Eternal LIFE OR a "Socialized Theology"? and Political Realities

Christians were a Jewish sect. These did not have political power, as they were from marginal professions, such as fishermen and prostitutes. The Jews weren't all in agreement as to "eternal life" or the resurrection.
Could it be that the political reality of life, as to political power was what drove their "theologizing"? I believe so.

The Sadducees did not believe in eternal life or the resurrection, but the Pharisees did. Could it be that the Sadducees who were the more "empowered class", as to money and political power didn't need the "promise" of eternal life, because they had more choices as to their life? I believe this is key to how we "psychologically frame" reality.

Christians and the institution of the Church has used Jesus life as their example of Chrsitian faith.  Jesus condemned the "white-washed tombs" of the Pharisees because they weren't living their life like he was, as a humanitarian. But, "Christian" was only a term that was useful after the assembling of "like-minded" individuals, a society. It was a way for these to find a "Place of Belonging". They didn't have that choice in the political realities in Rome.

Fortunately, for Americans, our nation values the right of conscience as to choice. This is what supports our diverse climate as to values in life. But, unfortunately, "Christians" don't know their roots, and why the developed theology had "power" over Chruch doctrine. It was a way to make a "better life" without the practical realities of messy politics.

Calvin's "Spiritualized" Salvation History

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.

Revolution of a Passive Resistance

Some have understood Jesus life as exempliary for Christians to emulate, while others have understood that Jesus' life was a life that signified injustice personified.

Christendom has heralded this life as salvific, but nothing salvific happens other than this one life resisting in passivity the injustic of the religious and political systems of his day. He did not resist as an activist of any kind, but in quiet resistance in ministering to the outsiders. He, himself, was not one of the elite.

Today, in America, Christians do not face persecution. We, for the most part, have a government that allows religious freedom. Freedom, in our country is manifested in many ways, from religious expression to personal lifestyle. These values are what makes man like "god" in moral image. It is only in moral choice that moral virtue, or moral value can be assessed or judged. But, moral choice is not clearly evaluated, unless there is some standard of measurement, or an ultimate model. Consevative Christians believe that this standard is in the text or the life of Jesus, as written within Scripture.

Jesus' life was modeled on a sectarian model, historically. But, his life has been interpreted differently by many. His life inspired Martin Luther King, Jr., who brought about a social revolution with passive resistance. He did not seek a violent revolution, although violence happened and in the end, he paid for his commitment with his life.

I don't believe that conservative Christians of a Calvinistic flavor, who seek to carry out a discipleship "program", understand truely that the individual must choose their own personal values, if there is any moral virtue or value, whatsoever. Theirs is an understanding of Providence, Sovereignty, eschaotological "hope", etc. But, in understanding life in this way, they do not understand that Scriptures are not written with all of the theological jargon that "comes with the package of Christendom". Scriptures are undestood within a "Christian" framework that superintends agendas, that are presumed to be "God's will".

Although Jesus, as a moral model, has value, his life does not universalize virtue. Virtue is just as much appreciated in many "revolutionaries" that were not passive in their resistance. Justice cannot be sought in passivity (unless one wants to wait for the "sweet by and by")...

Freedom and justice for all means that each individual has a right to representation and equal treatment under law. Jesus' life did not have these protections. It is not "un-Christian" to seek protection under law. It is a moral duty, as it holds others accountable to right relationship.

Politics, Tradition, Reason and Thankfulness for Faith

The political realm is the "real world", the world in which we do our jobs, love our families, share our concerns, live our lives and understand our faith. Faith is whatever defines our lives.

Human beings must understand their faith as secular, political and/or transcendental. Each aspect of faith is understood within a frame of what is important. Tradition develops how the transcendental realm understands faith for it is about "God". Reason develops the realm of the secular as sacred, as all of life is understood as a blessing, while experience understands our faith within the political realm of relationship. Each part, reason, experience and tradition is important in developing a full understanding of one's faith. Tradition has history, reason has a philosophy and experience has the political realm; all involve the person's understanding of themselves in thier situatedness.

A full grown faith is not understood as dependent on any certain way of understanding for each person understands their place in this world in a different way. Faith is about being itself, for no one understands all about life, God or relationships with others. We live our lives in the best understanding we have at the time and trust that life is good and blessed because we have it.

The Trinity, God, and the Function of Roles

I found it a little irritating that there was a discussion at Trinity Evangelical about the roles of the Trinity. The discussion was about whether the Son eternally submits to the Father. This view is a complementarian view that would influence how one views male and female roles and functions. Don't people go to great extremes to give credence to what they believe and with not verifiability to boot?

Why do we find that it is necessary to have an authority behind our opinion? Why do we think that a rationale based on our own personal conviction and reasonable explaination is not enough? Who do we want to influence to see our side of the debate and for what reason? Do we really think that some things even matter? How important are the things that we are debating? Some, I'm sure, believe that the eternal destiny of the soul is at stake. I am sorry for them.

Practical matters such as public policy, economics, government, education, national security, international relations, etc. are much more important to be informed about and to discuss because they matter in this life. We don't know about the next life, we only have a belief, that is unprovable.

I remember a time when I was so certain that what I believed was truth for all people and without their coming to understand my way of thinking, people would perish and die without God. I was passionate and committed. But, itis is not a life of rest and peace, but one filled with the responsibility for the world's salvation. The most important aspect on anyone's life was the spiritual, to the extent of denying what the real world even meant. This frame of mind is unhealthy. If God is God, and we are responsible, then I find that being responsible within our own "worlds" is all that one needs to be concerned with. We are not called to take the whole world on, but be faithful in the little that is before us.

I am not interested in Christian faith, but faith, for I believe that God does not see the kind of faith, just the trust of faith. The trust of faith is not some "jump over the moon" to prove one's faith, but a quiet rest of "what is" and a "patient diligence" in the present about what is in front of you. Great visions are not necessary, for it is the widow's mite and the prostitute's worship that meant more to God than all the Pharisees and Sadducees did all together! I find that it is in being and affirming life for oneself and others that one finds life.

So, it is not about the Trinity, or God, or the functions and roles of male and female, but a response to the grace that is given in life in the present

Two Jesuses?

There is a distinct problem in the Christian community. It really is not a problem. Just a quandary...There are two Jesuses that are recognized and "worshipped".

One Jesus is the one most of us learned about in Sunday School. He worked miracles by healing the sick, raising the dead and casting out demons. This Jesus is a supernatural one. We worshipped him for being God. But, although he was a real person, he was too holy to consider as "one of us". He was all about love, mercy and forgiveness. The difference was who Jesus was. He was God.

The other Jesus is a historical one. He lived and died and experienced life like the rest of us. He struggled, was betrayed, and walked against the tide. His life is "worshipped" by what he did, not so much in who he was. His life sought justice.

Tradition has held that Jesus is both God and Man and theologians go out of their way to understand and explain through their theologizing what this means. The Trinity is their conclusion. This was the way for the Church to acknowledge, embrace and understand how we grow and understand our faith.

Until someone is ready to take up their life and walk out their faith in commitment to what their own personal values and convictions are, then, their need for Christ to be God for them is necessary.

Which Jesus do you 'worship"?