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. 

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."

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%

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.

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.

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.

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.