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."
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Theolgical Perspective
My theology according to http://quizfarm.com/run.php/QuizRunner
You Scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.
| Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan | | 93% |
| Neo orthodox | | 79% |
| Emergent/Postmodern | | 68% |
| Roman Catholic | | 57% |
| Charismatic/Pentecostal | | 50% |
| Classical Liberal | | 43% |
| Reformed Evangelical | | 36% |
| Modern Liberal | | 18% |
| Fundamentalist | | 11% |
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Holy Church
I've been thinking for the past few weeks about the nature of the Church. Usually when I think about the nature of the Church, I am verbalizing historic affirmations such as the Apostle's Creed, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church," or the Nicene Creed that there is "one, holy, catholic, apostolic church," or the opinion of the Reformers that the church is where the Word of God is proclaimed and the sacraments duly administered. Now, I think I somewhat understand how to articulate these expressions of the nature of the church, but that doesn't really do anything to help me really understand what this thing called the Church is really about.
When I think about my experience with the church it is often negative. I've met too many cranky, selfish, hypocritical people in the church that it is hard to overlook the bad apples. Of course, I've met amazing people, but the bad ones really stand out. I've also seen the church from the inside out. I understand the business of the church and what makes the local church run. The business meetings, the finance reports, the budget concerns. I heard one friend say that after he worked in the church he "saw how the sausage was really made, and it just didn't taste as good after that!"
When I think like this it is easy to start asking the question why. Why am I investing my life in this? Why am I spending my time and energy in a way that is often met with criticism and fear? Why spin my wheels like this?
The answer is because when it comes to the church, I am a hopeless optimist. I've heard someone say that when the church gets it right, it is like nothing that has ever existed. She is beautiful and radiant. She shows love and concern like nothing else. She is inclusive to the point that people who should never have come together now have deep relationship and concern for one another. She is also enduring. When she dies out in one place, she flourishes in another. She is always growing and always going. She is the refuge for both the vile and the saint. And I have tremendous hope for what she can become. The only hope I have for the world comes through her at the local level. And I am absolutely committed to investing my life in service of her, the beautiful bride of our Christ.
When I think about my experience with the church it is often negative. I've met too many cranky, selfish, hypocritical people in the church that it is hard to overlook the bad apples. Of course, I've met amazing people, but the bad ones really stand out. I've also seen the church from the inside out. I understand the business of the church and what makes the local church run. The business meetings, the finance reports, the budget concerns. I heard one friend say that after he worked in the church he "saw how the sausage was really made, and it just didn't taste as good after that!"
When I think like this it is easy to start asking the question why. Why am I investing my life in this? Why am I spending my time and energy in a way that is often met with criticism and fear? Why spin my wheels like this?
The answer is because when it comes to the church, I am a hopeless optimist. I've heard someone say that when the church gets it right, it is like nothing that has ever existed. She is beautiful and radiant. She shows love and concern like nothing else. She is inclusive to the point that people who should never have come together now have deep relationship and concern for one another. She is also enduring. When she dies out in one place, she flourishes in another. She is always growing and always going. She is the refuge for both the vile and the saint. And I have tremendous hope for what she can become. The only hope I have for the world comes through her at the local level. And I am absolutely committed to investing my life in service of her, the beautiful bride of our Christ.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Theodicy
John 11:35 is, to me, one of the most profound statements in the Bible. John tells the story of how Jesus heard of his friend Lazarus who was sick and probably on his death bed. Strangely, he doesn't leave right away, and by the time he gets to Bethany Lazarus is dead. In fact, he's been dead for at least 4 days, because he was buried 4 days ago! If only Jesus had arrived earlier. After all, he is the miracle worker who has been healing people all through Palestine. If only he had left when he heard the news about Lazarus. If only... In our grief how many times have we asked ourself "if only?"
As Jesus arrives, he sees the family and his friends grieving for the loss of their friend Lazarus. He sees the crowds crying out in anguish and emotion as Lazarus lies in the tomb. Since he is a friend of Jesus, I imagine that Lazarus was around Jesus' age. Maybe they had known each other since boy hood. Maybe Lazarus left behind a wife and kids. Maybe his parents were still around and grieving the worse kind of grief, of a parent outliving their child.
Now that Jesus has arrived, you expect everything to be ok- except this time this is death! He is not healing someone. Can he bring someone back to life? As he looks around and sees his friends, maybe even his family, grieving and weeping. Jesus, the miracle worker, the fixer of problems, the One with answers suddenly does the unthinkable. John 11:35 says simply, "Jesus wept." End of sentence. No descriptor. Pointedly and suddenly, Jesus wept. He didn't cry. He didn't tear up. He wept. The one who brought forth all life wept!
Jesus' response to death is not to fix the problem. He doesn't run in and try to cheer everyone up. He is simply there. He is there in pain. He is there in sympathy. He doesn't offer a pithy statement, he weeps. He knows their pain. He knows their grief, and he allows it. He even endorses it. He weeps.
I can't explain pain. Theologically, we call this problem of pain theodicy. I have no idea why it happens. Now, I get that there is sin and because of sin there is death. I get that abstractly, but not personally. When I visit the hospital to see church members and I see cancer. I see children. I see families grieving. I don't get it. Why does it have to be this way? Why is there this problem of theodicy? Where is God?
Jesus wept.
I may not get why there is pain and death and sickness, but I do know that in the hospital room, in the funeral parlor, in the graveyard, in the loneliness of an empty house, Jesus weeps.
As Jesus arrives, he sees the family and his friends grieving for the loss of their friend Lazarus. He sees the crowds crying out in anguish and emotion as Lazarus lies in the tomb. Since he is a friend of Jesus, I imagine that Lazarus was around Jesus' age. Maybe they had known each other since boy hood. Maybe Lazarus left behind a wife and kids. Maybe his parents were still around and grieving the worse kind of grief, of a parent outliving their child.
Now that Jesus has arrived, you expect everything to be ok- except this time this is death! He is not healing someone. Can he bring someone back to life? As he looks around and sees his friends, maybe even his family, grieving and weeping. Jesus, the miracle worker, the fixer of problems, the One with answers suddenly does the unthinkable. John 11:35 says simply, "Jesus wept." End of sentence. No descriptor. Pointedly and suddenly, Jesus wept. He didn't cry. He didn't tear up. He wept. The one who brought forth all life wept!
Jesus' response to death is not to fix the problem. He doesn't run in and try to cheer everyone up. He is simply there. He is there in pain. He is there in sympathy. He doesn't offer a pithy statement, he weeps. He knows their pain. He knows their grief, and he allows it. He even endorses it. He weeps.
I can't explain pain. Theologically, we call this problem of pain theodicy. I have no idea why it happens. Now, I get that there is sin and because of sin there is death. I get that abstractly, but not personally. When I visit the hospital to see church members and I see cancer. I see children. I see families grieving. I don't get it. Why does it have to be this way? Why is there this problem of theodicy? Where is God?
Jesus wept.
I may not get why there is pain and death and sickness, but I do know that in the hospital room, in the funeral parlor, in the graveyard, in the loneliness of an empty house, Jesus weeps.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thinking through death
Here some thoughts from the brilliant mind of Bishop N.T. Wright from his book Surprised by Hope. I'll add some of my own thoughts as well.
"From Plato to Hegel and beyond, some of the greatest philosophers declared that what you think about death, and life beyond it, is the key to thinking seriously about everything else- and indeed, that it provides one of the main reasons for thinking seriously about anything at all."
Paul wrote in 1 Thess, "we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep...we believe that Jesus died and rose again..." (4:13).
This is creedal statement forms the backbone of any Christian confession. At the heart of our life and theology is the simple confession, "Jesus died and rose again!" For Paul, this meant that it shaped his whole understanding of death and grief. And if it shapes our understanding of death, then surely it shapes our understanding of life as well. If our theology is only good when we are healthy and happy, then our theology is worthless. However, if our deepest beliefs are rooted in the valley of the shadow of death than surely this will impact the whole of our life.
"From Plato to Hegel and beyond, some of the greatest philosophers declared that what you think about death, and life beyond it, is the key to thinking seriously about everything else- and indeed, that it provides one of the main reasons for thinking seriously about anything at all."
Paul wrote in 1 Thess, "we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep...we believe that Jesus died and rose again..." (4:13).
This is creedal statement forms the backbone of any Christian confession. At the heart of our life and theology is the simple confession, "Jesus died and rose again!" For Paul, this meant that it shaped his whole understanding of death and grief. And if it shapes our understanding of death, then surely it shapes our understanding of life as well. If our theology is only good when we are healthy and happy, then our theology is worthless. However, if our deepest beliefs are rooted in the valley of the shadow of death than surely this will impact the whole of our life.
religious pluralism
Here some thoughts from the brilliant mind of Bishop N.T. Wright from his book Surprised by Hope. I'll add some of my own thoughts as well.
on religious pluralism:
"Even a quick glance at the classic views of the major religious traditions gives the lie to the old idea that all religions are basically the same. There is a world of difference between the Muslim who believes that a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli solders goes straight to heaven and a Hindu from whom the rigorous outworking of karma means that one must return in a different body to pursue the next stage of one's destiny. There is a world of difference between the Orthodox Jew who believes that all the righteouss will be raised to new individual bodily life in the resurrection and the Buddhist who hopes after death to disappear like a drop in the ocean, losing one's own identity in the great nameless and formless Beyond."
This is an argument I love to engage. I think one of the greatest arguments against religious pluralism is this argument of the afterlife. Now by religious pluralism I am not talking about need for different religions to tolerate one another nor am I advocating an end to inter-religious dialogue. These are fine ambitions and should be embraced by anyone claiming religious or non-religious affiliations. However, there is a form of religious pluralism that essentially argues that all religious are basically the same with the same goal. This is an ill-informed position, that I call simply ignorant. To say to a Buddhist that his goal of Nirvana is the same as mine, which is a goal of bodily resurrection, is simply ignorant and frankly offensive to both the Buddhist and the Christian. If you are going to have an argument on religious universality, please think this one through.
on religious pluralism:
"Even a quick glance at the classic views of the major religious traditions gives the lie to the old idea that all religions are basically the same. There is a world of difference between the Muslim who believes that a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli solders goes straight to heaven and a Hindu from whom the rigorous outworking of karma means that one must return in a different body to pursue the next stage of one's destiny. There is a world of difference between the Orthodox Jew who believes that all the righteouss will be raised to new individual bodily life in the resurrection and the Buddhist who hopes after death to disappear like a drop in the ocean, losing one's own identity in the great nameless and formless Beyond."
This is an argument I love to engage. I think one of the greatest arguments against religious pluralism is this argument of the afterlife. Now by religious pluralism I am not talking about need for different religions to tolerate one another nor am I advocating an end to inter-religious dialogue. These are fine ambitions and should be embraced by anyone claiming religious or non-religious affiliations. However, there is a form of religious pluralism that essentially argues that all religious are basically the same with the same goal. This is an ill-informed position, that I call simply ignorant. To say to a Buddhist that his goal of Nirvana is the same as mine, which is a goal of bodily resurrection, is simply ignorant and frankly offensive to both the Buddhist and the Christian. If you are going to have an argument on religious universality, please think this one through.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Coldplay
I went to see Coldplay last night in Oklahoma City. This was my second Coldplay show, and it did not dissapoint. Viva La Vida has a very different sound than than the previous three, and especially different than X and Y. The X and Y tour was the most engaging two hours of my life. The sound and the media were brilliant. I stood there and watched a beautiful production. Viva La Vida was different, but still amazing.
The album has a more natural sound than X and Y, and consequently used a whole lot less media. Thats not to say the show was boring to look at. Their set started with a black veil that covered the stage as they played "Life in Technicolor." Then the veil fell and the lights came on and the background, which was previously black was the cover art for the album. The first song that really used any media was "Clocks," which still wasn't a whole lot- just some intelligent lights shining lazers back into the crowd and up the back wall of the Ford Center. The strangest media were some giant globes that fell out of the ceiling and then lit up with swirls of different colors and even projections of the band that was being shown on some projectors above.
The highlight was by far "Viva la Vida." The entire band went to a "satellite" stage more in the crowd and slowly that stage went dark and Chris stayed behind to play some piece that sounded almost classical. He brought the energy way down and then you heard Will start on the timpani. The crowd went crazy and the lights came on and everyone was sining, "I hear Jerusalem bells a rining/ Roman calvary choirs a singing." Amazing. Will even rang a big bell during the song as well. This show was definitively more about the music than the X and Y tour, but with this album they should focus on the music because there are some powerful songs on this one.
Now I would be remiss if I didn't mention the opener. Jon Hopkins who was mixing music and creating his sounds while matching it to a cartoon. I couldn't even begin to describe the images of the cartoon we were watching, so here is a post from YouTube.
The album has a more natural sound than X and Y, and consequently used a whole lot less media. Thats not to say the show was boring to look at. Their set started with a black veil that covered the stage as they played "Life in Technicolor." Then the veil fell and the lights came on and the background, which was previously black was the cover art for the album. The first song that really used any media was "Clocks," which still wasn't a whole lot- just some intelligent lights shining lazers back into the crowd and up the back wall of the Ford Center. The strangest media were some giant globes that fell out of the ceiling and then lit up with swirls of different colors and even projections of the band that was being shown on some projectors above.
The highlight was by far "Viva la Vida." The entire band went to a "satellite" stage more in the crowd and slowly that stage went dark and Chris stayed behind to play some piece that sounded almost classical. He brought the energy way down and then you heard Will start on the timpani. The crowd went crazy and the lights came on and everyone was sining, "I hear Jerusalem bells a rining/ Roman calvary choirs a singing." Amazing. Will even rang a big bell during the song as well. This show was definitively more about the music than the X and Y tour, but with this album they should focus on the music because there are some powerful songs on this one.
Now I would be remiss if I didn't mention the opener. Jon Hopkins who was mixing music and creating his sounds while matching it to a cartoon. I couldn't even begin to describe the images of the cartoon we were watching, so here is a post from YouTube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
