverse theologies is possible. Only those who think they know all theological truth inerrantly should think otherwise.

Here is my first attempt at a list of theologies of transformation. Perhaps one could construct a “meta-theology” to account for this list.  But for now, I focus upon some particulars theologies that seem important for emphasis:

- Theologies acknowledging brokenness and experiencing healing

- Theologies helping us deeply experience and affirm God’s relentless love for others and us

- Theologies that advocate triumph over addictions

- Theologies that foster creative/artistic expression

- Theologies urging passion for social justice, activism, and compassion for the poor

- Theologies of personal spiritual formation

I believe placing theology at the center of a movement seeking transformation keeps the focus where it belongs:on God. This focus must remain on God, not because it sounds pious to do so.  It must remain on God, because all other motivations cannot sustain our passion and compassion.

I think robust theologies of transformation must speak about our decisions and action. But I’m convinced theologies focused primarily upon creatures undermine cravings for transformation. Only God can satisfy as our ultimate concern.

I’m also thinking that we should emphasize God as Holy Spirit when thinking about transformational theology today. An emphasis upon the Holy Spirit fosters freshness, vitality, and power for change. Transformation requires this.

Of course, I don’t mean to deemphasize the role of the other persons in the Trinity. We must also speak of the Father and Son. But there’s something invigorating about the way we typically think of the Holy Spirit that ignites cries and action for genuine transformation.

Finally, I can’t imagine genuine transformation in the Christian tradition without love at the fore. Above all, God is love. And the greatest commands center on love.

But part of what it means to keep love at the fore is that we must explain love takes a myriad of forms. Love is diversity friendly.

And the emphasis upon love must be much more than talk. Talk is important. But actions often speak louder than words. Transformation requires love in action!

Well, that's what I'm thinking at the moment. I’d like to hear about other theological emphases you think might help as avenues for seeking transformation today…

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

6 Comments

Transforming Christian Theology

Theology shouldn’t play a supporting role in the Christian transformation we need so desperately today. It should play the main role!

In his book, Transforming Christian Theology: For Church in Society, by Philip Clayton (in collaboration with Tripp Fuller) argues that engaging and constructing theology is the missing piece in current efforts for foster Christian renewal.

We all know the world is different today. Clayton says that this difference should influence at least somewhat the theology we affirm in our postmodern world. Clayton wrote his book in part because so many people have "lost the ability to give powerful, vibrant accounts of what it means to be 'Christian' in today's world and what it is they actually believe" (6).

The internet and new technologies have democratized theology. Surprising to some, the standard for good theology has actually risen as a result. Postmodernism also influences the style and substance of theology today.  And that's a good thing!

The next generation of Christians, says Clayton, may not return to the old churches. For many today both inside the church and outside it, today’s denominations are no longer relevant.  Recovering an emphasis upon theology can be the difference for Christianity to survive and thrive.

Seminary Theology

Clayton is confident that academic theology, by itself, won’t alone carry the future of the church. Most seminary professors are not preparing their students for practical theology, because they are not teaching seminary students to think about theology in practice.

Upon graduation, many seminarians revert to popular notions of theology they first brought to graduate school. Seminary professors have a responsibility to draw connections to the life of the church so that theological education makes a real difference in ministry.

The church will always need some paid theologians.  But these people should view themselves as coaches, not just purveyors of true propositions. Professional theologians must teach others to think about and apply theology, and they must do so in their own voices.

Theology for Everyone

“Imagine groups of us struggling together to apply our Christian world and life views to the begging questions in our local communities and to the greater challenges facing humanities,” says Clayton. Then after doing this work, we should put “our conclusions and resolutions into action.”

If Christians were to do this, says Clayton, “a lot of honest and much needed conversations would start to happen. And the results, I suggest, could be revolutionary. That, in a nutshell, is the transforming Christian theology vision I hope you’ll begin to share” (23).

Clayton offers tools in the book for this kind of theological construction.  Those tools include the Wesleyan quadrilateral (Scripture, reason, experience, and tradition).

He also proposes that Christians explore seven core Christian questions pertaining to the doctrine of God, Christology, pneumatology, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. We must give answers to these core questions in light of our contemporary world.

I am convinced that Clayton is largely right in his analysis and proposals.  I’ll be exploring more of the book in a future blog.

I’m in the midst of a process of gleaning insights from various thinkers about how we might cooperate with God to participate in the transformation I believe God wants.  Clayton’s book is a gold mine in my process.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments

1 Comments

Transformation for the Church

Many of us recognize the need for transformation in our own lives and in the church. We need wise principles to help us respond well to God’s guidance into this transformation.

Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions that are Transforming the Faith, offers resources for the kind of transformation we need today. Brian wrote this book in the style that makes his writing so engaging.

The questions McLaren explores are important, ranging from questions of biblical interpretation, God and violence, the centrality of Jesus, the Church, sexuality, religious pluralism, practices, Church tradition, and more.

I found the chapter on the future hopeful and helpful. Although Brian doesn’t identify himself as an Open theist, his view of time coheres well with Open theology. The vision he offers denies God’s foreordination, although he leaves open the door for God's foreknowledge.

Brian uses a label to talk about the future that I also find useful. We both argue for a “participatory eschatology.” I happily discovered prior to reading this book that Brian and I share the view that we must cooperate with God to establish the kingdom in the present and future.

Overall, Brian's book seems to me not so much about leaving the past and its traditions.  The new kind of Christianity he advocates involves a recovery of some of the best Christian themes from yesteryear. Brian brings these themes to bear, however, on what transformation means today and for the future.

What Brian says in this book will sound new to some readers. But many of us have affirmed this general vision of Christianity for some time.

My favorite chapter in the book comes near the end: "Living the Questions in Community."  In it, Brian offers advice to this question:

 "Our church or denomination is open, so how can we help it experience transformation through this quest?"

Here are Brian's bullet points of advice to answer this question. I’ve added one quotation from the paragraphs Brian writes after each point:

1. Get a consultant.

“There is enormous power in having the guidance of a wise, gifted, and experienced person who remains outside your congregation or denominational system.”

2. Build new parastructures to foster new approaches.

“The Methodist movement began this way in the Anglican Church, as a parallel structure sustaining and supporting new ways and practices (or methods) of Christian faith.”

3. Expect to bring in a new day with new people.

“It’s the young leaders, often without formal credentials, who can help established denominations change in ways the ‘properly trained’ can’t.”

4. Add. Don't subtract.

“New creeds are written to supplement rather than replace the old…”

5. Develop a theology of institutions.

“Guided by a maturing theology of institutions, wise leaders of ‘priestly’ institutions will always keep a listening ear open to the prophets of movements for change, who will similarly see the priestly leaders of institutions not as enemies, but as colleagues in a greater work.”

6. Preach the Bible.

“I’m convinced that our quest is on the side of the Bible wisely read and applied.”

7. Employ experiential learning. 

“Many people won’t ‘get it’ until they also go through an ‘abductive’ experience,” an experience that helps them see in a new way.”

8. Keep your short-term expectations low and your long-term hopes high.

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

I think this advice is helpful. I’d like to join with those in my own denomination and across Christendom to explore what each might mean for us today.

Share on Facebook

Posted in 2010 under ...and the Kitchen Sink

Add comment

Comments