I find it quite amusing to read Calvinistic theology nowadays. Why? because it is a big mythological way to understand "salvation", "God", and "history".
There is always "something special" in Calvinistic thought; the elect, salvation-history, the divine Christ, the penal substitutionary death atonement, the exclusivist claims, the Canon itself, Israel, the Church, a special call, etc. It is as if there is no real reality, if one is a person of faith. This understanding seems to me to be absolute aburdity. It is looking at everything with "spiritual eyes", as the 'natural man does not accept the things of the spirit".
I think that there are those who have an agenda for the Church to maintain its "identity with Calvin". Others are truly duped. The social organization is no less "special", if one has eyes to see and believe. The government is no less a place to be a "minister". The Church is a social organism and a social structure, which is useful for certain purposes, nothing more and nothing less.There is no separation of secular and sacred, as all of life is about giftedness and gifting.
Jesus life was mythologized by the early believers and Church. His "story" is one narrative among many narratives. Many have made use of his identity and lacked the ability to come to their own identity.
There is really no "God's salvation history". There is only ancient history and ancient texts. These are the ways of coming into mature and responsible behavior, where one does not seek another's "help" to avoid the responsibilities before them. One starts to own his own identity. He no longer identifies himself primarily as a Christian, but as a person. This is where the individual finds their own identity and "life focus" and creates their story, within the narrative of history.
Showing posts with label Church history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church history. Show all posts
Friday, February 6, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
OOPS...Tradition and How It Came To BE
In my last post, I said that tradition grew up around the text, which is true if one is upholding the Protestant evangelical frame, as meaning was created primarily by the text's message, whereas, tradition was the early Church Fathers way of creating meaning from ancient texts and myths that became "tradition" of the Church....which is orthodoxy. And the Church Fathers had reasons for developing the Tradition in the way in which they did.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Follow-up on the Cross
In conventional conservative terms of discipleship, a life "well lived" would be modeled on Jesus of Nazareth. Christians can have no other way of living, thinking or being, if they are "committed believers". What would this mean to a life based on Jesus as "moral model"?
On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....
If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....
I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.
The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.
On the "bright side", charitable service and humble submission to death itself is the standard, as his was a life lived for others. This is a good moral model, but consider this for a moment....
If one's life was gifted for leadership, would Jesus life be the moral model best suited to follow? How would it be gauged that a life was meant to be modelled after Jesus? I have seen too many intelligent, gifted people sell themselves short because of the religious conviction that Jesus was the absolute model and standard for gauging humility, service, love, faith, etc....
I believe that the scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed or not is an important one. One bases their understanding on history, and the other bases their understanding of myth. History is the area of the real world, where myth is the arena of "representations" and "ideals". Leadership is the area of historical influence and important impact for change, whereas, representations are the people who represent the ideals in character and do these historical works to bringing change in the world.
The Cross, which has represented the sacrifice of Christ, has been a universal symbol for Christians. The cross in its representative form symbolizes the costs of developing the gifts that are necessary for becoming who we are meant to be and what we are meant to do. That cannot be determined by another, but ourselves alone.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Theology, Science and the Disciplines
Science gifts us with "ordered" understandings, which our Founding Fathers understood during the Enlightenment. But, today's science challenges most of us in coming to terms with "order", as science reveals a "disordered structure", because of our limited capacity to understand all deminsions of reality. In past posts, I have written about how history has developed around different understandings of "truth". Today's understanding is no less of a challenge, as there have been many claims in how to reconcile science and religion.
While science has challenged the Church's understanding of itself, it is imperative in today's climate that the Church define itself in a universal, but grounded framework. The grounding has to be understood within all the discipline's scientific understandings, as otherwise, theology becomes disconnected to the "real" world of politics, psychology, philosophy, ethics, social sciences, history, and the natural sciences. But, theology must not be limited to one aspect of understanding "reality", as this would diminish the fullest understanding. The Quadralateral is a good place to direct the Academy's focus.
In the Classical "days", theology was the "queen of the sciences", where all the disciplines point back to "God" as understood as Creator. God was the epitome of understanding and wisdom. Science was useful as a means of knowing and understanding God. So, in today's Christian colleges, there is a call, a fervent call of challenge to discern the times and bring about a reformulation of theological understanding....to give a reason to believe.
While science has challenged the Church's understanding of itself, it is imperative in today's climate that the Church define itself in a universal, but grounded framework. The grounding has to be understood within all the discipline's scientific understandings, as otherwise, theology becomes disconnected to the "real" world of politics, psychology, philosophy, ethics, social sciences, history, and the natural sciences. But, theology must not be limited to one aspect of understanding "reality", as this would diminish the fullest understanding. The Quadralateral is a good place to direct the Academy's focus.
In the Classical "days", theology was the "queen of the sciences", where all the disciplines point back to "God" as understood as Creator. God was the epitome of understanding and wisdom. Science was useful as a means of knowing and understanding God. So, in today's Christian colleges, there is a call, a fervent call of challenge to discern the times and bring about a reformulation of theological understanding....to give a reason to believe.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Circumcision, Christianity, and Common Sense
I was told tonight by a scholar of "Lost Christianities" that Christian faith was rooted in Muslim faith and that someone from this time period would have felt more comfortable in a Mosque than a Western Church and that some of the practices, such as how they pray were much closer to Christian roots. While I understand that Jewish, Islamic and Christian roots are rooted in the Hebrew text, I do not adhere to this tradition's understanding of ethics...
In "Infidel", a Somalian woman talks about how she is circumcised and sewn up to prevent premarital intercourse. She has no pleasure within her marital sexual experience as she is torn and scared by the procedure! She cannot go outside without a male accompanying her. She recites all of her geneology for generations back, as this is her identity and tribal culture.
Phillip Jenkins, a religious studies professor, as well as historian of 20th century America, etc. from PennState, spoke on his new book, "Lost Christianities". His approach was solely a religious one and I was curious as he did not talk about colonialism or politics in general. Religious studies, of course, does not necessarily cover other subjects, but I find it very limiting and narrow to view a tradition even within its own history without expanding that udnerstanding beyond the tradition. Traditions do create a "world", but a limited one....
Christianity is rooted in Judiasm and was a peasant movement. In understanding group identity and how these identities form, Christianity became a separate identity under the writers of Pauls letters and was furthered through the testimony of the scribes who wrote the Gospels. It was an attempt to create a special identity within a God framework, as Judiasm had in the past. Those who have been discriminated, the "outsider", are those who are likely to create their own story, rather than identify with those who persecute or oppose them. Was this what Dr. Jenkins purposes happened to these people under the persecution of Constantine and the Crusades? The empire persecutes the underdogs and the underdogs create a way to survive under persecution. It is an interesting thought/theory. I don't know enough about the history and have not read Dr. Jenkins book.
I do know that Hirshi Ayraan Ali is an atheist because of her abuse. Her identity is not found within a God framework, but a political one. I don't find that this is wrong, as we all desire to survive in the best environment possible, which is one that is free of oppression, whether it be religious, or political. Common sense tells us that we choose freedom for our own self-interest, as well as the interests of others! What better framework than our American identity?
In "Infidel", a Somalian woman talks about how she is circumcised and sewn up to prevent premarital intercourse. She has no pleasure within her marital sexual experience as she is torn and scared by the procedure! She cannot go outside without a male accompanying her. She recites all of her geneology for generations back, as this is her identity and tribal culture.
Phillip Jenkins, a religious studies professor, as well as historian of 20th century America, etc. from PennState, spoke on his new book, "Lost Christianities". His approach was solely a religious one and I was curious as he did not talk about colonialism or politics in general. Religious studies, of course, does not necessarily cover other subjects, but I find it very limiting and narrow to view a tradition even within its own history without expanding that udnerstanding beyond the tradition. Traditions do create a "world", but a limited one....
Christianity is rooted in Judiasm and was a peasant movement. In understanding group identity and how these identities form, Christianity became a separate identity under the writers of Pauls letters and was furthered through the testimony of the scribes who wrote the Gospels. It was an attempt to create a special identity within a God framework, as Judiasm had in the past. Those who have been discriminated, the "outsider", are those who are likely to create their own story, rather than identify with those who persecute or oppose them. Was this what Dr. Jenkins purposes happened to these people under the persecution of Constantine and the Crusades? The empire persecutes the underdogs and the underdogs create a way to survive under persecution. It is an interesting thought/theory. I don't know enough about the history and have not read Dr. Jenkins book.
I do know that Hirshi Ayraan Ali is an atheist because of her abuse. Her identity is not found within a God framework, but a political one. I don't find that this is wrong, as we all desire to survive in the best environment possible, which is one that is free of oppression, whether it be religious, or political. Common sense tells us that we choose freedom for our own self-interest, as well as the interests of others! What better framework than our American identity?
Monday, September 29, 2008
A Pastor's Sermon on Killing
I thought my pastor's sermon on killing was a good one this past Sunday. He has been doing a series on the Ten Commandments. The official title was "Choosing Life". His main point was that the Church was to be a place of safety where there was no fear of loosing life. Christians should affirm life, as much as possible. I agree.
His premise was that the Commandments don't give us the rationale of ethical decision-making, but just give us the statement, "Thou shalt not kill". Whether one is pro-life, while agreeing about capital punishment seemed to him to be "getting around the law", because the law just doesn't say. And his point is well-taken that we all do not usually hold consistant views concerning the commandment.
While I have understood the Law in the traditional Christian sense of making all guilty, so that there is a need for mercy, it seems a little misguided to justify or theologize the killing of Jesus, in my thinking today. Of course, this is what evangelicals love to claim is the Gospel's message, that a Jew died on a Roman cross for the "sins of the world". Paul says, it is foolishness to the Greek and a stumblingblock to the Jew. I find that this message has brought numbers into the "fold" and has served the Church's purposes well. But, even though this understanding has served a "purpose", has it been a "real" purpose, one that is grounded in the "real world"?
The Gospel became the Christian Tradition, but was not useful to the religious in the historical time frame of Jesus life. The Gospel was the evangelist's and apostle's interpretation of Jesus life. Jesus, as well as Paul's lives, were given to the cause of humanity. The Gospel has come to mean a "cross" to be taken up by the believer, where the costs of following Christ is viewed as a sacrifice. Sacrifice was not what God required in the Old Testament, but a pure heart. This is why historical study is important. The Jewish understanding was not a "Gospel" of blood, cross, and forgiveness at the time of its founding, but a commitment of heart.
The Ten Commandments were the identifying focus of the Jew. Since my pastor held the simple standard of the commandment, it is left to the conscience of the individual to understand how it is applicable to their life. This is what it always should have been, instead, the Tradition of Judiasm developed how the commandments were to be obeyed, which created the divisions within Judiasm itself. It set up a rule of measurement, where one could justify or condemn another. Judgment and condemnation was never to be the intent of God. Dividion has happened in the Christian world over the interpretation of Scriptures.
It seems our world will never find a unifying factor without someone's conscience being denied. What does it mean for you to kill?
His premise was that the Commandments don't give us the rationale of ethical decision-making, but just give us the statement, "Thou shalt not kill". Whether one is pro-life, while agreeing about capital punishment seemed to him to be "getting around the law", because the law just doesn't say. And his point is well-taken that we all do not usually hold consistant views concerning the commandment.
While I have understood the Law in the traditional Christian sense of making all guilty, so that there is a need for mercy, it seems a little misguided to justify or theologize the killing of Jesus, in my thinking today. Of course, this is what evangelicals love to claim is the Gospel's message, that a Jew died on a Roman cross for the "sins of the world". Paul says, it is foolishness to the Greek and a stumblingblock to the Jew. I find that this message has brought numbers into the "fold" and has served the Church's purposes well. But, even though this understanding has served a "purpose", has it been a "real" purpose, one that is grounded in the "real world"?
The Gospel became the Christian Tradition, but was not useful to the religious in the historical time frame of Jesus life. The Gospel was the evangelist's and apostle's interpretation of Jesus life. Jesus, as well as Paul's lives, were given to the cause of humanity. The Gospel has come to mean a "cross" to be taken up by the believer, where the costs of following Christ is viewed as a sacrifice. Sacrifice was not what God required in the Old Testament, but a pure heart. This is why historical study is important. The Jewish understanding was not a "Gospel" of blood, cross, and forgiveness at the time of its founding, but a commitment of heart.
The Ten Commandments were the identifying focus of the Jew. Since my pastor held the simple standard of the commandment, it is left to the conscience of the individual to understand how it is applicable to their life. This is what it always should have been, instead, the Tradition of Judiasm developed how the commandments were to be obeyed, which created the divisions within Judiasm itself. It set up a rule of measurement, where one could justify or condemn another. Judgment and condemnation was never to be the intent of God. Dividion has happened in the Christian world over the interpretation of Scriptures.
It seems our world will never find a unifying factor without someone's conscience being denied. What does it mean for you to kill?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Jewish or Judiasm? And What Does Jewishness Have to Do with Christian Faith?
Philosophy via religion OR fact via history?
When Christians talk about their faith, what does their faith mean? Most evangelicals have an understanding of "spiritual disciplines", denomination, or church doctrine that make their faith "real". But, with the discussion about whether the Jew was understood as a religious tradition OR had an ethnic history is an important issue to address. Why?
Paul understood that their was no difference in Jew or Greek, as he had been a Jew and had a Jewish religious heritage, as well as a Greek education. Possibly, the understanding of ethnicity or religious tradition looses pre-eminence when it comes to understanding what it really means to be human...man made in God's image...
The political and religious implications have tremendous implications for understanding Paul's "gospel". I think that both history and religious tradition is transformed by the "real understanding" of what it means to be human, which is humanity's human-ness....
When Christians talk about their faith, what does their faith mean? Most evangelicals have an understanding of "spiritual disciplines", denomination, or church doctrine that make their faith "real". But, with the discussion about whether the Jew was understood as a religious tradition OR had an ethnic history is an important issue to address. Why?
Paul understood that their was no difference in Jew or Greek, as he had been a Jew and had a Jewish religious heritage, as well as a Greek education. Possibly, the understanding of ethnicity or religious tradition looses pre-eminence when it comes to understanding what it really means to be human...man made in God's image...
The political and religious implications have tremendous implications for understanding Paul's "gospel". I think that both history and religious tradition is transformed by the "real understanding" of what it means to be human, which is humanity's human-ness....
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
What Spain May Mean
Thursday, my husband and I leave for Madrid. It is not just a pleasure trip, although it will surely be enjoyed! We are going to a science and religion conference. The subject is on Personhood. While many may not understand how personhood and the Church intersect, I believe it is the main challenge for the Church today in understanding faith.
It seems that the Church's beginning in Judiasm has been understood in such completely different ways, that it boggles one's mind to assess what really happened and why. But, a commitment to the Church calls for an understanding of some kind, which is my present pursuit.
In understanding Jesus' ministry, one has to asess who Jesus was, and how it was understood in that day, who Jesus ministered to and why, how Jesus related to Judiasm and what the implications are to the communities of faith, as well as understand the political context. Understanding Jesus in his context is only the beginning to understanding Christian faith. Then, one has to tackle Church history.
Church history begins with the Councils, which solidified the developing tradition. These councils must be put into the context of the Church's "power" at that time. Why were the decisions made that were made? What were the challenges to the Church at that time that were being addressed? And how did these decisions impact the Church's understanding of faith. But, the Church's history is not complete without understanding the Reformation and its impact on the Church.
One of the primary results of the Reformation was Scritpture being put into the "language of the people". Education was impacted by the development of the printing press and giving the individual access to the Scriptures. But, the result of individual interpretation was schism. How was the Church to understand itself when there were so many interpreters, each understanding the text differently? These experiential challenges in maintaining the "authority" of the Church were met with science's impact on reason.
Science and its impact on the Church cannot be undermined, as the Church had had pre-eminence in understanding the "world" and "life". But, now, science had challenged the Church's authority and its understanding of "man". Human sciences were now in the forefront of understaning man and his "world".
In understanding today's need of "authority", one must understand how man develops in reason. Man's reason is limited, but can lead to an understanding of faith. Man becomes the "study" of the Church in understanding how "God" has made man (universals) and how each individual is unique (particulars). The "study" of man crosses the disciplines of anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, and theology. This is what we will encounter in Madrid and what it may mean....
It seems that the Church's beginning in Judiasm has been understood in such completely different ways, that it boggles one's mind to assess what really happened and why. But, a commitment to the Church calls for an understanding of some kind, which is my present pursuit.
In understanding Jesus' ministry, one has to asess who Jesus was, and how it was understood in that day, who Jesus ministered to and why, how Jesus related to Judiasm and what the implications are to the communities of faith, as well as understand the political context. Understanding Jesus in his context is only the beginning to understanding Christian faith. Then, one has to tackle Church history.
Church history begins with the Councils, which solidified the developing tradition. These councils must be put into the context of the Church's "power" at that time. Why were the decisions made that were made? What were the challenges to the Church at that time that were being addressed? And how did these decisions impact the Church's understanding of faith. But, the Church's history is not complete without understanding the Reformation and its impact on the Church.
One of the primary results of the Reformation was Scritpture being put into the "language of the people". Education was impacted by the development of the printing press and giving the individual access to the Scriptures. But, the result of individual interpretation was schism. How was the Church to understand itself when there were so many interpreters, each understanding the text differently? These experiential challenges in maintaining the "authority" of the Church were met with science's impact on reason.
Science and its impact on the Church cannot be undermined, as the Church had had pre-eminence in understanding the "world" and "life". But, now, science had challenged the Church's authority and its understanding of "man". Human sciences were now in the forefront of understaning man and his "world".
In understanding today's need of "authority", one must understand how man develops in reason. Man's reason is limited, but can lead to an understanding of faith. Man becomes the "study" of the Church in understanding how "God" has made man (universals) and how each individual is unique (particulars). The "study" of man crosses the disciplines of anthropology, biology, psychology, sociology, and theology. This is what we will encounter in Madrid and what it may mean....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
