I've been spending time in the Sermon on the Mount for the past few weeks, partly because I'm teaching on this in a small group and a Sunday morning community, and partly because I've been challenged personally by this Sermon.
I'm now in chapter 6, which opens with a discussion on "acts of righteousness." Other ways of saying this might be helpful: spiritual disciplines, or the Wesleyan vocabulary of means of grace. There are three "acts of righteousness" specifically mentioned: giving (specifically to the poor), prayer, and fasting. These acts are clearly separated from the next session on money and the Kingdom because these three acts carry a common construction formula: "when you...do not be like the hypocrites who..." and then "your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
The hypocrites are the antithesis of the disciples behavior in this prayer. The disciples are told specifically three times to not be like them. I'm ok with this statement, after all who wants to be a hypocrite, right? The problem is that when I think of a hypocrite I usually think of someone who says one thing but actually does another. An example would be someone who says to give, but then actually does not give; or someone who says to pray, but then actually does not pray; or someone who says to fast, but actually does not fast. In this sense, I can get behind why we are not supposed to be like the hypocrites. This is the classic argument of why some don't get involved in the church.
An interesting twist on the hypocrites though is that this is not their role. They are not the people who say one thing and then do the opposite. The hypocrites here are people who actually do the action they say they are doing, they just say it a bit too much. This is where I start to get confused. What is hypocritical about saying you give as long as you actually give? So here is what that tells me, the virtue in these "acts of righteousness," lets use giving for instance, is not giving, but the secrecy in giving. Jesus is not so interested in the fact that someone gave. In fact, he seems to say that if you go around boasting, then you shouldn't have even given. That is crazy to me because I would think naturally that the virtue is the giving. As long as someone gave, then we are good. Afterall the poor still received their food. I hear this from time to time when people say to me "I guess I could give to the church, but its not like I make very much. Asbury has people who make 7 or 8 figures, what is my tithe in relation to that?" If you are asking that question then you are radically missing the point, at least according to the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is not interested in the effectiveness of the gift; Jesus is interested in faithfulness. The effect gift is the hypocrites, who give a lot, and then tell of their great generosity. The faithful gift is the gift that is probably not nearly as much but done in a way that doesn't point back to the giver. Jesus would rather have less money if it was secret.
I don't think this is to say that the virtue here is secrecy, but rather the motivation behind the act is everything. And this is in totally keeping with chapter 5, adultery is lust in the heart (motivation), murder is what happens in the heart (motivation). Chapter 5 concluded with these words, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." In other words, be like God in our heart, which will show up in the way that you practice your acts of righteousness/spiritual disciplines/means of grace.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Witness
I've recently been in conversation with some people regarding a lecture series at the University of Oklahoma celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "Origin of the Species." This person, like many people, are upset by their line of speakers the University is bringing in to discuss Darwin's contributions to science and the world. The main headache is the speaker Richard Dawkins. In no way do I agree with Dawkins. His message is extremely dangerous.
For years, I've argued that theology and evolutionary science can easily co-exist as long as each sees its own proper place. Evolutionary science is not asking the why or the who question; theology is not asking the how question. However, Dawkins preaches a gospel of evolutionary biology and that is troubling because he is going well beyond the bounds of this discipline that is supposing a theory and not only giving evolution "fact" claims, he is making truth claims through evolution. Very dangerous.
What is the proper response to something like this? As part of a large, fairly influential church in Oklahoma is it our place to stand up and say something? Should we protest this event? How do we express our disagreement with this event generally, and Dawkins specifically?
I struggle with this for one major reason. What is the outcome of us engaging the University in this event? I've been told that we must be sure to have a public voice and influence as a church, because it is when we begin to lose respect in the public forum, we begin to lose our influence over culture and thus lose our ability to evangelize. I guess I can see that point, except that I don't know that I've ever seen the church with any influence in the public sector. I've seen the church think she has influence in the public forum, but not really. I've seen the Council of Bishops (UMC) send letters to congressional leaders and the President on certain issues in hopes of social justice in the world. I've seen people in the religious right elect their candidates in hope of passing moral reform. I've seen Christians fight tooth and nail to get creationism in textbooks, restrict abortions, and keep gays out everything. Why do we do this kind of stuff? What is it that we are hoping to attain? If people are more moral will that bring them closer to Jesus? If we ban gay marriage, will our ability to bring people to a personal experience with Jesus go away? If the University of Oklahoma allows Dawkins to present, will people just turn their back on Christ? I understand that it could happen, but if people are abandoning their faith so easily then we have a bigger problem on our hands. We haven't taught the Scripture faithfully, we haven't allowed people to come face to face with Jesus, the Holy Spirit is not guiding their lives. Personally, I don't care to make the world a little more moral through activism, or to prop up a modernistic worldview that is minimally biblical in hopes that it will increase evangelistic activity. I'm interested in proclaiming Christ, and Christ alone. We've thought that if the world would only believe a little bit more of the Christian message, then that will bring them closer to Jesus. We've sold biblical ideas over a relationship with Christ.
So lets pretend we lose our ability to influence the cultural life of America. Why is that synonymous with losing our ability to bring people to Christ? It wasn't until Constantine that the church had any public voice, and it looks like she was at her best without the public voice. She was true to what she believed. She didn't water down her message to fit in and "make sense" to everyone. She preached a crucified Lord who rose from the grave. She did this without influence, without voice, without power, and from that position she changed the culture of the Empire. But she did it through the salvation of people who began to live in this ecclesia that rejected the theology of Empire in order to follow the Suffering Savior.
To me, as long as we continue this Constantinian myth of a Christian state and try to move our message from the lives of individuals into the public sphere, then we will continue to lose voice, power, influence, and effectiveness. Let's return to the peculiarity of our message. The message that is so strange and peculiar that it causes us to rethink the values we've been taught, the values of power and polotics. Lets stop trying to make the world a little more moral and instead work and pray to bring people to know Jesus.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Creationism and Inspiration
I had a conversation this week about creationism being taught in public schools. I smugly said in the course of the conversation, "I would be upset, like confront the superintendent upset, if my child came home with a science textbook that mentioned creationism." Now I was clearly going for a shock factor - "But, you're a pastor!"- kind of shock factor. I was flaunting my liberal enlightenment, and afterward I was immediately regretful of the statement, not because I didn't believe that- because I would be upset- but because really this person was not debating what Christians should think in terms of evolution vs. creation, but really an understanding of revelation and the inspiration of the Bible.
I hate it when people say things like, "I believe in evolution;" or conversely, "I don't believe in evolution...I believe in the Bible." I hate that statement because there is a major confusion that both evolutionists and creationists have tried to get us all to buy into. That is, that evolution is something to believe in. That kind of language reeks of faith/theology/philosophy, of which evolution in its true form is not. To say "I believe in evolution" in the way it is usually said is to automatically compare it to language of faith, as in "I believe in Jesus." Here is where the problem arises, to say that you believe in evolution is to assert that you think it is a reality that will order how you think about the world. Evolution becomes your matrix for how you understand the world, and at that point evolution is no longer science, it is theology. It is asking the who and they why question, which is not part of the scientific method. Now, for sure, many have made evolution out to be a systematic theology, which is frightening, and I would be very upset if my child came home with a text book asserting evolution as anything but scientific theory. Because once it becomes more than scientific theory, we find ourselves engrossed in materialism, which leads no where good.
Conversely, when Christians say that they don't believe in evolution they believe in God, they are automatically giving evolution a voice evolution as a scientific theory should never have. A scientific theory is not meant to answer questions of meaning and existence. A scientific theory is simply a way of understanding how things may have happened. If evolution is understood as a scientific theory and not as an object of faith, then this battle between faith and science should be substantially less violent. However, both sides like to position evolution as a faith system because then it polarizes the other side and all of a sudden you have a controversy and you can recruit people to your side of the argument.
When Christians give evolution the standing of a faith system they are also dramatically reducing what it means to have an inspired Scripture. Some Christians use the word "inerrant" to describe what it means for the Bible to be inspired. Generally, what they mean is that the Bible is true (as in factual) in anything it says. This gives rise to the ridiculous idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are mythical. They then look for "scientific" evidence to back up their irrational claims. It is interesting that at this point science is not the great evil it is when scientists claim evolution as a dominant theory. But, if only they can find a shred of something that looks like scientific backing for their claims, such as a dinosaur footprint next to a human footprint then they are all of a sudden justified in their faith. By the way, the footprint argument is a true argument based in the "Creation Science Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas.
Once you have appealed to science to back up your claim in the way the earth was created, what have you reduced the Bible to? A reference book! The Bible at this point is about fact, not truth. The Bible is about how, not who and why. The brilliant N.T. Wright says,
"The Bible isn't there simply to be an accurate reference point for people who want to look things up and be sure they've got them right. It is there to equip God's people to carry forward his purposes of new covenant and new creation. It is there to enable people to work for justice, to sustain their spirituality as they do so, to create and enhance relationships at every level, and to produce that new creation which will have about it something of the beauty of God himself. The Bible isn't like an accurate description of how a car is made. It's more like the mechanic who helps you fix it, the garage attendant who refuels it, and the guide who helps you fix it, the guide who tells you how to get where you're going. And where you're going is to make God's new creation happen in the world, not simply to find your own way unscathed through the old creation."
I hate it when people say things like, "I believe in evolution;" or conversely, "I don't believe in evolution...I believe in the Bible." I hate that statement because there is a major confusion that both evolutionists and creationists have tried to get us all to buy into. That is, that evolution is something to believe in. That kind of language reeks of faith/theology/philosophy, of which evolution in its true form is not. To say "I believe in evolution" in the way it is usually said is to automatically compare it to language of faith, as in "I believe in Jesus." Here is where the problem arises, to say that you believe in evolution is to assert that you think it is a reality that will order how you think about the world. Evolution becomes your matrix for how you understand the world, and at that point evolution is no longer science, it is theology. It is asking the who and they why question, which is not part of the scientific method. Now, for sure, many have made evolution out to be a systematic theology, which is frightening, and I would be very upset if my child came home with a text book asserting evolution as anything but scientific theory. Because once it becomes more than scientific theory, we find ourselves engrossed in materialism, which leads no where good.
Conversely, when Christians say that they don't believe in evolution they believe in God, they are automatically giving evolution a voice evolution as a scientific theory should never have. A scientific theory is not meant to answer questions of meaning and existence. A scientific theory is simply a way of understanding how things may have happened. If evolution is understood as a scientific theory and not as an object of faith, then this battle between faith and science should be substantially less violent. However, both sides like to position evolution as a faith system because then it polarizes the other side and all of a sudden you have a controversy and you can recruit people to your side of the argument.
When Christians give evolution the standing of a faith system they are also dramatically reducing what it means to have an inspired Scripture. Some Christians use the word "inerrant" to describe what it means for the Bible to be inspired. Generally, what they mean is that the Bible is true (as in factual) in anything it says. This gives rise to the ridiculous idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs are mythical. They then look for "scientific" evidence to back up their irrational claims. It is interesting that at this point science is not the great evil it is when scientists claim evolution as a dominant theory. But, if only they can find a shred of something that looks like scientific backing for their claims, such as a dinosaur footprint next to a human footprint then they are all of a sudden justified in their faith. By the way, the footprint argument is a true argument based in the "Creation Science Museum" in Glen Rose, Texas.
Once you have appealed to science to back up your claim in the way the earth was created, what have you reduced the Bible to? A reference book! The Bible at this point is about fact, not truth. The Bible is about how, not who and why. The brilliant N.T. Wright says,
"The Bible isn't there simply to be an accurate reference point for people who want to look things up and be sure they've got them right. It is there to equip God's people to carry forward his purposes of new covenant and new creation. It is there to enable people to work for justice, to sustain their spirituality as they do so, to create and enhance relationships at every level, and to produce that new creation which will have about it something of the beauty of God himself. The Bible isn't like an accurate description of how a car is made. It's more like the mechanic who helps you fix it, the garage attendant who refuels it, and the guide who helps you fix it, the guide who tells you how to get where you're going. And where you're going is to make God's new creation happen in the world, not simply to find your own way unscathed through the old creation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
