Theologically sensitive or merely seeking to be popular?

I've been asked to think about how we think about thinking about thinking theologically. So here it the beginning of it (I think):

If there is anything that makes thinking theologically an interesting and, at times, potentially frustrating thing, it has to be the fact that so many of us want to work in a world where things are always mutually exclusive. Add to this the challenge of having people who call upon us to 'interpret the Bible using the lens of our heart' and those who are happy to embrace all and every thinking on the grounds that we are 'called to peace' or because we are called to be' inclusive' (phrases that need to be interpreted and understood at some stage)  and we find ourselves in a very interesting place indeed - and it don't always look 'Christian' (if that means 'Biblical' or refers to the way we live our faith!). The challenge is that we do indeed need to be 'theologically sensitive' and we seek the truth whether it is popular or not.

I'm having a bit of a struggle with a few issues at the moment. This is what I do because I'm called to do it for myself as a believer and for those I pastor, as a pastor, and those teach and  . . . (you know what I mean I'm sure).

My faith demands that I examine and question and explore and dialogue (with those who believe like me, unlike me and not like me at all) with the things I believe, think I believe and think I might not believe too. This is the Christian's quest - to ask awkward questions and seek unbelievable answers to questions of belief and then, having managed to do that to some extent, direct my life (and help others to follow too) on the way that God hints* that I should go.

Looking, as I am, at the question of infant baptism I am encountering many friends who are happy for this to feature alongside adult baptism. Both have their place in Church practice and are indicated in the Bible. 'What's the problem with having both?' they cry.  And before the words are dry in the ears of the hearers response, 'We can only have one baptism - and that's . . .' is heard and battle is joined. There can be but one solution and, fallen human nature to the fore, we need to our view to be the persuasive, compelling and predominant viewpoint. Anything else is obviously just plain wrong because . . . well because it's 'MY' view for a start and the fact I WANT it to be the way things are done should surely be enough for it to be exactly that!

We then starts the horse trading:

'We have 'always' done this!'
(isn't 'always' a real curse? It is the province of the insecure and the feeble-minded or the faux security of those who who know they're on shifting and uncertain ground!). It's also the opportunity for the, 'But we know better know' brigade (and let's be fair, you can only refer to slavery and the like so many times before it just becomes a little hollow and worthless!).

'We live in a different time - that was then, this is now!'
The irony with this approach is that those who bring this gambit into play seem to forget that there are a number of factors to be considered:

i. Many of the things they oppose were actually part of the Church when people could remember the stuff the people we call Apostles were doing their stuff pretty accurately. It was the practice 'then' for them - not history!

ii. When it comes to 'ignorance' we forget that living and doing Church from first principles without the assistance of search engines, the internet and the resources that make even the most idiotic appear to have some knowledge (I know, I've looked in the mirror!). They weren't 'thick or primitive or ignorant' in fact, discovering it for themselves and thinking about it actually makes them look a darn sight cleverer than we give them credit for!

iii. When it comes to being 'enlightened' I have to say that it doesn't hold water from where I'm hiding. In fact I have to own up and say that I am just a little tired of the people who think that we are the brightest and the best and that 'our modern thinking' is the datum from which all else is to be judged and the yardstick by which all is measured. In a world of polyamory, natural law and revenge-ridden madness I find this grasping just a little too far.

'Let me quote . . .'
If this quote happens to be from the Bible then we have a few opportunities for problems in that many who like to quote for the Bible also enjoy engaging in the practice of 'prooftexting' - this is the method of finding words that meet our needs, support our words and give us the opportunity to look smugly at our opponent with 'incontrovertible truth'. The problem is that to do this the proof text needs to be in context and not just a few words selected because they say what you want them to say.

My Favourite example of this is the fact that the Bible supports the claims of some in that, 'There is no God!'  An Atheist friend used to use this with the reference: Psalm 14 - and he was right to quote it as he did. The reason for my thinking being that the whole verse (verse one) tells us: 'The fool says in his heart, There is no God!'

Engage in prooftexting  in the secure knowledge that you, and your argument, are destined to be on the wrong end of a good kicking.

The other end of the 'quoting someone' spectrum is the person who will quote some self-absorded, self-supporting, all-knowing plankton as if their very words had been handed down on Sinai's mount itself. Dorkins may find himself quote worthy and perennially valid, but most of my atheist friends don't. Claims to rational thinking need to be rational and valid. Wanting them to be is (sadly) not the province of any one player in the world of theological debate - all have fallen into this trap (and will continue to do so I'm sure).

So there we are - fifteen minutes of splurge from the recesses of my bonce. Madness, misdirection and mayhem? Probably - but if it get us talking, thinking and challenging ourselves and others (always best to start with ourselves - easier to win against limited intellects).

More soon!

*'Hints' - Recently, listening to a preacher on the radio I heard them tell their listeners that 'God commands us to do nothing but love and how this shapes everything else - Love is the only absolute and it ignores everything in its name. Outside of love there are no commandments - only hints as to how we might live!'

Schori, Glory, Hallelujah?

I had to check the calendar to make sure that I wasn't being conned and even when I was certain it was May (not April the first) I had to check many sources* to see if I was being had, but (sadly) apparently not!

It appears that the doyen of all that is liberal, revisionist (and Episcopalian - which appears to mean one and the same for many these days), Katharine Jefferts Schori, had launched a bit of a diatribe against the Apostle Paul (who many seem to think might just have penned most of the New Testament).

The focus of her attack is Paul's dealings with a demonically influenced slave girl (Acts 16. 16-34) who follows Paul and the others around, for days, shouting, ‘These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.’

Now eventually Paul gets a bit cheesed of and so he casts out the demons. Of course the people who manage her, for she is a slave who is hired out to predict stuff, get a bit naffed off and drag Paul and Silas before the authorities for a bit of revenge. Nothing like losing a good income stream to tick people off now, is there?

I have to admit that I would have thought that a bit of free publicity was always helpful, but obviously there are limits and so Paul draws the line - even though of course a house divided and all that - and sends the dark bits packing - after all, they're not on the same side as us (or are they? Some might take from her words the idea that Schori thinks they might be and that would explain so very much more than just the sermon now, wouldn't it?).

Still, that's my 'off the wall' take on it I guess.

But what of the Schori-teller herself, what does she make of this episode? Well, apparently it demonstrates that Paul is, 'mean-spirited and bigoted.'

Not only that but (apparently) she condemns those who disagree with her and labels them as 'enemies of the Holy Spirit'.

Schori explains that Paul didn't set the girl free, he merely 'deprived her of her gift of spiritual awareness'. His frustration at her proclamations led him to rid her of something he considers as wrong and because he sees it as such he denies that it can be beautiful or holy. I guess Schori would, using the same logic, believe the fact that people who deny homosexuality are acting in the same manner and assign the same dynamics to their actions also.

She speaks of progress and how 'different is not the same as wrong' and how it can be difficult to see God at work in the world, especially if God is doing something unexpected - and homosexuality and the demoniac slave girl appear to be one and same in that respect.

Of course, to make it work there has to be the good old ad hominem - Paul the mysoginist is now Paul the arrogant, the oppresser, the slighted who lashes out and takes away something beautiful - the gift of demon oppression - And this is what others do now with homosexuality when they oppose it too I guess. Bigots and homophobes each and every one!

There's so much 'other information' that Schori draws on - the earthquake and the fact that Paul 'repents of casting out the spirit of divination' and acts with compassion towards the frightened, and about to take his own life, jailer.  Schori continues, 'It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.'

Well I have to think he'd have praised God for His gift in her had it been God's gift, but it wasn't God's gift - it was the work of the enemy - and so what could he do but oppose it?

If we bless what the devil does; if we bless those acts which deny that which Scripture, tradition and reason has known, taught and lived in for so many years; if we support, and especially encourage, divination then surely we fall foul of the Biblical commandments and deny God. But, according to Schori (if the reports are true) we are not justified by our faith but by our respect for diversity. Odd that, I thought justification came by God's grace - something she most definitely doesn't have a scooby about it seems.

Move over Paul, it's time for a rewrite and some rehabilitation!

Mind you - I do have to agree with Schori when she says:

'Jesus says he’s looking for everybody, anyone who’s looking for good news, anybody who is thirsty. There are no obstacles or barriers – just come.  God is at work everywhere, even if we can’t or won’t see it immediately.'

Hallelujah lady - you've got one right at last. Of course, once we've come to Jesus the adventure continues by Him (Jesus) calling us to be obedient and live according to God's commandments and lifestyle guides, so you've fallen just short of the mark (but that won't be a new experience now, will it?)!

Now that bit won't be as popular with her or her followers methinks ;-)

*To read the transcript of the sermon click here

Pentecost - Speaking Boldly

I have always been struck by the transformation of the wibbly-wobbly followers, hiding behind closed doors, into bold and courageous people of faith who proclaimed the truth regarding Jesus.

Today as we come to this I find myself challenged by people who seem to have lost the plot in that they regard the Christian faith as something that can evolve and deliver new ways forward and still be 'orthodox' Christians (that is, in-line with the tenets, practices and beliefs of the Christian Church as it has been for a couple of thousand years!). They look at the always counter-cultural Judeo-Christian faith that we have and as if it were some weird sociological entity and seek to change the very tenets of it whilst assuming that others will regard this new creation as one and the same faith! How [insert word or words here]!

I tire of those who seek to continue using 'evangelical' when it is obvious that 'evangelical' they most surely are not (whatever it is that we consider'evangelical' to mean but that's perhaps another discussion for another day). Seems to me that universalist and evangelical is an oxymoron and that to have 'evangelicals' who wish to see us accept (when they really mean promote) people who act contrary to the teachings of the Church is another misuse of the word and a departure from 'orthodoxy', 'evangelcial' or otherwise!

In dialogue with someone who considers themselves 'evangelical' I soon realised that they had in fact (in their own words) "Grown out of the evangelical bit with its rules and oppositions and oppressions." This would, I assume make them merely 'post-evangelical'. To assume that the 'evangelicals' have had their day and to proclaim a glasnost that embraces and accepts differing lifestyles, attitudes and behaviours surely makes them no longer 'evangelical', for the evangelical is not a sociological term which, much like modernism, leads us to a 'post' period of it but a term that refers to personal sin, accountability, responsibility and grace ('grace' is not translated as "Turning a blind eye towards," is it?).

Perhaps those who wish to use the term 'evangelical' with something that clearly isn't, no matter how 'open' one wishes to be, would be more honest if they dropped the 'evangelical' label completely and told is as it is. They are liberal or revisionist or libertarian or whatever they want to call themselves but surely once one removes the responsibility for personal sin and the opportunity, no command, to refrain from it there has to be a question mark over whether is it even Christian at all. For just as Mormons, Christian Scientists or Quakers and many others are not Christian perhaps it is time to accept that using the words 'Jesus', 'God' or 'Christian' does not make what you believe 'Christian'. You've moved on and if that's true then I am happy for you to pursue your own NEW faith, but stop billing it as Christian, for it barely is (as I understand it in terms of teaching and practice that is).

As an open evangelical I am appalled at many of those who see themselves as 'fundamentalist evangelicals' and struggle with many who call themselves 'reformed evangelcials' for this seems to give permission to be wicked, cruel, harsh and bitter. My Christian faith means that I will continue to embrace those with whom I disagree, but how I wish they would be honest and tell it as it is and call themselves 'post evangelical' or whatever it is that they are (for some post-Christian fits the bill even better it seems for the faith they peddle has little similarity to the traditional 'orthodox' faith and is merely modern society in a building with a pointy bit!) and let us dialogue and work together from a place of honesty.

Let us not put aside the boldness of the early believers and the fidelity to God's word that the Christian faith has called us to for generation - let us not put off addressing personal sin for the popularity of this world, for when we look like the world, what point is there coming into a body that offers nothing and is no different from that they have outside it?

Pax

ps I also struggle with the fact that we have to have labels, but that's another issue!