The universe, reality, are strange, awesome, mysterious.
Compared to what? Why are we "mystified"? What does it
mean to be "mystified"? Why do you wonder?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
complicit?
The Germans, the Japanese and others from time to time have had
to acknowledge that their ancestors were wrong about some things.
Many Americans have acknowledged the sin of slavery; but if they
had persisted in old errors they would have been complicit in the
sins of their fathers. Many people have had to reject the ideas
of their parents. St.Paul recognized when he came to Christ that
he had been wrong; and no one had ever been more convinced of the
rightness of his position. There is a serious difference between
being dogmatic and believing certain dogmas. Rome insisted on its
views and then the Reformers were just as adamant regarding theirs.
And the Germans during the war had belt buckles that read, "Gott mit
uns"- God is on our side! Rheinhold Niebuhr, in his "The Nature And
Destiny Of Man", vols.I&II, stresses the paradoxes of man's attempt
to find infallibility in his understanding and interpretations of
history and reality. Interestingly he relates "original sin" to this
tendency. It is this refusal to admit finiteness and limitedness in
our knowledge that is at the root of so much personal and historical
turmoil and suffering. Then of course, God does not automatically
step in and correct our bad theology. Oliver Cromwell, in a time when
England was facing impending destruction from "conflicting religious
absolutes", said, "By the bowels of Christ, remember that you may be
mistaken". p.239 Niebuhr. We have a moral responsibility to deal with
the possible errors of our ancestors. The results of their mistakes
have sometimes been terrible! I have already indicated some. It is not
wrong to believe something. But it is wrong never to question your
beliefs; and especially so when the results of those beliefs may have
caused harm to anyone. God holds us responsible for our indifference;
presumption is not a very Christ-like attitude. Worse, it may well be
demonic. Don't be afraid to keep an open mind.
to acknowledge that their ancestors were wrong about some things.
Many Americans have acknowledged the sin of slavery; but if they
had persisted in old errors they would have been complicit in the
sins of their fathers. Many people have had to reject the ideas
of their parents. St.Paul recognized when he came to Christ that
he had been wrong; and no one had ever been more convinced of the
rightness of his position. There is a serious difference between
being dogmatic and believing certain dogmas. Rome insisted on its
views and then the Reformers were just as adamant regarding theirs.
And the Germans during the war had belt buckles that read, "Gott mit
uns"- God is on our side! Rheinhold Niebuhr, in his "The Nature And
Destiny Of Man", vols.I&II, stresses the paradoxes of man's attempt
to find infallibility in his understanding and interpretations of
history and reality. Interestingly he relates "original sin" to this
tendency. It is this refusal to admit finiteness and limitedness in
our knowledge that is at the root of so much personal and historical
turmoil and suffering. Then of course, God does not automatically
step in and correct our bad theology. Oliver Cromwell, in a time when
England was facing impending destruction from "conflicting religious
absolutes", said, "By the bowels of Christ, remember that you may be
mistaken". p.239 Niebuhr. We have a moral responsibility to deal with
the possible errors of our ancestors. The results of their mistakes
have sometimes been terrible! I have already indicated some. It is not
wrong to believe something. But it is wrong never to question your
beliefs; and especially so when the results of those beliefs may have
caused harm to anyone. God holds us responsible for our indifference;
presumption is not a very Christ-like attitude. Worse, it may well be
demonic. Don't be afraid to keep an open mind.
a horror story
Last year I read "Sin And Fear: The Emergence of a Western
Guilt Culture; 13th-18th Centuries", by Jean Delumeau. Stephen
King has nothing over this book. It's over 600 pages of small
print, and its bottom line is the results of Augustine's
theology on Western Christianity- Rome and Protestanism. My
observation includes the subsequent history and development of
its civilization: Atheism, Darwinian Evolution, Freudian psychology,
Fascism, Communism and two world wars. For over 500 years- in
particular- Western Europe lived with a nightmare theology. Because
Augustine, whose Greek was virtually non-existent, misinterpreted
Romans 5:12 to say that we are all GUILTY of Adam's sin and hence
damned to hell, even before birth, millions of people have lived in
dread and depression. Compounding this further, Luther and Calvin-
and their followers- insisted on perpetuating Augustine's doctrine
that God selected only a few (the "elect") to be saved; and no one
could be certain he was among the "elect". It was- to say the least-
a scary world. And with wars, bubonic plague, famines, droughts, a
terrible infant mortality, dropping temperatures resulting in the
"little ice-age" with its devastation, who needed an "angry God"?
Some of the results of this bad religion are: 1). A continuing
emphasis on sin and guilt and all kinds of psychological problems.
2). A fear of God- not of Satan. God is seen as the perpetrator of
evil- not the deliverer from it. We must be resigned to God's "will".
3). A cultural and theological reaction against and within Christianity:
the atheism of the Renaissance and the rise of Enlightenment Rationalism.
This reaction is largely because of the perceived absurdity of the
Protestant principle of the Bible-alone which was felt to be largely
responsible for the religious/sectarian wars. Thinking people got sick
of it all. "Sin And Fear" is an extremely important book for our
understanding of how we- as a civilization- got where we are and why.
It will help answer and put in perspective some vitally important church
history and theology questions, as well.
Guilt Culture; 13th-18th Centuries", by Jean Delumeau. Stephen
King has nothing over this book. It's over 600 pages of small
print, and its bottom line is the results of Augustine's
theology on Western Christianity- Rome and Protestanism. My
observation includes the subsequent history and development of
its civilization: Atheism, Darwinian Evolution, Freudian psychology,
Fascism, Communism and two world wars. For over 500 years- in
particular- Western Europe lived with a nightmare theology. Because
Augustine, whose Greek was virtually non-existent, misinterpreted
Romans 5:12 to say that we are all GUILTY of Adam's sin and hence
damned to hell, even before birth, millions of people have lived in
dread and depression. Compounding this further, Luther and Calvin-
and their followers- insisted on perpetuating Augustine's doctrine
that God selected only a few (the "elect") to be saved; and no one
could be certain he was among the "elect". It was- to say the least-
a scary world. And with wars, bubonic plague, famines, droughts, a
terrible infant mortality, dropping temperatures resulting in the
"little ice-age" with its devastation, who needed an "angry God"?
Some of the results of this bad religion are: 1). A continuing
emphasis on sin and guilt and all kinds of psychological problems.
2). A fear of God- not of Satan. God is seen as the perpetrator of
evil- not the deliverer from it. We must be resigned to God's "will".
3). A cultural and theological reaction against and within Christianity:
the atheism of the Renaissance and the rise of Enlightenment Rationalism.
This reaction is largely because of the perceived absurdity of the
Protestant principle of the Bible-alone which was felt to be largely
responsible for the religious/sectarian wars. Thinking people got sick
of it all. "Sin And Fear" is an extremely important book for our
understanding of how we- as a civilization- got where we are and why.
It will help answer and put in perspective some vitally important church
history and theology questions, as well.
Bible scholars don't agree!
That is profoundly significant. It has been claimed as a principal
doctrine of evangelicalism that people can read the Bible as the
final/ultimate authority to determine the truth of God. The other
day I read M. Sabom's "Light And Death", and he, as an evangelical
Presbyterian physician says: "Bible scholars don't EXACTLY agree on
PRECISELY what it means to be a Christian." p.108.(my emphases) I
don't know about you, but that, to me, is a shocking statement in
it's implications! "Bible scholars"!, not ordinary Bible readers,
but professionals, don't "agree" on what the Bible means. And this is
not about the so-called "non-essentials". If what it means to be a
Christian is not an "essential" I don't know what is. In all sincer-
ity, I hate to say it, because it will be offensive to some people,
but in light of observations like this, to insist on the Bible as
the "final" authority, sounds "Dumber and Dumber". Worse than that,
it is the mother of all confusion. It makes its exponents appear
evasive and misleading at best. Unbelievers can see through the absur-
ity even if we can't; although we can and do, but we know of no
alternative! Or, at least, in pride or not knowing better, we refuse to
even imagine we could be wrong."Sola Scriptura"- the Bible alone- is
what I was taught- polemically and apologetically (to assert and defend).
I trusted my evangelical ancestors who had so tortuously worked out a
theological formula that most of them could agree on. Rome had an
"infallible" authority, so Luther needed one. He picked the Bible.
That's when the whole thing fell apart; now everyone was his own "pope";
millions of "popes"! And the real tragedy is, it's all so unneccessary:
Christ did not leave his Church to drift on the claims of thousands of
sectarian notions. Nor did he leave it to the "authorities" of Rome; nor
to a book over which thousands of "Bible scholars" might squabble and
disagree. The truth was "once and for all" deposited in that church which
maintains the Apostolic Tradition. No disagreeing over what it "means to
be a Christian". And no "denomination" to find, or sect to seek, that
happens to agree with you (the"pope"). Those questions were settled 2,000
years ago. The true Faith/Church -Catholic and Orthodox- did not dry up
and "blow away" simply because Rome went off on a path of its own.
doctrine of evangelicalism that people can read the Bible as the
final/ultimate authority to determine the truth of God. The other
day I read M. Sabom's "Light And Death", and he, as an evangelical
Presbyterian physician says: "Bible scholars don't EXACTLY agree on
PRECISELY what it means to be a Christian." p.108.(my emphases) I
don't know about you, but that, to me, is a shocking statement in
it's implications! "Bible scholars"!, not ordinary Bible readers,
but professionals, don't "agree" on what the Bible means. And this is
not about the so-called "non-essentials". If what it means to be a
Christian is not an "essential" I don't know what is. In all sincer-
ity, I hate to say it, because it will be offensive to some people,
but in light of observations like this, to insist on the Bible as
the "final" authority, sounds "Dumber and Dumber". Worse than that,
it is the mother of all confusion. It makes its exponents appear
evasive and misleading at best. Unbelievers can see through the absur-
ity even if we can't; although we can and do, but we know of no
alternative! Or, at least, in pride or not knowing better, we refuse to
even imagine we could be wrong."Sola Scriptura"- the Bible alone- is
what I was taught- polemically and apologetically (to assert and defend).
I trusted my evangelical ancestors who had so tortuously worked out a
theological formula that most of them could agree on. Rome had an
"infallible" authority, so Luther needed one. He picked the Bible.
That's when the whole thing fell apart; now everyone was his own "pope";
millions of "popes"! And the real tragedy is, it's all so unneccessary:
Christ did not leave his Church to drift on the claims of thousands of
sectarian notions. Nor did he leave it to the "authorities" of Rome; nor
to a book over which thousands of "Bible scholars" might squabble and
disagree. The truth was "once and for all" deposited in that church which
maintains the Apostolic Tradition. No disagreeing over what it "means to
be a Christian". And no "denomination" to find, or sect to seek, that
happens to agree with you (the"pope"). Those questions were settled 2,000
years ago. The true Faith/Church -Catholic and Orthodox- did not dry up
and "blow away" simply because Rome went off on a path of its own.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The big picture!
Get this and get it "good"! P. Nellas in Deification In Christ,
says: because of Christ "sin can be transcended in an ocean of
divine love, thereby proving that the great tragedy of the fall
is only a small incident in time." I confess that a few years
ago I would have written this thought off as some kind of liberal
sentimentalism. My evangelical upbringing impressed on my mind
the centrality of the fall, Satan, sin, the wrath of God, atonement,
crucifixion, death and hell. Salvation was about repentance and how
to escape this monstrous reality. In the light of all that, love
while "lovely", tended to take on the aspect of something weak by
comparison. Obviously, I failed to realize two things: 1. What's
"weakness" to the world is, in fact, the "power" of God! and 2. I,
as many others, did not really understand the meaning of love. While
railing against Hollywood romanticism I was still missing the main
point. Yes, Nellas calls it a "great tragedy",and it is- but it's
still "only a small incident in time." Time stops! Eternity is
forever!And here's the main point: sin is nothing compared to God's
love!! It's not that we didn't "know" these things,but the power of
evil and sin distorted our emphasis.
says: because of Christ "sin can be transcended in an ocean of
divine love, thereby proving that the great tragedy of the fall
is only a small incident in time." I confess that a few years
ago I would have written this thought off as some kind of liberal
sentimentalism. My evangelical upbringing impressed on my mind
the centrality of the fall, Satan, sin, the wrath of God, atonement,
crucifixion, death and hell. Salvation was about repentance and how
to escape this monstrous reality. In the light of all that, love
while "lovely", tended to take on the aspect of something weak by
comparison. Obviously, I failed to realize two things: 1. What's
"weakness" to the world is, in fact, the "power" of God! and 2. I,
as many others, did not really understand the meaning of love. While
railing against Hollywood romanticism I was still missing the main
point. Yes, Nellas calls it a "great tragedy",and it is- but it's
still "only a small incident in time." Time stops! Eternity is
forever!And here's the main point: sin is nothing compared to God's
love!! It's not that we didn't "know" these things,but the power of
evil and sin distorted our emphasis.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Ah, sweet mystery of life....
"...at last I've found you!" There are several words for love in
Greek. Usually we think of Eros ("romantic", typically) and Agape
(self-sacrificial)- "no greater love hath....". Now, I simply want
to declare that love is ETERNAL! (evil is temporary). The revelation
of God is love and goodness. Yes, I know you believe that- but
many Christians are 1. overwhelmed by sorrow or affliction to the
point that, while they would deny it, they're not so sure of God's
personal concern. They may not even be conscious of this "doubt".
They could never admit it to themselves- let alone to others! Who
wants to look unspiritual? And who wants to trouble the faith of
another? Some people are temperamentally predisposed to optimism,
and for most it's easy to believe in a loving God when everything's
going right. That's what Job is about. Or 2. They have been fed a
dangerous doctrine of "sovereignty", which tends to, at least,
tempt them to think of God as "arbitrary". They have gotten the
idea that EVERYTHING that happens is God's "will"; and don't ask
questions! Furthermore, if your idea of "wrath" seems to conflict
with your understanding of love- you need a different perspective
on "wrath"! Sounding pious or religious doesn't make an idea true.
That's why it's so important to discover(!) that love is ETERNAL!
This means love never changes- CAN NEVER! God- who is love- CAN
NEVER be other than loving and kind! NEVER EVER!! Don't be tempted
to think differently. It is this knowledge, this confidence, that
can sustain you through the satanic traps of a fallen world
Greek. Usually we think of Eros ("romantic", typically) and Agape
(self-sacrificial)- "no greater love hath....". Now, I simply want
to declare that love is ETERNAL! (evil is temporary). The revelation
of God is love and goodness. Yes, I know you believe that- but
many Christians are 1. overwhelmed by sorrow or affliction to the
point that, while they would deny it, they're not so sure of God's
personal concern. They may not even be conscious of this "doubt".
They could never admit it to themselves- let alone to others! Who
wants to look unspiritual? And who wants to trouble the faith of
another? Some people are temperamentally predisposed to optimism,
and for most it's easy to believe in a loving God when everything's
going right. That's what Job is about. Or 2. They have been fed a
dangerous doctrine of "sovereignty", which tends to, at least,
tempt them to think of God as "arbitrary". They have gotten the
idea that EVERYTHING that happens is God's "will"; and don't ask
questions! Furthermore, if your idea of "wrath" seems to conflict
with your understanding of love- you need a different perspective
on "wrath"! Sounding pious or religious doesn't make an idea true.
That's why it's so important to discover(!) that love is ETERNAL!
This means love never changes- CAN NEVER! God- who is love- CAN
NEVER be other than loving and kind! NEVER EVER!! Don't be tempted
to think differently. It is this knowledge, this confidence, that
can sustain you through the satanic traps of a fallen world
Is love God?
"God is love." We were taught that the converse is not true. That
is, love is not God. On face that sounds so, but I'm not so sure.
Again, there is so much theology that cannot be comprehended in a
seminary course- and so much that cannot even be approached with
any real understanding without a lot of living. So later when you
have experienced some of the raw realities of life you can begin to
reflect on the meaning of what you were taught. Love that is not
"personal" does not exist. So, love must be God; since it exists
before we "arrive". Love is only the "expression" of a person or
personality. A person is identical with his manifestations- his
"expressions", his "nature"(?). So, love is God. To say otherwise
is to imply: 1. Love is a free-floating "what?" or 2. Love is "one"
of God's "emotions"?? What could that mean? or 3. Love exists by
itself (whatever it is!). or 4. We have only vague ideas what love is;
in which case we don't know what we're talking about when we say love
is not God. I'm inclined to believe love IS God. (We are not speaking of
his "essence" - of which we can say nothing- but of his "energies"-
what have been revealed). Then it's up to us to pursue the implications
of this- assuming it's true. And if it's not, then what is it? If God
is love, then what IS love? It appears it cannot be defined. It's like
"The Color Purple", or red, or green: if you're blind, no amount of
description can ever make it known to you. Any suggestions?
is, love is not God. On face that sounds so, but I'm not so sure.
Again, there is so much theology that cannot be comprehended in a
seminary course- and so much that cannot even be approached with
any real understanding without a lot of living. So later when you
have experienced some of the raw realities of life you can begin to
reflect on the meaning of what you were taught. Love that is not
"personal" does not exist. So, love must be God; since it exists
before we "arrive". Love is only the "expression" of a person or
personality. A person is identical with his manifestations- his
"expressions", his "nature"(?). So, love is God. To say otherwise
is to imply: 1. Love is a free-floating "what?" or 2. Love is "one"
of God's "emotions"?? What could that mean? or 3. Love exists by
itself (whatever it is!). or 4. We have only vague ideas what love is;
in which case we don't know what we're talking about when we say love
is not God. I'm inclined to believe love IS God. (We are not speaking of
his "essence" - of which we can say nothing- but of his "energies"-
what have been revealed). Then it's up to us to pursue the implications
of this- assuming it's true. And if it's not, then what is it? If God
is love, then what IS love? It appears it cannot be defined. It's like
"The Color Purple", or red, or green: if you're blind, no amount of
description can ever make it known to you. Any suggestions?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)