Yeah, okay. I know, I know. And I have to say that I appreciate that no one has left formal, written complaints, even though you would be more than justified in doing so. I haven't posted for about six weeks. Sorry.
But here we go again.
Although winter seems to be holding on longer in Kansas than everyone wants (I think it may have reached almost freezing last night), the first day of spring was over a week ago and the temperatures are starting to show it, once in a while.
I love how the gospel is reflected in God's creation. I think the seasons are typical of that. In the fall, things start to decay, showing their age and representing the effects that sin and decay take on all of us over time. Even believers are not instantaneously delivered from the effects of the Fall at the moment of saving faith. We still age. We still suffer. We still die. We are still under the curse, waiting for the fullness of salvation to come.
In the winter, everything is dead. It represents where humanity, and the creation humans were created to rule, end up as a result of rebelling and losing our relationship with God. It is the time of death; and apart from the gracious act of an outside force, everything would stay dead. Like Lewis's Narnia, it would be a place where it is "always winter and never Christmas." In other words, it would be a place where hope does not exist--which will be the truly agonizing and torturous part of hell, I think. Whatever the physical pain and loneliness will be, above all other forms of suffering it will be the Eternal Winter--the place where "January" is the name of every month in the calendar, not just of this year, but of all the years to come. No hope. Never Christmas.
But then, the seasons of the year scream out to us that there is hope.
(Don't worry. I don't think that the seasons themselves are a part of special revelation. No one can look at the seasons alone and understand Who Christ is, what He did, and what He will do. But God has so created the world that creation augments His special revelation. It whispers to us what the written Word, proclaimed and lived out by the Church, screams at us).
Spring comes. January does not last forever. Death does not ultimately win. April and May come with new life!!
It is really great, I think, that Good Friday and Easter fall during springtime in this northern hemisphere of ours. We have the added benefit of celebrating New Life because of our union with Christ and His resurrection at the same time that leaves are returning on the trees, grass is turning greener, and flowers are beginning to come up again. Hope has found a resting place. It is rekindled. But harvest has yet to come. It is still a time of planting, not reaping. It is still a time when unexpected freezes can come and ruin crops. It is a time when severe wind, hail, floods, and tornadoes can destroy.
This is where we live now. We live in an age of "already, but not yet." As Martin Luther said, "Our Lord has written the promise of the resurrection, not in books alone, but in every leaf in spring-time" (taken from Modern Reformation magazine, March/April 2008, vol. 17, no. 2, page 9). We live in an age where our hope has been proclaimed and we have been given the Spirit as a promise of the coming harvest.
But we are still not living in that harvest yet. We are to be obedient planters and gardeners, under the guidance and empowerment of the Chief Vine-dresser through His Son. But we will taste those freezes and those floods. We will know what it is to sow the same patch of barren ground for long years, hoping for a bountiful crop, when only a few shoots seem to come up from our labors. But you never know what the harvest will bring. You never know how much fruit will come until summer arrives.
I'm still waiting for summer. So are you. Don't' believe those who want to say that it is here. Don't listen to those who say that it is time to come in from the fields and enjoy hot-dogs, watermelon and swimming pools. It's not that time, yet. Trust me. When it is, you will know.
Everyone will know.
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A Christian Theology of the Body
One of my favorite contemporary theologians is N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, Enlgand and fourth highest bishop in the Anglican Church. He is a prolific writer and has written several books. I would highly recommend The Resurrection of the Son of God and his more popular level book, Simply Christian.
I have posted here a link to a Time magazine interview where the Time writer asks Wright several questions about his theology on the importance of the human body in Scripture. Wright, I believe, corrects a lot of wrong thinking that passes for orthodoxy in Christian circles. The link is:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html
This link was recommended reading to me from my oldest, younger brother, Stephen. He sent me the link on Facebook and then asked me what I thought about it. Here are my thoughts below. After reading them, I would invite thoughts of your own on Wright's interview or on my own comments.
"Stephen,
"Yeah, everything Wright said is exactly what we are supposed to believe. It is the teaching of the Bible, orthodox creeds of the early, medieval, and Reformation churches, and should be what we hold to today.
"In fact, you see doubt casted on [Wright's view] of the [End Times and our resurrection] as early as the New Testament itself, I believe. This is why the Apostle John wrote so vehemently in his First Epistle that those who are true Christians are those that confess that Jesus Christ came "in the flesh," that is, as a true human being. He was writing this to his early church community because there were false teachers among them confusing them about the human nature of Christ, teaching instead that Christ was not fully human, or only appeared to be human, like a ghost. But John understood that confessing the full, physical humanity of Christ was absolutely essential for our own salvation (Christ had to identify with those He saved) and for future, bodily resurrection.
"You see, our belief in Christ's full humanity and our value of human physicality are linked. God loves bodies so much that He created them. He loves bodies so much that He took one on Himself. He loves bodies so much that He raised Christ's body (which He still has today) as a "downpayment," or "promissory note" that He will resurrect all bodies some day in the future...some for judgment, and some destined for glory.
"But in our day, we have so de-valued the body (much as the Gnostic heretics of the second century that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen wrote against), that we think the most important thing we have to give to the world is information. "If we can just tell them the message, give them information about the gospel, then we are doing the only important thing that matters in Christian missions."
"But a true Christian theology means that we don't just want to get a rational, ethereal, verbal message into the minds of people. We care about their bodies as well. This is why for centuries the Church has cared about founding hospitals, clinics, food banks, and education that can help people find gainful employment. The gospel is not just for our souls, a message for our minds. It also affects our bodies. It affects the way we are to treat the bodies of others now (note that Paul says our BODIES are temples of the Holy Spirit--1 Cor 3 and 6), and it affects the state of our bodies later when Christ returns.
"Modernism, the philosophical beliefs arising out of the European Enlightenment of the 18th and 19th centuries, is the main culprit as to why we so de-emphasize and often teach heresy regarding the human body, in my estimation. Modernism told us a whole lot of things that were wrong (and some things that were right, as well). But one of those wrong things was to emphasize rational thought and the human mind as the ultimate source of knowledge, the ultimate arbiter of all truth claims, and our ultimate hope for human better-ment and salvation (hope in science, especially). With such a radical, extreme emphasis on human rationality and thinking, it is no wonder that Western man has come to exalt the mind to such an extent that we often view the body as just a temporary "earth-suit" that we will one day escape. (I have actually heard our bodies referred to as "earth-suits" by SCOPE ministries teachings).
"In my opinion--a point that Wright does not touch on much--it is the uncritical wedding of modern thinking and sub-Christian theology that has allowed so many in Christian circles to develop such unbiblical thinking about the body, soul, salvation, and the End Times.
"I look forward to talking to you more about it this weekend, if you want.
"Love ya,
Your brother."
I have posted here a link to a Time magazine interview where the Time writer asks Wright several questions about his theology on the importance of the human body in Scripture. Wright, I believe, corrects a lot of wrong thinking that passes for orthodoxy in Christian circles. The link is:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html
This link was recommended reading to me from my oldest, younger brother, Stephen. He sent me the link on Facebook and then asked me what I thought about it. Here are my thoughts below. After reading them, I would invite thoughts of your own on Wright's interview or on my own comments.
"Stephen,
"Yeah, everything Wright said is exactly what we are supposed to believe. It is the teaching of the Bible, orthodox creeds of the early, medieval, and Reformation churches, and should be what we hold to today.
"In fact, you see doubt casted on [Wright's view] of the [End Times and our resurrection] as early as the New Testament itself, I believe. This is why the Apostle John wrote so vehemently in his First Epistle that those who are true Christians are those that confess that Jesus Christ came "in the flesh," that is, as a true human being. He was writing this to his early church community because there were false teachers among them confusing them about the human nature of Christ, teaching instead that Christ was not fully human, or only appeared to be human, like a ghost. But John understood that confessing the full, physical humanity of Christ was absolutely essential for our own salvation (Christ had to identify with those He saved) and for future, bodily resurrection.
"You see, our belief in Christ's full humanity and our value of human physicality are linked. God loves bodies so much that He created them. He loves bodies so much that He took one on Himself. He loves bodies so much that He raised Christ's body (which He still has today) as a "downpayment," or "promissory note" that He will resurrect all bodies some day in the future...some for judgment, and some destined for glory.
"But in our day, we have so de-valued the body (much as the Gnostic heretics of the second century that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen wrote against), that we think the most important thing we have to give to the world is information. "If we can just tell them the message, give them information about the gospel, then we are doing the only important thing that matters in Christian missions."
"But a true Christian theology means that we don't just want to get a rational, ethereal, verbal message into the minds of people. We care about their bodies as well. This is why for centuries the Church has cared about founding hospitals, clinics, food banks, and education that can help people find gainful employment. The gospel is not just for our souls, a message for our minds. It also affects our bodies. It affects the way we are to treat the bodies of others now (note that Paul says our BODIES are temples of the Holy Spirit--1 Cor 3 and 6), and it affects the state of our bodies later when Christ returns.
"Modernism, the philosophical beliefs arising out of the European Enlightenment of the 18th and 19th centuries, is the main culprit as to why we so de-emphasize and often teach heresy regarding the human body, in my estimation. Modernism told us a whole lot of things that were wrong (and some things that were right, as well). But one of those wrong things was to emphasize rational thought and the human mind as the ultimate source of knowledge, the ultimate arbiter of all truth claims, and our ultimate hope for human better-ment and salvation (hope in science, especially). With such a radical, extreme emphasis on human rationality and thinking, it is no wonder that Western man has come to exalt the mind to such an extent that we often view the body as just a temporary "earth-suit" that we will one day escape. (I have actually heard our bodies referred to as "earth-suits" by SCOPE ministries teachings).
"In my opinion--a point that Wright does not touch on much--it is the uncritical wedding of modern thinking and sub-Christian theology that has allowed so many in Christian circles to develop such unbiblical thinking about the body, soul, salvation, and the End Times.
"I look forward to talking to you more about it this weekend, if you want.
"Love ya,
Your brother."
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
This one took a while
For this week, I want to refer everyone to a post that I began thinking about back in mid-December, before Christmas. It has taken a while for me to finish, but I wanted to make sure that my sources were right. The post is entitled "Meditations of an Ex-Protester Protesting Evangelical Protester-ism."
The post is not directed towards any one person or group of people beyond those represented by the poll numbers on plugginonline's website.
I hope it is challenging and encouraging for you. Please feel free to voice your ideas, even if they contradict mine. That's partly what a blog is for!!
in our Lord,
John Buerger
The post is not directed towards any one person or group of people beyond those represented by the poll numbers on plugginonline's website.
I hope it is challenging and encouraging for you. Please feel free to voice your ideas, even if they contradict mine. That's partly what a blog is for!!
in our Lord,
John Buerger
Meditations of an Ex-Protester Protesting Evangelical Protester-ism
Wow. What a dorky title. For some people it will come across as too academic. For others it will look oxy-moronic, since I have referred to myself as an "ex-protester" but have told you up front that I am, in fact, protesting by writing this blog post. For others still, it just sounds dorky. I think I'm in the latter category, myself.
This post is also not about evangelical Protestantism, as a distinctive, historical movement within Christianity. Much has been said, could be said, and, hopefully, will continue to be said about how much of what passes for contemporary evangelical thinking is far from the theology of the Protestant Reformation. But this post is not specifically about that either (although some may find some indirect correlations). Maybe another day.
No. This post is about "Protester-ism," a word that I either made up or heard someone else use and thought was cool enough to steal. I'm not sure which, yet. I have thought about trying to define this word, but have chosen not to. Hopefully you will get the picture of what it is after you read the rest of the post. If not, please post a comment.
As a youth pastor, I believe that part of my job is to keep up on what is going on in culture. This is accomplished in a lot of ways. One of those ways is reading movie reviews written by Christians and non-Christians. One site that I look at occasionally is http://www.pluggedinonline.org/, a site maintained by Focus on the Family for the purpose of reviewing movies, books, TV shows, and other media.
On December 17, 2007, I logged on to that site and found that the folks at Focus on the Family had taken a poll of their readership. The poll sought to measure the evangelical community's response to the recent movie, "The Golden Compass," based on the book by Philip Pullman. Much of the evangelical community has been up in arms lately (especially Focus on the Family) over this book because of its purported anti-God theme. Evidently, the main characters in the story are led to believe that the best course of action at the end of the movie is "to kill God." (To me, the idea of killing God is hardly offensive, simply because of how non-sensical it sounds. It's like calling a square a circle, or saying that two plus two equals seven. I think that it is an idea so absurd that we should not choose to dignify it with anger). (For more, read Focus on the Family's review of this movie at http://www.pluggedinonline.com/thisweekonly/a0003516.cfm, accessed last on January 15, 2008).
The poll that pluggedinonline took read like this:
Your family's approach to "The Golden Compass:"
We will avoid it because of its messages: 70%
We will avoid it because we're not interested: 14%
We'll see it and discuss its messages: 8%
We'll see it; it's just another fantasy movie: 8%
("Mama Schrag, please feel free to let me know how dorky it is.")
Before I explain what this blog post is about, let me quickly note what it is not about. First of all, this is not a "coming out" post, admitting to all readers that I am a liberal. To think so is just not true. I am not theologically liberal nor do I agree with everything on the liberal political platform either (although they sometimes have some good points to make).
This post is also not about evangelical Protestantism, as a distinctive, historical movement within Christianity. Much has been said, could be said, and, hopefully, will continue to be said about how much of what passes for contemporary evangelical thinking is far from the theology of the Protestant Reformation. But this post is not specifically about that either (although some may find some indirect correlations). Maybe another day.
No. This post is about "Protester-ism," a word that I either made up or heard someone else use and thought was cool enough to steal. I'm not sure which, yet. I have thought about trying to define this word, but have chosen not to. Hopefully you will get the picture of what it is after you read the rest of the post. If not, please post a comment.
As a youth pastor, I believe that part of my job is to keep up on what is going on in culture. This is accomplished in a lot of ways. One of those ways is reading movie reviews written by Christians and non-Christians. One site that I look at occasionally is http://www.pluggedinonline.org/, a site maintained by Focus on the Family for the purpose of reviewing movies, books, TV shows, and other media.
On December 17, 2007, I logged on to that site and found that the folks at Focus on the Family had taken a poll of their readership. The poll sought to measure the evangelical community's response to the recent movie, "The Golden Compass," based on the book by Philip Pullman. Much of the evangelical community has been up in arms lately (especially Focus on the Family) over this book because of its purported anti-God theme. Evidently, the main characters in the story are led to believe that the best course of action at the end of the movie is "to kill God." (To me, the idea of killing God is hardly offensive, simply because of how non-sensical it sounds. It's like calling a square a circle, or saying that two plus two equals seven. I think that it is an idea so absurd that we should not choose to dignify it with anger). (For more, read Focus on the Family's review of this movie at http://www.pluggedinonline.com/thisweekonly/a0003516.cfm, accessed last on January 15, 2008).
The poll that pluggedinonline took read like this:
Your family's approach to "The Golden Compass:"
We will avoid it because of its messages: 70%
We will avoid it because we're not interested: 14%
We'll see it and discuss its messages: 8%
We'll see it; it's just another fantasy movie: 8%
Now, the results of that poll bother me. Let me tell you why. This poll bothers me, not because I think every Christian has a responsibility to see "The Golden Compass." I think that the 14% who don't want to see it simply because they're not interested in the genre or the story-line are perfectly justified in choosing not to spend their money to see the movie, just as any one of us may not choose to pay to see an opera, a hockey game, or some other form of entertainment that fails to capture our interest. The numbers that bother me in this poll are the 8% at the very bottom and especially the 70% at the top.
The 8% at the bottom bother me because they fail to take into account the fact that every movie, book, piece of music, and TV show has some kind of a point. These forms of media are the dominant art-forms of our day and art forms communicate messages....always. Even if your piece of art is going out of the way to not communicate a clear message, that, in itself, is a message. You're simply communicating that you're tired of making serious points with your art and that pure entertainment is somehow more important at the moment. Like it or not, that is a serious message that carries serious implications. Communication always happens--sometimes even by those trying not to communicate at all. We need to get used to it. We need to start engaging our culture by learning how to interpret their messages. We need to stop leaving it to our pastor or favorite Christian author. We need to learn to do it ourselves, as well. It's not just the job of Christian leaders and theologians to look at cultural messages through a biblical grid. It is the job of Christians. We will never evangelize or minister to a culture we refuse to talk to.
The 70% of the poll-takers at the top bothered me the most. They bother me for the same reason as the 8% mentioned above, only their position has even greater weaknesses, in my opinion. These weaknesses go far deeper than the decision to watch "The Golden Compass." In all actuality, I don't really care who sees the movie and who doesn't. I am much more concerned with the heart-attitudes and the wrong-headed theology that is represented by the "Evangelical Protester-ism" of the 70%.
The thinking of the 70% is that the best way to change culture (including the film industry, in this instance) is to protest. If we just create another wall, another strong tower in our own evangelical sub-culture, and we all climb to the top of that wall, look down on those bad film makers and tell them that they are naughty, we will have done our Christian duty. And what better way to tell them that they are naughty than to keep from giving them our money? In fact, if we go and see the movie, and give them our money, doesn't that make us naughty?
One problem with this thinking and strategy is that we don't (and really, can't) apply it across the board. How many Christians will keep from buying a movie ticket to a film that they wish to protest but will turn around and spend a lot more money at Gap, Target, Wal-Mart, JC Penny's, and a whole host of other franchises that support all kinds of social agendas with which we disagree? If I buy some gas at Chevron, take out a loan at Bank of America, buy a hamburger at Sonic, or sell something on eBay, does that mean that I support these companies and their decision to support Planned Parenthood? (see http://www.fightpp.org/ for more; accessed on January 15, 2008). I don' think so. I think it just means that I want a hamburger or that I want a low-interest loan on my house.
And I'm pretty sure that Sonic, although feeding me a hamburger and keeping me alive another day, doesn't think that they're actively supporting a pro-life youth pastor, either.
Unless we're all willing to be Amish (and I'm not), we're probably going to have to realize that our money just has to go to people that don't look at the world the way we do. No where is this more obvious than paying our taxes to our secular government. But...wait...didn't Paul tell me to pay taxes? Yeah. He did (Rom. 13:1-5).
Another problem represented by the thinking of the 70% is the belief that we are somehow doing our Christian duty by protesting. Why are we surprised when a reportedly agnostic person, like Philip Pullman, declares that he hates Christianity? Do we really not believe our Bibles? Christ and His disciples told us over and over again that the world will hate us, because it hated Christ first (Matt. 10:22; 24:9; Mark 13:13; Luke 21:17; John 7:7; 15:18; 17:14).
The real problem is not that the world hates us. The real problem is that we hate them. When we tell them that we are not willing to listen to their ideas, that we are not interested in engaging them in conversation, that we are not willing to be their friends in any capacity, and that we really are only willing to love people who are already like us and who live in our little evangelical sub-cultures, we are sending the world a message that sounds much more like hate than Christian love. When we turn to "Evangelical Protester-ism" as our chosen method of engaging our culture, we have chosen a method that poorly represents the core of our faith.
Yes, as Focus on the Family points out, Pullman hates C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia." Why? I don't know for sure. I've never spoken to Pullman, myself. Maybe he hates talking Lions. Maybe he hates trees that can move and maybe he really likes winter instead of spring. Or maybe he really doesn't like the message of the Gospel.
But I really wonder if he has truly been given the opportunity to hate the Gospel. I say this because the message he hears through the evangelical community that refuses to have anything to do with his book or his movie is definitely not the message of the Gospel. Call that message whatever you want. But we don't dare call it the Gospel. Maybe Pullman does hate evangelicals. But I doubt he hates us for the same reason that Christ said the world will hate us. And that should shame us.
Don't get me wrong. I really don't care whether you go see the movie or not. This blog really isn't about "The Golden Compass." If you were led to think it was, up to this point, I apologize. I haven't communicated clearly, then. What I care about is that we learn to listen to the culture. Not because I think they have found a way to God or because their sources of truth are better, more "edgy," more hip, or more accurate than the eternal, God-breathed words of Scripture. I think we should learn to listen to them for the same reason anyone decides to listen to someone else. We should listen to them because it is how you show love. We should listen to them so that when we engage their ideas in conversation or debate, we actually know what we're talking about.
And if we are scared that watching "The Golden Compass" or an episode of Oprah will ship-wreck our faith and make us want to kill God, then we really need to question whether we are Christians in the first place....or at least whether the pastors we listen to and the books we read are written by Christian leaders who love us enough to help us understand our faith and take us deeper in our relationships with Christ instead of just selling us pop-psychology, self-help for a price.
Have I seen "The Golden Compass"? No. No I haven't.
But if you have, I would love to hear your impressions and interpretations of it.
More on protesting "Evangelical Protester-ism" later....
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Preparing the Heart for Biblical Interpretation
I have continued to be amazed by the great insight the Lord saw fit to give to the fourth century church father, Augustine of Hippo.
In many modern Sunday school, Bible college, and seminary classes that address rules for biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), students are told the importance of studying the historical and grammatical context of the passage under study. Thus students are encouraged to stock their personal libraries with lexicons, Bible encyclopedias, atlases, Bible histories, commentaries and the like in order to increase one's chances of arriving at the original, intended meaning of the biblical author.
All of this is quite important and should not be neglected. However, I find it interesting that when Augustine addresses the topic of biblical interpretation, he begins with the spiritual condition of the interpreter before addressing the proper methods and tools of interpretation. In his On Christian Doctrine, he establishes the importance of approaching the biblical text with two key spiritual ingredients: fear and piety (Book 2, Section VII).
Augustine understood that interpreters of the biblical text are coming face to face with the very words of God Himself, not just a collection of ancient myths to be read with cold, objective, academic dis-interest, much as we might read Homer or Beowulf. As a result, the responsibility upon the biblical interpreter is quite awesome. He or she must truly desire to interpret the text as Christianly as possible, in order to be a person who is accurately handling the Word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). This should cause a healthy sense of fear to arise in the heart of the interpreter. Undoubtedly, this thought was in the mind of the apostle James when he wrote, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment" (Jas 3:1).
Secondly, Augustine wrote that the reader of Scripture is to interpret the Bible with piety. By this, he meant to say that the interpreter is to come with a heart of faith, a disposition to believe what the Scripture says instead of an attitude of placing oneself in judgment over the claims of Scripture. Augustine would write elsewhere that we come to Scripture with a heart that says "I must believe in order to understand, not understand so that I can believe." This mantra would be repeated throughout most of medieval Christianity, most notably in the writings of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.
Scripture is in a place of judgment over the thoughts of human beings, not subject to our fallen reason. Believing this captures the piety mentioned by Augustine. When we fail to recognize this and approach Scripture with another attitude or set of beliefs, we set ourselves up for theological and spiritual failure. The effects of post-Enlightenment rationalism and extreme optimism in human science and reason in modern Europe is a testimony to how an entire culture can be swayed to turn from faith in Scripture and church authority to "empty, deceitful philosophies" that are "according to human traditions" (Col 2:8). Many of the incredibly beautiful cathedrals and basilicas of that continent have been reduced to mere museums, left-over shells giving testimony to a once living organism that traded its faith in God's Word for faith in humanity's "potential."
May God give wisdom to the still remaining modern churches and the emerging post-modern churches of evangelicalism so that we will not place our highest confidence in any other source than God's written Word, which gives testimony to the Incarnate Word.
In many modern Sunday school, Bible college, and seminary classes that address rules for biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), students are told the importance of studying the historical and grammatical context of the passage under study. Thus students are encouraged to stock their personal libraries with lexicons, Bible encyclopedias, atlases, Bible histories, commentaries and the like in order to increase one's chances of arriving at the original, intended meaning of the biblical author.
All of this is quite important and should not be neglected. However, I find it interesting that when Augustine addresses the topic of biblical interpretation, he begins with the spiritual condition of the interpreter before addressing the proper methods and tools of interpretation. In his On Christian Doctrine, he establishes the importance of approaching the biblical text with two key spiritual ingredients: fear and piety (Book 2, Section VII).
Augustine understood that interpreters of the biblical text are coming face to face with the very words of God Himself, not just a collection of ancient myths to be read with cold, objective, academic dis-interest, much as we might read Homer or Beowulf. As a result, the responsibility upon the biblical interpreter is quite awesome. He or she must truly desire to interpret the text as Christianly as possible, in order to be a person who is accurately handling the Word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). This should cause a healthy sense of fear to arise in the heart of the interpreter. Undoubtedly, this thought was in the mind of the apostle James when he wrote, "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment" (Jas 3:1).
Secondly, Augustine wrote that the reader of Scripture is to interpret the Bible with piety. By this, he meant to say that the interpreter is to come with a heart of faith, a disposition to believe what the Scripture says instead of an attitude of placing oneself in judgment over the claims of Scripture. Augustine would write elsewhere that we come to Scripture with a heart that says "I must believe in order to understand, not understand so that I can believe." This mantra would be repeated throughout most of medieval Christianity, most notably in the writings of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.
Scripture is in a place of judgment over the thoughts of human beings, not subject to our fallen reason. Believing this captures the piety mentioned by Augustine. When we fail to recognize this and approach Scripture with another attitude or set of beliefs, we set ourselves up for theological and spiritual failure. The effects of post-Enlightenment rationalism and extreme optimism in human science and reason in modern Europe is a testimony to how an entire culture can be swayed to turn from faith in Scripture and church authority to "empty, deceitful philosophies" that are "according to human traditions" (Col 2:8). Many of the incredibly beautiful cathedrals and basilicas of that continent have been reduced to mere museums, left-over shells giving testimony to a once living organism that traded its faith in God's Word for faith in humanity's "potential."
May God give wisdom to the still remaining modern churches and the emerging post-modern churches of evangelicalism so that we will not place our highest confidence in any other source than God's written Word, which gives testimony to the Incarnate Word.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Psychology of Idolatry
Recently on Wednesday nights, I have begun teaching on the subject of idolatry. The subject matter has seemed very appropriate to me--not just because it fits with the over-arching theme of Wednesday night youth group this year (which is how to be in the world, but not of it)--but because I find myself to be an idolater in far too many ways.
The subject of idolatry is a major theme in the Bible, which is obvious to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Scripture. In the Old Testament it is treated as the culmination of rebellion, the final destination of the nations of Israel and Judah on their path away from God. Rejecting YHWH and turning to the Baals and Asherah poles is the height of personal and national sin highlighted by the Hebrew prophets. In the prophets and 1-2 Kings idolatry is what "breaks the camel's back," so to speak, and signals that the nation's rebellion against YHWH has reached its full measure, resulting in God's wrath upon His people who are no longer His people.
In Hosea, idolatry is symbolized as an act of spiritual adultery. Israel has cheated on YHWH. In Isaiah, idolatry is portrayed as absurd and non-sensical. Why would people turn from a living God Who had performed such incredible acts of grace on behalf of His people to stones and pieces of wood, representing so-called deities that were really not gods at all?
But in Jeremiah 2:10-13, we get another picture of idolatry. Speaking for YHWH, Jeremiah calls out to the southern nation of Judah (Israel had already been judged and destroyed by this time) and says: "For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, in order to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water" (2:13). In this verse, idolatry is the result of misplaced desires. It is the result of looking for satisfaction in all the wrong places. It is the result of believing that true fulfillment, satisfaction, and the meeting of one's needs will be found somewhere else other than the God Who has proven Himself faithful time and time again.
I found that Jeremiah's metaphor for idolatry truly resonates with me, right now. I have an incredible ability to deceive myself into thinking that the best way to assuage my fatigue is to sit in front of a television, computer game, novel, or some other form of brain passivity instead of finding true rest in the One Who gives true rest. I'm not sure what happens in the interval between a satisfying time of prayer, meditation, Scripture study, or meaningful fellowship with another believer (either in person or through a written work) and the time when I am in need of such things again that causes me to dig another broken cistern instead of returning to the life-giving stream. I have no other word for it than laziness.
The "flesh" is probably a better word. More encompassing. More Pauline, anyway.
I have appreciated the analysis of the psychology of idolatry offered by C.S. Lewis and St. Augustine of the 4th and 5th centuries.
A painting of St. Augustine (354-430) by the Italian painter Vincenzo Foppa in 1465-70.
Concerning our continual journey for pleasure, Augustine wrote that it is not pleasure itself that is bad, but a delight in created things that does not point our enjoyment to the Creator Himself. A delight in the created as an end in itself is idolatry. When this delight results in a greater love, appreciation or awe of the Trinity, then we are properly using the created order for that which it was intended.
Augustine wrote:
"When that which is loved is near, it necessarily brings delight with it also. If you pass on through this delight and have referred it to that goal where you should remain (delight in God), you are using it and may only improperly be said to enjoy it. But if you cling to that delight and remain in it, making it the end of your rejoicing, then you may truly and properly be said to be enjoying it. And this kind of enjoyment should not be indulged except with reference to the Trinity, which is the highest good and is immutable."
--On Christian Doctrine, XXXIII.37
With a similar sentiment, C.S. Lewis said in his sermon entitled "The Weight of Glory":
"...it would seem that Our Lord find our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by an offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
Lately, my problem has been digging another broken cistern or playing in my mud-puddle and then getting angry when I find, once again, that my true needs are not met. My idolatry does not just affect me. My sin always affects others. Especially my sin of idolatry.
I want to know more of finding a "holiday" in God. I don't think it means just a perpetual state of emotional bliss. I think it is akin to what Paul means in Philippians 3:10 when he writes, "...that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death..." This passage reveals that knowing Christ in such a way was the pinnacle of Paul's desires. Paul knew and understood from his theology (and his experience, I believe) that there is such a thing as deep joy and fulfillment to be found in knowing God through Christ that puts our sufferings in a new light. This is the delight I seek.
Lord, help me cast down my idols.
The subject of idolatry is a major theme in the Bible, which is obvious to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Scripture. In the Old Testament it is treated as the culmination of rebellion, the final destination of the nations of Israel and Judah on their path away from God. Rejecting YHWH and turning to the Baals and Asherah poles is the height of personal and national sin highlighted by the Hebrew prophets. In the prophets and 1-2 Kings idolatry is what "breaks the camel's back," so to speak, and signals that the nation's rebellion against YHWH has reached its full measure, resulting in God's wrath upon His people who are no longer His people.
In Hosea, idolatry is symbolized as an act of spiritual adultery. Israel has cheated on YHWH. In Isaiah, idolatry is portrayed as absurd and non-sensical. Why would people turn from a living God Who had performed such incredible acts of grace on behalf of His people to stones and pieces of wood, representing so-called deities that were really not gods at all?
But in Jeremiah 2:10-13, we get another picture of idolatry. Speaking for YHWH, Jeremiah calls out to the southern nation of Judah (Israel had already been judged and destroyed by this time) and says: "For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, in order to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water" (2:13). In this verse, idolatry is the result of misplaced desires. It is the result of looking for satisfaction in all the wrong places. It is the result of believing that true fulfillment, satisfaction, and the meeting of one's needs will be found somewhere else other than the God Who has proven Himself faithful time and time again.
I found that Jeremiah's metaphor for idolatry truly resonates with me, right now. I have an incredible ability to deceive myself into thinking that the best way to assuage my fatigue is to sit in front of a television, computer game, novel, or some other form of brain passivity instead of finding true rest in the One Who gives true rest. I'm not sure what happens in the interval between a satisfying time of prayer, meditation, Scripture study, or meaningful fellowship with another believer (either in person or through a written work) and the time when I am in need of such things again that causes me to dig another broken cistern instead of returning to the life-giving stream. I have no other word for it than laziness.
The "flesh" is probably a better word. More encompassing. More Pauline, anyway.
I have appreciated the analysis of the psychology of idolatry offered by C.S. Lewis and St. Augustine of the 4th and 5th centuries.
A painting of St. Augustine (354-430) by the Italian painter Vincenzo Foppa in 1465-70.
Concerning our continual journey for pleasure, Augustine wrote that it is not pleasure itself that is bad, but a delight in created things that does not point our enjoyment to the Creator Himself. A delight in the created as an end in itself is idolatry. When this delight results in a greater love, appreciation or awe of the Trinity, then we are properly using the created order for that which it was intended.
Augustine wrote:
"When that which is loved is near, it necessarily brings delight with it also. If you pass on through this delight and have referred it to that goal where you should remain (delight in God), you are using it and may only improperly be said to enjoy it. But if you cling to that delight and remain in it, making it the end of your rejoicing, then you may truly and properly be said to be enjoying it. And this kind of enjoyment should not be indulged except with reference to the Trinity, which is the highest good and is immutable."
--On Christian Doctrine, XXXIII.37
With a similar sentiment, C.S. Lewis said in his sermon entitled "The Weight of Glory":
"...it would seem that Our Lord find our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by an offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased."
Lately, my problem has been digging another broken cistern or playing in my mud-puddle and then getting angry when I find, once again, that my true needs are not met. My idolatry does not just affect me. My sin always affects others. Especially my sin of idolatry.
I want to know more of finding a "holiday" in God. I don't think it means just a perpetual state of emotional bliss. I think it is akin to what Paul means in Philippians 3:10 when he writes, "...that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death..." This passage reveals that knowing Christ in such a way was the pinnacle of Paul's desires. Paul knew and understood from his theology (and his experience, I believe) that there is such a thing as deep joy and fulfillment to be found in knowing God through Christ that puts our sufferings in a new light. This is the delight I seek.
Lord, help me cast down my idols.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Do I Qualify as a Star Wars Nerd?
Okay. So I admit it. In the last month I have seen all six episodes of the Star Wars epic and read one Star Wars novel. Does that make me a Star Wars Nerd?
Notice that there is a need to capitalize "Star Wars Nerd" because such a title actually does refer to a certain class of people. I've known some of them. They usually have posters of Darth Vader on their wall, life-size replicas of lightsabers somewhere in their room, and even figurines of prominent Star Wars characters on their shelves.
Notice that there is a need to capitalize "Star Wars Nerd" because such a title actually does refer to a certain class of people. I've known some of them. They usually have posters of Darth Vader on their wall, life-size replicas of lightsabers somewhere in their room, and even figurines of prominent Star Wars characters on their shelves.
Darth Vader's confrontation techniques at work.
One guy I used to work with was actually proud enough of his addiction to Star Wars that he had several figurines on his desk at work. As the supportive co-workers that we were, we used to get to work early and put all of the figurines in crazy positions before he got there. We had Obi-Wan Kenobi doing a Michael Jackson moon-walk, Princess Leia doing some serious kissing with a stormtrooper, and Han Solo doing certain kinds of aerobic exercises that would challenge most Pilates experts. In his desk drawer, this guy also had several Star Wars magazines, complete with full-length articles going into incredible detail on people, places and events that will never exist, yet treating these items as though they were part of the daily news of which all human beings should be aware. The common consensus in our office was that my friend was a hopeless Star Wars Nerd. Indeed, he was a Nerd Supreme.
But what about me? This has become a very important question for me, as of late. Those people who know of my recent viewing of the movies have begun to wonder. People are talking. Phone calls have been made. Investigations have been launched.
All of this has caused me to ask the question, "Why does the part of me that likes Star Wars, like Star Wars?" I frame the question this way because there are several parts of me that do not like Star Wars.
For one thing, I think the acting is deplorable--especially in the first three episodes. Any movie where the dialogue in the most dramatic, romantic scene includes the statement, "Oh Anakin. Hold me. Like you did on Naboo!" cannot expect to win any Oscars. Any director or producers who think that a useless creation like Jar Jar Binx should have been permitted to even be spoken allowed in a writers' meeting, don't deserve any filming awards. And, in general, it is hard to take a movie seriously that has no problem resting the entire weight of a saga on the dialogue and actions of several puppets. It can leave you waiting for Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy to show up for a lightsaber duel.
On second thought, that would be kind of fun to watch. My money is on Miss Piggy. All the way.
However, I have decided that I like Star Wars for the central themes involved. Sure, I like the great graphics and exceptional coreographed fight scenes (especially in the first three episodes). But ultimately, I like the story-line itself. Don't be fooled. The story is not about Luke Skywalker. It's not about Obi-Wan Kenobi. And it's not even about liberal democracy's fight against tyranny.
It is about Anakin Skywalker. It is about redemption.
It is about the rise of a man who had great promise (kind of like like the creation of humanity). It is about the corruption and fall of that Jedi (kind of like the eating of forbidden fruit and the love of the creation that surpassed the love of the Creator, committed by our parents). It is about the consequences of that Jedi's fall for himself and the rest of the galaxy (kind of like the groaning of the creation around us in the form of disasters and the food-chain). And it is about how that man is eventually redeemed from his fall by an unlikely agent--a person descended from his own line (kind of like Christ's descension from Adam).
That's why I like Star Wars.
And I like the lightsaber fights.
One guy I used to work with was actually proud enough of his addiction to Star Wars that he had several figurines on his desk at work. As the supportive co-workers that we were, we used to get to work early and put all of the figurines in crazy positions before he got there. We had Obi-Wan Kenobi doing a Michael Jackson moon-walk, Princess Leia doing some serious kissing with a stormtrooper, and Han Solo doing certain kinds of aerobic exercises that would challenge most Pilates experts. In his desk drawer, this guy also had several Star Wars magazines, complete with full-length articles going into incredible detail on people, places and events that will never exist, yet treating these items as though they were part of the daily news of which all human beings should be aware. The common consensus in our office was that my friend was a hopeless Star Wars Nerd. Indeed, he was a Nerd Supreme.
But what about me? This has become a very important question for me, as of late. Those people who know of my recent viewing of the movies have begun to wonder. People are talking. Phone calls have been made. Investigations have been launched.
All of this has caused me to ask the question, "Why does the part of me that likes Star Wars, like Star Wars?" I frame the question this way because there are several parts of me that do not like Star Wars.
For one thing, I think the acting is deplorable--especially in the first three episodes. Any movie where the dialogue in the most dramatic, romantic scene includes the statement, "Oh Anakin. Hold me. Like you did on Naboo!" cannot expect to win any Oscars. Any director or producers who think that a useless creation like Jar Jar Binx should have been permitted to even be spoken allowed in a writers' meeting, don't deserve any filming awards. And, in general, it is hard to take a movie seriously that has no problem resting the entire weight of a saga on the dialogue and actions of several puppets. It can leave you waiting for Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy to show up for a lightsaber duel.
On second thought, that would be kind of fun to watch. My money is on Miss Piggy. All the way.
However, I have decided that I like Star Wars for the central themes involved. Sure, I like the great graphics and exceptional coreographed fight scenes (especially in the first three episodes). But ultimately, I like the story-line itself. Don't be fooled. The story is not about Luke Skywalker. It's not about Obi-Wan Kenobi. And it's not even about liberal democracy's fight against tyranny.
It is about Anakin Skywalker. It is about redemption.
It is about the rise of a man who had great promise (kind of like like the creation of humanity). It is about the corruption and fall of that Jedi (kind of like the eating of forbidden fruit and the love of the creation that surpassed the love of the Creator, committed by our parents). It is about the consequences of that Jedi's fall for himself and the rest of the galaxy (kind of like the groaning of the creation around us in the form of disasters and the food-chain). And it is about how that man is eventually redeemed from his fall by an unlikely agent--a person descended from his own line (kind of like Christ's descension from Adam).
That's why I like Star Wars.
And I like the lightsaber fights.
Friday, October 5, 2007
What's "Dropping Swords?"
At first, I really struggled with the title of my blog. In fact, it was the difficulty of trying to come up with a title that began to delay the creation of the blog in the first place...a situation that I started to consider pretty stupid. After thinking for too long on the subject, I decided that my blog wasn't going to be primarily a bunch of news about various events taking place in my life. That did away with such titles as "Buerger Cast" and "The Buerger Times."
I also came to the realization that I didn't want my blog to just be a collection of my theological ramblings, even though theology is a topic that I care more about than anything else. Out with titles like "The Confessions of St. Buerger," "The Purpose-Driven Buerger," "Buergerology," "Velvet Buerger," and "Desiring Buerger" (although I wouldn't mind if that was the title of my wife's blog).
I decided that I didn't want my blog to be about me. But that sounds stupid. How can a blog have nothing to do with its writer? Obviously, it can't. But it can be about what that writer sees as a primary theme in the story God is telling through his life. A theme about transformation. A theme about being less of a fighter and more of healer--less of a talker and more of a listener. A theme about being more concerned with defending grace than being known as someone who is always right. A theme about being someone who doesn't look for opportunities to confront, but only does so when it is necessary; and even then, does it in truth AND love. A theme about being less a person of battle and more a person of peace. In short, I wanted my blog to be about how God is helping me drop my many swords.
And there'll be other stuff too...
I also came to the realization that I didn't want my blog to just be a collection of my theological ramblings, even though theology is a topic that I care more about than anything else. Out with titles like "The Confessions of St. Buerger," "The Purpose-Driven Buerger," "Buergerology," "Velvet Buerger," and "Desiring Buerger" (although I wouldn't mind if that was the title of my wife's blog).
I decided that I didn't want my blog to be about me. But that sounds stupid. How can a blog have nothing to do with its writer? Obviously, it can't. But it can be about what that writer sees as a primary theme in the story God is telling through his life. A theme about transformation. A theme about being less of a fighter and more of healer--less of a talker and more of a listener. A theme about being more concerned with defending grace than being known as someone who is always right. A theme about being someone who doesn't look for opportunities to confront, but only does so when it is necessary; and even then, does it in truth AND love. A theme about being less a person of battle and more a person of peace. In short, I wanted my blog to be about how God is helping me drop my many swords.
And there'll be other stuff too...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)