Theological Journeys

When I was a kid, maybe 8 years old, I was watching a movie at my grandma's apartment. I recall a character from the movie--an elderly man, not a regular gambler by any means--at a casino playing roulette. He started with a small sum and within a half an hour his luck had grown his cache to a sum of tens of thousands of dollars. A crowd had gathered in the meanwhile, cheering him on. He took his winnings, around $70K and bet it all on one number and lost to the dismay of the crowd and me, the juvenile viewer. To the crowd, fearfully waiting for a reaction, the old man calmly states, "Things Change."

Man that hit me. How earth shattering of a revelation to learn that nothing is static! It is scary to change, to move, to correct a misunderstanding, etc.

I thought of this movie after reconnecting and talking to a good friend, Leighton, from college recently whom I had not spoke with in over six years. For those of you who don't know, I went to an Assemblies of God (pentecostal) bible college, and then to seminary. My studies focused on theology and biblical languages. Leighton, the rest of my friends, and myself all entered the school not questioning a tidbit of AG doctrine. But things change, and so has Leighton, in a good way.

It is interesting to see where our theological journeys have led us. My friend Josh in CA is now Baptist. My friend Mike in Indianapolis is now Methodist. Leighton, in Chicago, while not claiming denominational allegiance, is very Reformed in his theology. All these guys have traveled a good deal in their theological journeys. I equally respect those who remain convinced of their beliefs, so long as they are objectively informed.

Change for the sake of change when it comes to any metaphysical musing is silly. But I admire the journeys of those that occur as a result of conviction, love, and learning. N.T. Wright, a intellectual hero of mine, is no different from my friends.

Have you traveled far from your first suppositions on God? Where did you start and where are you at today?

Another day, another church...and infant baptism

The nature of my occupation requires me to frequent different churches on a regular basis. Quite regularly I wake up early on Sunday wishing I could sleep in or relax comfortably in the pew of the church I call home. Regardless of my attitude any given Sunday, these experiences leave me delighted and dismayed at the diversity in the church, and have consistently forced me to reconsider the my own theological leanings, balancing both Scripture and tradition, which are nearly and neatly inseparable.

This morning's occupational adventure brought me to Church of the Cross United Methodist Church. It was small, but nice with a mix of traditional and modern elements in the design. The worship service was a consonant treat as the organ belted out ancient hymn after hymn filled with words that actually ran soteriologically deep. The pastor was great, and the words that came out of his mouth were even better. His sermon, which was rooted in that book that is so often excluded these days...what is it?...oh yeah, the Old Testament, tactfully handled a truth that is so socially taboo it nearly extinct in the ecclisiological amalgam of the 21st century. The most beautiful part of the service was the infant baptism.

While, as infant I was baptized into the Catholic Church, only a few years later my parents left the church and I was raised in a fundamentalist/charismatic/dispensational church setting, in which infant baptism was beyond weird...it was heresy. My indoctrination led me to believe that baptism was is not so much sacramental as it an ordinance of the church; that is, it does not confer grace, merely confirms it. If one really digs into the Wesleyan doctrine followed by the church I visited today, they would see that technically infant baptism doesn't bestow grace, but it does make the child the social responsibility of the church. I appreciate this communal attitude that demonstrates a deep concern for the overall well being of any individual in the church.

Having dabbled in baptism several years ago while working on my MA (my thesis centered on the community at Qumran that was steeped in ritual cleansing), my views have been given wiggle room. Additionally, ridding myself of all postulation (quite impossible, but the attempt alone procures higher objectivity) in approaching the ancient Biblical text has left me reconsider many of the nuances of belief on baptism, including infant baptism.

Where do you stand?

Greek Translations

So I originally said EVERY WEDNESDAY I was going to post some of my exegetical thoughts. That will now have to be amended to WHENEVER I CAN, due to the "on call" nature of my job, and due to the fact that I have four kids; in fact, the other day as I was getting the Greek text put into word five little one-and-a-half-year-old fingers crept up in front of mine and started plunking on the keyboard.

But I did get three verses done. I wish I had more, but the first three have so much theological meat in them, that's all I could get done (by the way, I am working on Hebrews now instead of James). Click this entire paragraph to check out my work.

As I was going through these verses the cool nuances lost in translation got me excited. As I realized how the author of the Book of Hebrews had so carefully chosen his/her (yes, some think it was a her) words to convey the mystery of the incarnation, while at the same time teaching theological truth after truth, I thought of the church today and those of us who are a part of it. It seems like our constant disagreement over the interpreted truths of scripture has led us to say that Theology really doesn't matter...just that we inoffensively get along and love Jesus together. But that's a load of crap, and I think the author would be offended by that statement. The root of that which divides us (scripture and all its ambiguity) is that which makes a dividable unit.

Anyway, check out Hebrews 1:1-3 and email any comments. If you a disagree with me, let me hear it...I think I will still be able to get along with you and love Jesus together with you either way!

Diversity, "The Church," and Me

Diversity...she is a mystery. A recent post dealt with ethnic diversity as it applies to affirmative action. The past couple of years I have been extremely troubled by diversity, in that; not only is she not always welcome, but in certain arenas she should be forbidden. I.E., an example from the business world:

While in grad school,I waited tables and tneded bar to pay the bills. At one point I helped to open a new store for Ruby Tuesday. Drilled in the temples of the opening team was the need to uphold specs every Ruby Tuesday in the nation was expected to adhere to. "We want a traveling business person who stops in this location to have the same experience he or she had at a different Ruby Tuesday several nights ago." The experience allowed for diversity of serving staff, but adherence to a universal set of standards.

This morning as I was feeding our youngest son I clicked on the tube. I happened to catch the last half of The Coral Ridge Hour (church service) and the first half of The Hour of Power (a different church service). The polarization within Christianity couldn't have been more visible that between the progression of these two shows. Here is the problem:

Diversity cannot exist in regards to truth, and religion is the portrayal of truth. There are no alternate routes when it comes to truth, thus mimicked in the natural world: Water can only be made up of H2O...not H3O, H4O, or H5O.

The conservative, the emergent church proponent, and the constitutionist cannot deny me this--not every religion has it right. Case in point: modern day Indian Tantrism still practises human sacrifice. I don't believe this practice would be accepted as a truthful response to seeking the will of God, let alone condoned by the first amendment. So, just because something is practiced as religion and felt by the emotions, it cannot be right.

Thus the pit in my stomach. Everything is either truth or lie, fact or fiction, wrong or right--it cannot be both. Focusing the religious scope on Christianity, diversity has run amok. Let's look at the timeline, in generalizations.

From Jesus' ascent to Constantine (313) exists the Christian church (greek; kat wholos--lit.according to the whole). Constantine ushers in the Roman Catholic (kat wholos) Church. The Eastern Orthodox splits from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054. 1215 sees the split from the Roman Catholic Church of the Anglican church. Then in 1517, Luther branches out after a failed attempt at reform. For 1500 years, there existed only 3 major Christian worldviews. Flash forward to 1985 CE. The World Christian Encyclopedia publishes the existence of at least 22,150 different protestant denominations in the US alone. 22,150 variations of the truth? Dear reader, cannot the there only be ONE truth? Think about it:

The Southern Baptist claims that once a person has accepted Christ, they cannot loose the salvation that accompanies that decision, while the Assemblies of God member claims they can. Only one can be right, for this is matter of truth. Lutherans believe that when Jesus died on the cross He atoned for the sins of all people of all time-even those who have not or will not come to faith in Christ and will spend eternity in hell. Some Presbyterian churches teach a "limited atonement" of Christ, i.e., that Christ's death on the cross atoned only for the sins of "the elect." Only one can be right, for this is a matter of truth. Keep in mind, at least 22,150 discrepancies exist.

I know, I know...I am too narrow minded; but of this I am glad. In the spirit of tolerance I can stand side by side any of the 22,150 knowing that we have something in common, but I know at some level the person on my right, the person on my left, and myself are WRONG.

In the context of the representation and presentation of absolute truth diversity does not make sense. Jesus said, "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Apparently there are millions of folks worshipping Jesus in Spirit...that is easy. But when it comes to truth, many MUST be missing the mark. My guess is that most of us settle for the version of truth that fits our personal agenda and lifelong accumulation of presuppositions.

My spirit is uneasy. I know the truth that forms the basis of my worldview exists in purity. I must, with presuppostions aside, discover and embrace it, because I cannot live a lie. While I can and do enjoy the unity that exists in a room full of Christians who compose a fraction of the 22,150, I have a feeling that Jesus would not want me to believe and follow anything other than his truth.

Monergism? Synergism?

I grew up under the umbrella of monergism but truly, its arguments have never satisfied me, but then again, synergism seems to be filled with many more holes. Truly over time, I believe the meaning of the terms have changed, but in a nutshell, if you are not familiar with the terms, monergism suggests God alone, in his grace, is responsible in the salvific act that reconciles man with God. Synergism, on the other hand, suggests that a cooperation of sorts exists—man plays a part in the role.

Obviously, at first glance synergism sounds heretical to a guy like me, brought up and educated under an evangelical protestant worldview—how can man, lowly man, play a part in his own salvation.

But, according to any stream of reformed theology, does God manipulate man, supernaturally taking command of his motor functions, forcing his lips to utter the confession to save his soul, that Jesus is the Son of God, the sacrificial atonement for his sins? NO! In that sense, monergism, is inadequate.

We must work (in the sense of involvement) for our salvation. Truly, Christ did the dirty work, that which we cannot…he lived a perfect life and willingly accepted a guiltless punishment. But, freewill must be considered in the equation. Jesus is not going to confess himself for us, otherwise we are mindless drones. Humankind has to take part and make that confession. So yes, I believe we are intrinsically involved in our own salvation, which is a very pre-reformation ideal:

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one
can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning
of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for
ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the
increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even
temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with
God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer
attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. (1994 catachism)

James himself was very synergistic (chapter 2):

20 Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is
useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he
offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 So you can see that his faith was
working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did.
23
In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this
was considered as making him upright; and he received the name 'friend of
God'.
24 You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by believing, that
someone is justified.