Thanks to my good friend, Lo Mielke (and our brief conversation a few days ago), my mind has been thinking a great deal about how much our life experiences, our circumstances, and our surrounding culture influence our theology and the way we view and understand God. The notion is simple, but its reality has been hitting me like a ton of bricks. Of course, my sensitivity to cultural influences and practices has been significantly heightened since we left the
Theology is not a sterile, laboratory science that is examined and probed in an isolated vacuum. It is not merely an intellectual endeavor, though many strive to make it so. Theology is intricately woven and intertwined with our experiences and culture. This is why I am convinced that every generation must diligently work to develop new theologies and new ways of understanding and then articulating who God is (and what that means for us). Old theologies must be examined and tested, and new creative thinking must be engaged. This is not to say that old theological systems (particularly those of the sixteenth century) do not hold immense value. On the contrary, they provide excellent lessons to us on how to think critically and theologically about the cultures and circumstances around us. They were theologies written in the vernacular of those days that spoke to cultural phenomenons of their specific time and era. Luther’s theses (for example) of 1517 were a direct attack on the pervasive cultural practice of buying and selling indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church.
So there is the need to new theological reflection. But there is also a need for a keen awareness of how much culture influences our theological perceptions (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse). Living in Colorado were there is a strong presence of environmentalism and conservation, I have a view of God’s world and our responsibility to care for it (see the creation account in Genesis) that is most likely outside the mainstream ideology of political conservatives. And my experience of working at the Denver Rescue Mission (a ministry to the homeless) for four years has produced in me a view of ministry that is much more “geographical” – I am convinced that the Christian church is called to their city or community, not to a niche demographic.
From a circumstantial viewpoint, a person who has experienced deep loss or failure in ministry has a distinctly different perception of God (his blessing and providence) than one who has not experienced such things. The fact that Adina has lived through the suicide of two immediate family members has given her uniqueness in her view and grasp of God that few possess. A person who has experienced (or is experiencing) significant depression understands God differently from one who has not had such experiences. I say all this to make the point that we must be aware and critical of what shapes our theology. And perhaps, in our ministry to others, we must be courageous and dare to shape or create a new culture (and its experiences) in order to provide a more accurate view of God.
20 comments:
You really nailed it, Than. We often like to marvel at how fortunate we are to have been born in a time and place where we have everything figured out. Those poor people in other lands whose cultures have led them astray! We forget that every culture views the world that way. They are as firmly rooted in their theology and philosophy as I am in mine.
The McKnights gave a fine lesson last week on the differences between "American Christianity" and "Biblical Christianity." It drew our attention to a variety of practices and mindsets that in the American church that are rarely questioned because that's how we've always known it to be from our very upbringing. It can be painfully convicting to compare some of those practices to the Biblical standard. Some things we take for granted as being Biblically based because they are present in every church we've ever attended, and yet, there is often no Biblical foundation for them. Scary. We really must all learn to evaluate the values we may have adopted without thinking.
Than, I must say I find your writing so interesting. God speaks to us on so many levels. Jamie and I are taking the Perspectives class and our teacher tonight was talking of this very subject--ethnocentricity. Jennifer
Sure, I'll bite. So, that last paragraph - I'm trying to see if I fit. It's hard to read and not feel like the round peg in the round hole. You tell me. ;-)
I suppose I match the first, very nearly the second, and certainly the third. The problem, however, is with an ever-widening "perspective," I'm not sure any theology of value has yet been refined. No doubt it is in process, and only just recently has the dense fog begun to relent and be less fear-inducing, and more calming stillness. Of course this is a good thing, but to imagine a theology from the last year and a half that might edify the Church is to move much too quickly.
On a less personal note, I agree a church is "called" to their city or community. But, by contrast, I believe individuals are "called" to a niche demographic. I believe God gives each individual - through a mixture of experiences (or a single event) - a "heart" for a specific people, or set of people. This makes perfect sense to me when we consider all the "going" that we as Christians are supposed to be doing. Certainly, as we remain (a form of going, but less distance) in our communities, we partner with our local church body to serve. But, how do we go about missions in a world so vast? We go where our heart does.
For me, it's discipleship of young adults specifically in the area of racial and economic injustice (Local focus), and Latin America specifically for re-contextualizing the Scriptures and "re-importing" them to suburbia(Global focus). Do you see a conflict in these two distinctions as it pertains to the Church's responsibilities?
Great post, Than. Tradition often infiltrates our understanding of God's Word. Here's a quotation from "The Laws of Wormwood & Dung" by Stephen Jones:
"In the fourth chapter of Ezekiel, at the beginning of his ministry, the prophet is told to eat food cooked with dung. [...] This Bible passage teaches us the contrast between good food and dung. God's Word is the good food; man's traditions, that which proceeds from his rebellious heart, are only dung. Those who eat food cooked with dung are those who believe in God, who do eat God's Word, but they mix it with the dung of men's traditions, men's understanding of God and His Word. This is one of the most basic moral problems of all time." p. 11
If you are interested in an entirely different point of view than what the Christian church currently holds, please read If God Could Save Everyone, Would He? by Stephen Jones.
Ryan,
You've so covered yourself in the filth and smell of Man's pride and exhaltation of self - primarily that which causes us to diminish His holiness in justification that His love trumps any sense of His justice - that I'm fearful you may no longer be able to understand the coherent truth and aroma of the Bible's "good food."
The Christian Church does not need a new viewpoint, as it is His Bride that is entrusted with the care of His Word and Truth. To be sure, there are churches (little 'C') that have lost this; but to accuse the Church of needing a new viewpoint of God because of a website "teacher" that has such poor hermeneutical and textual application of Scripture is unconscionable.
It is not the worse thing to be in error in one's doctrine, but to accuse the Church and to lead her astray is the definition of heresy, something that clearly you are guilty of. I pray that your exalted view of Man, and diminished view of God's holiness may be remedied before you lead astray any of His young children and consequentially suffer under his hand of punishment. (I make no claims as to the nature of this punishment, but that it is in God's will - rest assured he will deal harshly with those who stand proud before Him and instruct others to do the same.) I see and understand clearly your MO to appear to exalt God by emphasizing his love, but all the while diminishing his holiness and justice for the sin of Man. The truth of the matter is there are things God CANNOT do - he cannot contradict himself in his own character. That means he cannot suspend his justice in the face of his love for creation - they are in balance. This balance requires the punishment of Man's sin - that is NOT merely the remedy of mortal death. The Bible teaches nothing of the sort.
As for Than and myself, your heresy is seen for what it is - dangerous and replete with the stench of foul dung.
I've known of your personal faith views and diminished view of God, and I don't know if Than will let your or my post remain on his site - I hope he doesn't, but I simply cannot respond gingerly to your error.
Than has posted beautiful pictures of the building that represents the community of those entrusted to his care by a gracious, loving, and holy God. I have no doubt that he will help any and all in his ministry context to navigate the complexities of this world - the dung as you say - but will do so without need of a "new viewpoint." He rests solidly within the Tradition established by those who walked hand-in-hand with Him who we serve and worship.
I pray your error will be remedied to His glory.
Jonathan
Wow! I have been thrown into a bit of a quandary. I have two responses to this post that are definitely in conflict or tension. On the one hand, I have a friend attempting to raise a particular viewpoint (outside that of Christian orthodoxy) that I confidently do not endorse nor encourage. On the other hand, I have another friend responding to that suggested viewpoint with a scathing (and abrasive) rebuke. And I am weighing my options: a) to delete both posts and wash my hands clean, b) to delete one or the other of the responses, or c) leave the responses as they appear on the blog, knowing the potential struggle and offense it may cause.
The heart and intent of this blog is to foster meaningful, spiritual dialogue about the stuff of life in an earnest effort to discover and embrace truth about the Triune God wherever it may be found. And in having such a lofty goal and in inviting others to join the conversation, I run the risk of eventually having two or more individuals disagree about a particular perspective. But disagreement is at times a necessary step in finding truth, in discovering what has merit and significance in the Kingdom of God. I cannot know fully the motives of responses made, but I can evaluate the content of the postings. That is what I encourage every reader to do: to think carefully and assess what a person is articulating.
When I examine the content of these two postings (those of “Ryan Healy” and “Jamo” just prior to this post), I agree wholeheartedly with “Jamo” that the universalism espoused by Dr. Stephen E. Jones is contrary to the character and essence of God. There is a paradoxical balance (or tension) between God’s love and justice. God is both beautifully merciful and infinitely holy. To emphasize one of these attributes to the detriment of the other is for God to be less than God, to be other than God. While he innately cares and loves perfectly, he also cannot leave sin and unrighteousness unattended. He must, by the nature of his holiness, condemn and judge every person who has not (through repentance and submission to the lordship of Jesus Christ) been forgiven, reconciled, and made righteous.
There is a question here about the use of the word “heresy” in regard to Dr. Jones and his teachings. What I do know is that his handling of the book of Ezekiel and the conclusions that he draws from his own interpretation demonstrate a significant mishandling of the biblical text. An infinite number of opinions can be offered about any biblical passage when sound hermeneutical principles are abandoned. And I know that his denouncement of “tradition” needs to be cautiously considered. Tradition is often given a negative connotation in light of any new innovation of thought. But the reality is that we each live (consciously or unconsciously) in a number of traditions on multiple levels. Anything that was espoused more than one generation ago has become a form of tradition. I happen to rest firmly on a Christian orthodoxy that has survived thousands of generations. And while I believe (as my original post suggests) that each and every new generation is called to develop new theologies that explain God in light of their cultural milieu, there is still a foundational truth in Christian orthodoxy that is passed from generation to generation: the transcendence and immanence of God, the human predicament of sin, the need for redemption through Jesus Christ, the existence of an eternal heaven and hell. So I say all that to make the point – yes, I think Dr. Jones is presenting a form of heresy, and we should not be afraid to call it so.
Yet, at the same time, could “Jamo” have been a little more tactful in his response? I think he would agree that his passion for truth far outweighed his consideration of “Ryan Healy.” We do not want to end the conversation, our quest for God’s ultimate truth. And at times when we are overly condemning, the dialogue is cut short. It is my strong desire that each of my readers (regardless of their perspectives) would come to know God and the realities of this world, so let us continue. Though disagreements may arise, let us press on to evaluate the content of each argument or idea.
"I think he [Jamo] would agree that his passion for truth far outweighed his consideration of 'Ryan Healy.'"
Than, let's consider this. Upon reflection (and multiple re-readings), I'm not sure how my passion for the truth could have been tempered given the vocality of Ryan's position, that even he recognizes is external to core Christian Tradition. I will raise the point that in my post I stated I would pray for Ryan's error to be corrected - and I have done so, both as I typed and since completing the post. I prayed specifically in this regard. The tone of my post may have overshadowed my concern for Ryan, but it did not supplant it. Truthfully, however, I think my concern was greater for those exposed to Ryan's views, than for Ryan himself. Perhaps these should have been better held as equal, but if I'm to error I believe I err'd correctly.
On the other hand, it may be argued that the tone of my posting showed great care for Ryan. Certainly, in the context that if one feels Ryan's doctrine places him contrary to God - and even moreso given the consistent espousing of those views within traditional faith circles - considering the reality of how harshly God deals with those who lead others from himself. While it is possible to argue such, I cannot. I could try to argue it now, but that wouldn't reflect my thought process at the time I posted the response. It is always easier to justify a position with logic after the fact, only to obscure a lapse of heart and compassion in the moment.
For better or worse, I cannot "pretty-up" my passionate response. I leave it un-molested because I feel it deeply; yet, I can say that I do and continue to commit to pray that Ryan would see his error clearly. But, even beyond that, I ask that he recognize the danger - not specifically of his views - but of vocalizing those views within the Church. (Where he clearly recognizes they do not cohere with established and accepted Tradition.) I do not know if he feels he is on a quest to "save" the Church from Man's "dung," but he must come to understand that is very, very dangerous ground to tread.
Thanks for your post - always more thoughtful than mine - and for giving me more to think about. And perhaps more for Ryan to think about as well.
Thank you for your contribution, Jonathan. We are brothers in Christ, and I love you.
Rather than respond directly to any one argument or assumption, I'd like to share these scriptures for those with an ear to hear:
Romans 5:19 - "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous."
1 Corinthians 15:22 - "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
Colossians 1:16b - "All things have been created through Him and for Him."
Colossians 1:19-20 - "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
1 Timothy 4:10 - "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
Romans 14:11 - "For it is written, 'As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.'"
I think we all agree that God's judgment will come. The question is, what is the purpose of that judgment?
The carnal mind believes the judgment to have no purpose, except pain and torture.
The spiritual mind believes the judgment to be corrective in nature, as a Father to a child, to restore those who have denied Christ.
This is not a new theology, but one that has been hidden for many years. A study of church history reveals this.
I am in agreement with Paul when he says in Colossians, "For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding."
Peace.
Stephen Jones said:
"There are no tortured screams coming from an imagined pit of hell. God really is able to save all mankind—and He intends to do it."
But Jesus Christ said:
"It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched -- where
'Their worm does not die, / And the fire is not quenched'" (Mark 9:43-44).
Who would you rather believe -- Stephen Jones or Jesus Christ?
Eldo, your heart is in the right place.
The passage you have quoted is not as plain as it seems.
The word "hell" is a mistranslation. In the original text, it is "Gehenna," which is also the Valley of Hinnom.
The Valley of Hinnom is a real place. You can find it on a map.
The verse is a reference to a physical fire that will burn after God's Kingdom has been established on earth.
Also, as a point of interest, notice the verse that follows what you quoted, Eldo. Mark 9:49 says: "For everyone will be salted with fire."
What is the purpose of salt? It is to preserve.
The sense of this verse is that everyone will be preserved by fire.
For further insight, I point you to All in All by A.E. Knoch
Ryan, your intentions are good but you seem to have your theology a bit confused. So, come, let us reason together:
You probably believe, as I do, that salvation means we accept Jesus as Lord of our lives. That means we stop putting ourselves in the first place--to put it in biblical terms, we die to ourselves.
But I'm sure you know people that are not willing to do that. Sensual people, full of passions for the world and its delights. They have no intention of giving up on their dreams and desires--they want to live life the way they dreamed it, without interference, human or divine.
Would you agree with me that, if they were to die and go straight to heaven, it would actually seem hell to them? Because they would be forced to give up being who they are. They would be stripped of their freedom to choose.
Does it look as something God would do? To actually force people to be what they aren't?
Cheers,
David
Hi David,
I do not believe those who deny Christ will go straight to "heaven."
Also, I believe people change as a result of God's infinite love and divine judgment, which is corrective in nature.
Ultimately, God is sovereign. Man cannot thwart His will. Call it "force" or whatever you like. We know God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Is it such a leap of faith to say he hardens people's hearts today?
God has sworn on His life that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Christ as LORD. I do not believe this will happen because God employed violent force. Rather, I believe God will employ the persuasive force of love so that all of mankind will desire to worship Him.
Hi Ryan,
You are right that "hell" is actually "Gehenna."
Jesus was using as a metaphor the literal place of burning (refuse) near Jerusalem, to solemnly warn his hearers about the place of punishment all sinners will ultimately experience after they die (the eternal "rubbish dump" of the new universe: Isaiah 66:24).
Note, Jesus *five times* speaks of "the fire that ["is not" or] shall never be quenched" (which cannot refer to the literal Gehenna near Jerusalem, where the fire *was* quenched) (Mark 9:43-48).
As for your other comment, being "salted with fire" is unlikely to mean people will be "preserved" by fire, in the sense that they won't receive eternal punishment for their sins.
It more likely means everyone will experience "fire" of some kind: the righteous, the "fire" of suffering in this life (1 Peter 1:7); the sinners, the
fire of eternal torment, first in Hades (Luke 16:19-30), and then after the final judgment, in the lake of fire (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Revelation 20:10, 15).
Very dangerous to take just one or two passages of Scripture and base your eternal destiny on them (because it's comfortable to believe them, and you can just carry on living any way you like -- without a thought for the eternal afterlife).
We must be careful to apply the ancient method of Bible interpretation known as "the analogy of Scripture," where you look at *all* the passages that speak about a certain topic and compare them to build up an accurate picture of what that topic means.
If Jesus in just six verses (Mark 9:43-48) speaks *five times* of "the fire that ["is not" or] shall never be quenched", we dismiss his words at our peril.
wowza
Eldo, I do not have the time to repeat here the many studies of "hell" I have read. Believe me when I say I have not based my "eternal destiny" on "one or two" passages of scripture.
You said, "because it's comfortable to believe them, and you can just carry on living any way you like -- without a thought for the eternal afterlife."
This is an assumption you have made about me that is not true. If God saves all mankind, as I believe he will, it is no excuse to persist in sin.
As Paul says, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!"
My apologies to Ryan, but I am choosing to halt this discussion here. Not that it is unimportant or insignificant - it certainly is. And I encourage further dialogue and am eager to offer my own input. I simply do not think this is the proper place to have that discussion.
The focus of my blog is not to debate the existence (or non-existence) of hell and the salvation of all people, and I am quickly sensing that this is becoming its focus. If there is a number of individuals interested in continuing this dialogue (you can leave a comment here to let me know), I am more than willing to create another blog that is specific to this issue. Perhaps Ryan himself will begin his own blog on this issue...
A concerned believer,
Luke 16:19-31
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
I have never liked "Bible thumpers" because of the dangers they pose to those who take the "thumpers" at their word.
Dissecting arcane passages from a book that has been translated (and mistranslated) over the centuries and then bopping people over the head with your interpretation is ridiculous...and dangerous.
And I'm not just talking about the Bible...
For your own sakes, expand your minds and souls. God is something to be experienced, not just found in the pages of some ancient text.
Daring to see God in your own way is an awesome responsibility. Not many people try it - at least publicly. Who wants to be labeled a heretic or non-believer then be persecuted?
Theology has all too often been reduced to man's attempt to compartmentalize God and control his fellow man. Simply put: hell is what we do to ourselves.
The answer lies within. What resonates with you? Maybe it's also with the Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims. Or maybe even with the much-maligned, mislabeled "New Age" movement.
Love and Light to all.
In response to this last posting, I have to STRONGLY DISAGREE. I am firm believer that there is an absolute truth, and absolute right and wrong. Truth DOES NOT lie within - truth is not what we make it to be. Such a postmodernistic view of reality is ultimately nihilism, when logically pursued to its end.
I am convinced that ultimate truth and reality is founded and rooted in the God of Judeo-Christian thought and belief. There are absolute truths, and heaven and hell are literal places (and not what we do to ourselves).
Than,
I fully agree with your last post.
Without absolute truth (found in the Bible), we are adrift in a sea of relativity, postmodernism.
Postmodernism: the crazy philosopy that what's right for me is OK, and what's right for you is OK, just because we believe it to be right.
But take this to its logical conclusion. So it's OK if I murder your grandmother, because that's what I believe, and my belief is acceptable just because I choose to believe it?!
My view is that the greatest disaster today is that most people (including Christians) have very little idea of what the Creator of the universe says in his Book -- the holy Creator before whom every human being will one day stand and whose life will be reviewed (Daniel 7:9-10; 2 Corinthians 5:9-11; Acts 24:25).
But if we don't know what's in the Maker's Manual, how can we follow his instructions?
Most people spend more time reading what others say *about* the Bible than reading the Bible *itself*.
This again makes no sense.
Why drink the muddy water 2,000 miles from the source of the river, when you can drink the crystal-clear water that bubbles up at the source?
This is why there are so many confused people around. One follows Professor Profane, while another follows Pastor Disaster (who's more interested in making money than saving souls).
Instead of knuckling down, doing some hard spade work and studying the Bible for themselves!
Soon the Antichrist will arise and deceive almost the whole world (including many people who think they are Christians, but are not) (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).
While we still have time, we must read and study the Bible as much as we can, so that when the Great Tribulation comes, we'll know what's going on and stand, not fall away (Daniel 7:25; 11:33; 12:7-10).
And no, we won't be raptured out and escape those terrible 3.5 years (Revelation 13:5). The church will still be on earth (Revelation 13:7; Matthew 24:29-30; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3), but will be ravaged (Revelation 7:13-17).
Soon the Lord will refine his faithful remnant through the fires of severe persecution, to see who really is his (Matthew 24:9-13, 22).
May all who read your blog (including me) be among the overcomers who make it to the heavenly Paradise.
"He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches" (Revelation 3:5-6).
Post a Comment