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

March 15th, 2012 by Joel

Working on a paper – The Rise of American Fundamentalism

This paper will examine the rise of American fundamentalism, specifically as an outgrowth of American revivalism beginning in the 19^th century. Major periods that will be reviewed will be the beginning of the 19^th century until the first quarter of the 20^th century cumulating the Scopes Monkey Trail and the reemergence of fundamentalism in the last quarter of the 20^th century. In particular, this essay will explore the connection to American Methodism in the 19^th century, the effects which national media played in fundamentalism’s retreat and how the media was later used upon reemergence to further fundamentalism’s goals. It will also examine the handling of science by and what role science plays in fundamentalism as well as politics. Outgrowths of fundamentalism will be explored as well, paying close attention to King James Onlyism, Christian Zionism, and Young Earth Creationism and how it affects both ecumenical missions and the American political scene. While this paper will attempt to avoid classifying all fundamentalists as anti-intellectuals, it will acknowledge the role in which fundamentalism is playing in political battles related to homosexuality and the teaching of science in public schools. Further, it will acknowledge the reported spiritual, emotional and sometimes physical abuse generated by the more conservative fundamentalist sects.

American fundamentalism is growing either in power or media dominance, itself a show of power. After the Scopes Trial, fundamentalism as a whole became disinterested in political discussions, but after the certain Supreme Court decisions, the advent of secularism in schools and in the mass market, fundamentalism has returned with their own combative institutions, insisting on a stricter view than many Christians have and much of Christian Tradition has shared. With personal experiences and documented evidence, this paper will examine the dangers which fundamentalism plays in Western Christianity which limits the free expression of religion and the growth of Christianity in the United States.

____

Feel free to leave info in the comments section.

Tags: classwork
Posted in Theology | 2 Comments »

March 7th, 2012 by Joel

Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Rebuilding the Evangelical Mind Requires Courage

Click to Order

Can you tell that I’m getting a lot from this book? The connection of philosophy and theology – and thinking, actual critical thinking – is important to reclaim. Anyway, Pate writes something similar to what Karl Giberson has been saying:

American fundamentalism during the first half of the twentieth century tried vociferously to assert Jesus’ deity in the face of liberal theology’s reductionistic claims. But the way fundamentalists retreated from academic debate to their arcane prophecy conferences left the uneasy impression that they exalted Jesus’ deity (the one) over Jesus’ humanity (the many). In good Platonic fashion, Christianity, the world of ideas, had no contact with the tangible world of the shadows. (123)

Ain’t that the truth? They simply cannot deal with the many issues which are presented to us, in our faith, and so they retreat and become reactionary. I will go further, and say that they simply stop thinking, but start fashioning feeble walls to preserve themselves from facts and from the need to critical think, to philosophize, through these tough problems.

Giberson writes,

The eclipse of Christian thought in the 20th century can be partially attributed to evangelicals themselves, insofar as many individuals and institutions clung to some of the more problematic tenets of “Fundamentalism” (originally a term of honor), which had defined itself against “Modernism” in American Protestantism’s epic conflict that played out in the early 20th century, culminating in the Scopes “monkey” trial in 1925.

via Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Rebuilding the Evangelical Mind Requires Courage.

Fundamentalism is not about thinking. It is about protecting. They no longer actually believe in Scripture, but only in their interpretations of Scripture.

Tags: C. Marvin Pate, Karl W. Giberson
Posted in Book Review, Philosophy, Theology | No Comments »

March 6th, 2012 by Joel

Understanding Philosophy helps with Iconoclasm

Click to Order

I have no general problem with icons. I have one, after all, on my ipad, and my laptop screen contains several of them, in rotation. But, it is a little different than what I am used to, to be honest.

Pate, thus far, with little disagreement from me, has pursued the nature of theology in a critical, but relatable, and now in Part II, is moving to show how philosophy can help with building theology. In the first section of Part II, he tackles the Incarnation in a way which would make Plato tremble. He also tackles the issue of icons, siding with, ironically*, John of Damascus and Orthodox Christianity.

On 119, Pate argues that John’s view is actually a very important way of remembering the balance of the Incarnation, something he criticizes both the Liberals and the fundamentalists for. He writes,

God has appeared as a human being: that means not only that material things are intrinsically good but also that God can be represented.

Knowing the philosophical arguments before and after this statement makes his argument something worth considering. Imagine if icons could be understood as a way to keep the balance in the mind of the believer?

Tags: C. Marvin Pate, Kregel Publications
Posted in Book Review, Philosophy, Theology | 2 Comments »

March 1st, 2012 by Joel

Avicenna and the Necessity of Creation

Click to Order

Whilest reading this book (to your right), the author brought to my attention an Islamic philosopher, who like others of the time, descended intellectually from Aristotle. Avicenna (980-1037) proposed several things which strikes me as necessary. First, that God is the “apex of being.” Further, the philosopher believed that God is always acting. This led to the idea that God’s creation is “both eternal and necessary.” That’s about where I stop with Avicenna.

God the Monad, as Marcellus of Ancyra would argue, would then divide economically, into the Triad. We see this type of belief in the ancient Egyptians as well, in their supreme Monad. It’s the latter view that grasps my mind, however. God is Creator first and foremost for me. He is judge because he is first creator. Further, he could not be almighty without a creation to be compared too. So, God as Creator is his first attribute. Now, to be a Creator, one must always be a creator and to always be creating. In the first premise then, if God is indeed first a Creator, then creation is by necessity and not his “freewill,” or else otherwise, God would not be Creator. The Deists among us, the Young Earth Creationists and the like, tend to believe that God finished creating, but this is far from the truth, as the “Creation Week” never ends, and we may but look at each new season, each new birth, as God’s continued Creation. (Time is but an illusion, after all).

So, in Avicenne’s use of Aristotle, I find much promise.

Tags: Aristotle, Avicenna, C. Marvin Pate, Kregel Publications
Posted in Book Review, Philosophy, Science, Theology | No Comments »

March 1st, 2012 by Joel

Polkinghorne on the problem of suffering

This is a deep mystery. It would be foolish to think there is a one-line answer. An important element in my response to the question is that the cross of Christ was God’s participation in the suffering of creation. The Christian God is not just a benevolent spectator on the outside; he is a fellow sufferer who understands suffering.

Just as the cross of Christ seems to be the worst thing that could happen, yet turns into the joy and victory of the Resurrection, so somehow there will be a healing of wounds and restoration. But these are deep mysteries, and suffering is a question to be approached with awe and respect.

The question of God seemingly allowing suffering is the biggest obstacle to faith for believers and non-believers alike. It troubles us more than any other difficulty. It is right that it should.

via The Salvation Army: Scientist says life after death is another matter.

HT to a reader for this article

Tags: John Polkinghorne
Posted in Science, Theology | No Comments »

February 28th, 2012 by Joel

John Meunier – Theologically Passionate

Tell me a time when the church has been vibrant — not this or that congregation blessed by a charismatic pastor but the church. Tell me a time when the church has been vibrant without a burning theological vision of its mission and purpose? Show me a revival, an awakening, a reformation that was not at its heart fueled by a passionate conviction about God and God’s purposes and God’s people.

via A plea for theological passion « John Meunier.

Yes and yes and yes and praise God, Yes

Tags: John Meunier
Posted in Theology | 2 Comments »

February 20th, 2012 by Joel

What’s your Theology of Suffering

This is clearly an MDiv exercise, something I don’t have to do… but I was asked and here you go:

My current theology of suffering is rooted more in the eclectic etheral of the esoteric. Suffering, in my opinion, is sometimes par for the course in times of great change. To react too strongly against it leads to resisting it, and by that, resisting God’s Will. I believe in God’s Unseen Hand, moving us along, guiding us, and sometimes, pushing us back as the mythic Tower of Babel suggets while we now have nearly the same capablity, but use it for the good (usually). I think of the growing pains which we have experienced and our children experience. Thier chins hurt or the arms hurt, and it does get painful at times, but through this suffering they are growing. I do not recommend them ignorning it or glorying in it, and I will give them motrin, but the suffering cannot be stopped. Through suffering, the universe is as it is, sustaining not just life, but our life.

Further, through the suffering which proceeded the Reformation, we were granted the Reformation.

But, there is also the suffering that we inflect upon ourselves due to our very human condition, due to our need to be more than we should be, due to our desire to be happy which in of itself is not a bad thing, but if that desire is misplaced, then we suffer.

It’s also rooted in the Second Law of Thermodynamics and specifically, entropy.

What’s your?

Liberal Theology: A Radical Vision (coffeephilosopher.wordpress.com)
Love that Bob and the “Escondido Theology” (wateristhickerthanblood.wordpress.com)
Outline of Christian Historical Theology (compasschurchamman.wordpress.com)
A Comparison of Luther and Moltmann (diglotting.com)

Tags: Entropy, Second Law of Thermodynamics, suffering
Posted in Theology | 2 Comments »

February 20th, 2012 by Gez

Made in the image of God

Image via Wikipedia

²⁷ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (NIV)

¹This is the written account of Adam’s family line. When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. ² He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”^[a] when they were created. Genesis 5:1-2 (NIV)

⁷ A man ought not to cover his head,^[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:7 (NIV)

Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. They were like God. Then Satan, whose first words recorded in the Bible are a lie, convinced them that they needed to be like God.

⁴ “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. ⁵ “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:4-5 (NIV)

Though they were already like God. They succumbed to temptation to get try to get something they already had.

Eating the fruit that Eve shared with Adam brought shame upon them. Their innocence was gone.

⁶ When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. ⁷ Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Genesis 3:6-7 (NIV)

Jesus at the Last Supper brought forgiveness with the bread and wine he shared. His body and blood. He reversed what had happened in the Garden of Eden.

²⁶While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” ²⁷ Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. ²⁸ This is my blood of the^[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:26-28 (NIV)

We are the image of God.

Tags: creation, God, image of God, jesus, sin
Posted in Theology | No Comments »

February 16th, 2012 by Joel

Is Tony Breeden Anti-Semitic?

It certainly seems so. I mean, I’ve met him in person and he isn’t a dullard in the intelligence department… but then he writes this in response to Karl Giberson:

You see, when we ask, “Were you there?”, creationists are not claiming that we cannot determine the past unless we are eyewitnesses. Granted, we do point out that the further we go back in time, the less certainty we may have. Rather the point of “Were you there?” is to underscore the fact that we do have an Eyewitness account. This Eyewitness is God Himself who authored the Scriptures, which never came by the will of men (including the pre-scientific but nonetheless true history in Genesis). Unfortunately, this Creator (who never lies) testifies that the world did not come about by purely uniform, natural processes, a fact of the Text which Giberson chooses to ignore. He’s ignoring God’s testimony as irrelevant because modern scientists who’ve chained scientific inquiry to pure naturalism have concocted an all-natural Just-so story to replace the historical Creation account in Genesis.

The ‘Were you there’ is a stupid argument. Why? Because they are still assuming that unless the historical narrative of Genesis 1 matches up to modern Western ideas of history and other accounts, then it is wrong. Further, he is still assuming that Genesis 1 is about the physical creation. So to ask if someone was there is to dismiss the actual Scripture. What Tony and others are doing is to take their account and their understanding, nay, their necessity of having Scripture read like they and not ancient Hebrews wrote it, and applying it to Scripture.

So, Tony, were you there? Are you an ancient Hebrew writing the hymn, sitting in Babylon, during exile, keeping the identity of your people alive? Were you there, in God’s mind, as he inspired Scripture so that you directed him was to what to inspired, and to the original authors as to tell them, which they would not have understood whatsoever, what to say? Were you there, Tony? What? No? They how about give the ancient authors there due and try not to tell them that what they wrote doesn’t mean anything unless it meets the high quality of the Western white guy.

Now, we can actually examine the passage in context because we have other writings by other authors who were actually there, but that might actually prove Tony and others wrong…

Tags: Karl W. Giberson, Ken Ham, Tony Breeden, young earth creationism
Posted in Theology | 2 Comments »

February 15th, 2012 by Joel

John of Damascus… Veneration of Images

Image via Wikipedia

In former times God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation! I honor it, but not as God. How could God be born out of things which have no existence in themselves? God’s body is God because it is joined to His person by a union which shall never pass away. The divine nature remains the same; the flesh created in time is quickened by a reason endowed soul. Because of this I salute all remaining matter with reverence, because God has filled it with His grace and power. Through it my salvation has come to me. Was not the thrice-happy and thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? What of the life bearing rock, the holy and life-giving tomb, the fountain of our resurrection, was it not matter? Is not the ink in the most holy Gospel-book matter? Is not the life-giving altar made of matter? From it we receive the bread of life! Are not gold and silver matter? From them we make crosses, patens, chalices! And over and above all these things, is not the Body and Blood of our Lord matter? Either do away with the honor and veneration these things deserve, or accept the tradition of the Church and the veneration of images…

You can and should read the entire thing here.

I would never venerate images… but on my iPad is the Icon of Christ as well as the Apostle’s Creed, which I look at as I pray it in the morning while holding the rosary.