Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Archive for the ‘Theology’ Category

May 13th, 2013 by Joel

Some actual clarity on “Experience” in the Wesley Quad.

Did you notice how specific Outler’s understanding of the role of experience is for John Wesley? It is not just any experience that a person has. It is not experience with a person and whether you find them to be a good or decent person. In fact, Outler almost always modifies the word experience with “Christian.” And it is not just any “Christian experience,” it is the particular Christian experience “of the assurance of one’s sins forgiven.”

via Experience in the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” | Vital Piety

Saw this posted via DW on Fb.

Often, I run into people using experience in the pentecostal sense. Who knew they could be wrong?

Anyway, the entire article is well worth the read!

April 24th, 2013 by Joel

Book Announcement: Instead of Atonement: The Bible’s Salvation Story and Our Hope for Wholeness

I thought this might interest some of you:

Do atonement theologies that focus on Jesus’ death underwrite human violence? If so, we do well to rethink beliefs that this death is necessary to bring salvation. Focusing on the Bible’s salvation story, Instead of Atonement argues for a logic of mercy to replace Christianity’s traditional logic of retribution.

The book traces the Bible’s main salvation story through God’s liberating acts, the testimony of the prophets, and Jesus’s life and teaching. It then takes a closer look at Jesus’s death and argues that his death gains its meaning when it exposes violence in the cultural, religious, and political Powers. God’s raising of Jesus completes the story and vindicates Jesus’s life and teaching.

The book also examines the understandings of salvation in Romans and Revelation that reinforce the message that salvation is a gift of God and that Jesus’s “work” has to do with his faithful life, his resistance to the Powers, and God’s vindication of him through resurrection.

The book concludes that the “Bible’s salvation story” provides a different way, instead of atonement, to understand salvation. In turn, this biblical understanding gives us today theological resources for a mercy-oriented approach to responding to wrongdoing, one that follows God’s own model.

April 21st, 2013 by Joel

Answering Your Letters: Atheism

"αθεοι" (atheoi), Greek for "th...

“αθεοι” (atheoi), Greek for “those without god”, as it appears in the Epistle to the Ephesians on the third-century papyrus known as “Papyrus 46″ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I received this in the other day from a reader and thought I’d share…

Joel,

I saw the recent dust up between the doctors Cargill and West. You seemed to be okay with Cargill who West has outed as an agnostic. You’ve also said New Atheists and other atheists are something like prophets. Why, as a Christian, do you treat atheists and agnostics so good? Shouldn’t you try to shame them into conversion? Can’t we just burn them at the stake like the bloody heretics they are?

- Harry Z.

Thanks, Harry. Yes, I do see value in atheism and agnosticism even to the Christian perspective. I guess as a Methodist I believe everyone is on an equal journey where God will lead and thus use them. I also find that as my faith grows in the unknowable it also requires more knowledge, so how can I dispense with this who prefer absolute knowledge or even the modern descendants to Dionysius?

I believe facts are facts regardless of generation. After all, Scripture testifies to the demons who understood the fact of the One God. If they told us of One God would we deny them that fact? Or would we not find a way to use that admission to benefit our own view?

You might ask “shouldn’t we prefer our Christian brothers to outsiders?” Why yes, I believe so. Of course, if we allow that the parable of the Good Samaritan may still teach us something more applicable we might consider all of those whom we despise to be our neighbors. Perhaps that is the first sign of who our neighbor is — do we despise them enough? I’m not saying I despise atheists by any means, but I believe I could argue in favor of the fact that many Christians do. So, if we are to prefer our brothers, and neighbors are everyone, can we separate too easily neighbors and brothers?

I guess the question we must ask is whether or not to consider others is whether or not their mission is to destroy — obliterate — Christianity. Unlike trolls from South Korea who clearly has made it his mission to obliterate Christianity, I do not believe Cargill is out to destroy Christianity. He does call attention to the reality that often times, Christians are engaged in cognitive dissonance. What do I mean, you may ask. Rightly so, let me suggest the message of the Pat Robertson meme is not that Christianity is deluded, but that it has a double standard. For instance, we chalk it up to fantastical faith evolution and other scientific discoveries and yet suggest that our faith in a Risen Lord is beyond testing, even on a historical ground (Look for the book by James McGrath. This is a logical fallacy. We should endeavor to be honest, and unlike Ham and TT, Cargill calls us to be honest with ourselves in exploring Christianity.

For me, I would submit, faith is part of the Logos. In John, we read of the Spirit of Truth that is to come and guide us into all truth. For Christians, this has given us the canon of the New Testament — including books not written by the purported authors — as well as developed doctrines. But, equally so, it has given us science and the need to further our knowledge of exactly what truth is. If God is the God of Truth (and Deutero-Isaiah declares him to be), then Truth like God is not limited to a certain time and place, but must be experienced until the fullness is reached. Where we find truth, we will find the divine. That is, if we allow certain frictions with classical theology to wear-off. This is a new world, but it is nevertheless a world that values truth. If we are those who value truth as well, then regardless of where that truth originates, we as Christians will seek it out and not limit it to a specific time and place. Like God, we know that truth goes ahead of us. Once we find it, we will cherish it, not suffocate it under a superstitious poison.

This is where atheists and agnostics come in at. I have faith in God, but I have a greater faith in the Christian Tradition. As far as the theology of the Living God, I must concur with the apophatic theologians, who I would suggest, would be more favorable to agnostics — who are humble enough in their humanity to suggest that simply, they don’t know (and maybe do not care) — than we are. I would rather doubt God than prove him. After all, the God you can prove is only the god of your Creation. This is why I would give quarter to all facts, regardless of generation — because all truth is God’s truth. This is why I would prefer agnosticism than fundamentalism.

So, Harry, I hope that answers some of your questions. Please feel free to email me with any more.

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 8th, 2013 by Joel

I though Ken Ham said God stopped creating on the 6th day? @aig

Jesus with a royal purple robe mocked and beat...

Jesus with a royal purple robe mocked and beaten as the King of the Jews, John 19:2-3. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” (John 5.16-7, NASB)

There is no doubt in my mind that Young Earth Creationists are little more than deluded deitists. The proof, first and foremost of these gnostic heretics, is their denial of the ontological creative God. Guess what? Looks like Jesus would think Ham is bunk as well.

And course the on-the-run criminal in South Korea will simply say Jesus didn’t believe in God… but the reality is, is that the Jewish theology included an ongoing creation, an ongoing ordred existence. We can break this down, but the fact that Jesus affirms an ongoing creative God should destroy the YEC argument…

Also, John is following the Deuteronomy notion of Sabbath here… just saying.

Of course, they’ll employ the theory of motivated reasoning and come up with some garbage.

Also, as a note to Honey Tee Tee — regardless of the lie you tell, you will not comment on this blog until you have met the demands of this post. Once that is the case, I will allow you an actual blog post to express any view you want, without censoring. You can write as long and about whatever you want. I will post on right here. On my blog.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 4th, 2013 by Joel

More on Science and Theology – Augustine

English: augustine at the school of tagaste

English: augustine at the school of tagaste (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

I’m sure I’ve posted this before, but Augustine’s words here matter to us today because he secures for us a place for science (or, if you rather, the pursuit of truth) in examining our theology. Science can change, he admits, our interpretations and our theology. He also goes on to admonish the Christian who would  profess to be wise and look rather stupid — you know, Ken Ham, Little Honey Tee Tee, T. Breeden — because he seeks to counter the settled science of the world. Augustine viewed the light of reason in this work as we must science — the great corrector or our idiocracy.

I, as a believer, see this as the goal of the Spirit who guides us into all Truth, re: John 14–16.

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 1st, 2013 by Joel

Melito of Sardis – The Impassible Suffered

Click to Order The whole creation saw clearly that for humanity’s sake the Judge was condemned, the Invisible was seen, the Unlimited was circumscribed, the Impassible suffered, the Immortal died and theHeavenly one was laid in the grave. (Discourse on the Soul and the Body, fragment, ACD vol 1 pg 53)

March 16th, 2013 by Joel

I don’t think you understand Creator ontologically

7 Lucky Gods of japan

7 Lucky Gods of japan (Photo credit: Steve-kun)

It bugs me when certain people pretend to know what they are talking about. For instance, Hambone suggests that the entirety of the Gospel is bound up in Augustine’s poor theology of original sin based on his bad translation. Further, he goes on to connect Christ as Creator to this terrible view, forgetting the whole of covenant theology found throughout Scripture.

This also goes back to the the deitistic view of Young Earth Creationists, where you have a trickster god creating only once. Therefore, God is no longer really a creator. He is more like a Creator-ed. Past tense. The Creeds affirm, however, God is still Creator. Science affirms God is still creating in a physical sense. Young Earth Creationism denies both the authority of the Creeds and Science, replacing it with their own magisterium and takes an unholy, unscriptural view of Creation.

This is where panentheists and those who read God’s co-equal book, Science, have a better appreciation, a fuller appreciation of what it means for God to be Creator in the physical sense. (I have to ignore Tony’s poor Trinitarian theology for the moment.) God is Creator first and always. Creator defines God’s existence as much as we can define an existence for God. Because God is Creator and still creating God is likewise Judge. Because God is Judge, God is likewise Savior. But all of this depends upon God still creating as Creator. Not as a past tense issue.

Tony’s notion that the entire Gospel is found in Genesis 3 is rather poor, as poor as his notion of Creation.. It betrays a proper understanding of Creation, Christ, and the Gospel, denying the full covenant that is Creation — each creation, every creation. That is what covenant is, after all, a creation. We have a new creation because of the new covenant with Christ. Christ has perfected the covenant with God. Because of the new covenant, there is a new creation.

In simple words, Scripture affirms a Covenant/Creation sense. The Creeds affirm God as Creator in the ontological sense. Science affirms ongoing creation in a physical sense. None of these things are affirmed by Young Earth Creationists.

So, I guess, in a very real way, those who understand covenant theology are the real Young Earth Creationists because, for us, Creation is only 2000 years old. Liberals, like Ken Ham and Tony B., are unscriptural old earth creationists. Tisk Tisk Tisk.

Enhanced by Zemanta
March 3rd, 2013 by Joel

My scientific approach to faith?

To prove God is to prove a negative; to prove god is to define god so that there is no god.

Since coming out of fundamentalism, I would rather combine these too. I do not have faith in God as there is no need for me too. I have faith in the Christian Tradition, however, and a hope. But, it requires proof from time to time.

I would rather go on about this, but I am ill at the moment.

What are your thoughts?

20130303-141352.jpg

By the way, Jim West has differing thoughts.

February 21st, 2013 by Joel

My answer to who killed Jesus

I had hoped that this would be picked up by HuffPo Religion, seeing as they invited it. Oh well. I’m not going to waste it. This is limited only to a 1000 words. 

__

Did God kill Jesus? That seems to be the proposition Bernard Starr is stating.

In my recent work, Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark, my attempt was to uncover the literary sources of the Gospel. In one particular part, the accusation of Jesus (Mark 14.53-65), I show the use of 2 Kings 18.19-37 as Mark’s literary source — the genesis of his imagination. This latter pericope involves a theological struggle between the Assyrians and the Israelites. Sennacherib’s mouthpiece, Rabshakeh, states without a doubt YHWH is as impotent as the gods of other nations trampled over by the might of Assyria. Each time Rabshakeh talks, there is no answer either from YHWH or Hezekiah. There is silence — a theological silence to be sure.

Mark’s use of this literary source is not accidental, as nothing is when a writer picks up his or her pen to craft well a story. Steven Runge, in his work on Discourse Greek, states unequivocally “choice implies meaning.” If this is true for words and word placement, this is true for literary sources as well.

So, what might the use of a scene where YHWH is clearly on trial mean for Mark? I stand with other scholars who would see in the narrative of Jesus a mythologized account of Israel. We know Matthew did.  After all, he gave a certain rhyme pulled from the Jewish sacred writings to Mark’s reasonings (assuming Matthew used Mark because there is no Q). Mark was written during a time of severe crisis — following the end of the Jewish Revolt and the subsequent destruction of the Temple, when it appeared God had forsaken Israel.  Reading Mark in this setting tells us something rather breathtaking if we are able to hear it.

Mark sees the death of Jesus not caused by God, but as a challenge directly to God. Mark is writing in this instance to put God on trial for abandoning Israel in her struggle to attain independence. God has abandoned Mark, his community, and Israel through his abandonment of Jesus. God did not kill Jesus. God’s abandonment allowed Jesus — and thus all of Israel — to suffer torture even to the point of death. Perhaps God was “deep in thought or busy preparing for travelling. Or maybe he needs to be awakened from sleep.”

I use this because in these final hours of Jesus there are echoes of Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al. After all, where is God when Jesus calls for him from the cross (Mark 15.34; 1 Kings 18.16-40)? Indeed, throughout the Gospel of Mark, God only appears twice although there is plenty of conversation about God. The voice of God is heard at the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9-11) and once more at the Transfiguration (Mark 9.2-8). When Jesus needs to do something, such as forgiving sins (mark 2.7-9), Jesus does it in of himself without the assistance of God. God is absent from the Gospel of Mark except to tell everyone to listen to Jesus. This startling fact is remedied in later Gospels, but for Mark God is placed on trial — a fact clearly seen in the trial of Jesus.

So, the question really remains — who killed Jesus? If we read the Gospels poorly, as with what is labeled “face value” or “plain sense”, we will always have to decide between the three usual culprits: God, the Romans, or the Jewish leaders.

To state that God killed Jesus is to supplement what the Gospel says for what later, better-educated theologians say. To state the Romans did is to read the Gospel only as a political tractate where Jesus is suddenly the political messiah and Rome is extracting some sort of revenage. To give culpability to the Jews is to wreak havoc not only upon the Jewish authors and audiences of the Gospel, but so too Jews throughout the centuries and even us Gentiles today.

Instead, we must understand the Gospels as ancient biographies, stories more interested in truth than fact. The Historical Jesus died, for whatever reasons we may surmise (I personally believe Jesus died because he was thought to be, if not was, a social bandit), hung on a cross by Romans. Paul says Jesus died to bring in the new covenant that the Apostle himself barely understood. But, when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus does not die to appease a terrible cosmic overseer who has had his honor slighted. Nor is Jesus killed because the Jews hated him and his message. The Empire did not kill Jesus for his statements again them either.

Jesus died because God had abandoned Israel, leaving his people to fend for themselves. Jesus died because sometimes we create our own problems and we must suffer the consequences. Jesus died because he chose a path that led to the cross and did his level best to annoy everyone else on the way.

There are times we can “take initiative with God and so develop over against God the ego-strength that is necessary for responsible faith (Brueggemann, The Psalms and the Life of Faith, 103).” This is what Jesus, or at least Mark’s Jesus, did. Because God had clearly abandoned (or was abandoning) Israel, Jesus decided to make him notice once more.

No one killed Jesus. Jesus died.

Enhanced by Zemanta
January 21st, 2013 by Joel

@bakeracademic has a few awesome videos of G.K. Beale up

That’s the first one… find the rest here.

Beale’s book, Commentary on the New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament, is a fantastic one. I have it on Logos, but have not yet gotten a chance to purchase his latest.

January 3rd, 2013 by Joel

God is still Creator @AiG

The world’s highest radio telescope, built on a Chilean plateau in the Andes 5,000 metres above sea level, has captured the first image of a new planet being formed as it gobbles up the cosmic dust and gas surrounding a distant star.

….

The image taken by the Atacama Millimetre-submillimetre Array (ALMA) in Chile shows two streams of gas connecting the inner and outer disks of cosmic material surrounding the star HD 142527, which is about 450 light-years from Earth.

via Revealed: first image of a new planet being formed with star dust – Science – News – The Independent

Recently, I was accused of denying to God His creatorship… No, those who deny God as Creator are the Young Earth Creationists…They are also Deists too, but then again, fundamentalists are gnostics all the way around.

Anyway, one of the most beautiful aspects of a theology anchored somewhat to science is the fact that science continues to prove, sharpen, and shape theology. For instance, my theology on Creation has changed somewhat. No longer is it merely “God created” but is God creating, God is Creator. This realization has propelled other aspects of my theology as well, but most notably the theology that God is Judge, but only because He is first Creator, present tense. He is savior, but only because He is first Creator. God is love because hate is not the opposite of love, nothing is. Think on that for a bit, will you.

The on-creation of  a star merely adds to the wonder of the theology that is shaped by truth.

I greatly pity those who deny the power of God, such as Young Earth Creationists.

Enhanced by Zemanta