The Search for the Historical Adam 6

The Search for the Historical Adam 6

http://musingsonscience.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/the-search-for-the-historical-adam-6/#more-776

by rjs5

posted on August 16, 2011

We have been working through the recent book by C. John Collins entitled Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care. This book looks at the question of Adam and Eve from a relatively conservative perspective but with some nuance and analysis. The questions he poses and the answers he gives provide a good touchstone for interacting with the key issues. Later this fall we will look at the question of Adam from an equally faithful, but less conservative, perspective in the context of a new book coming out by Peter Enns entitled The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins.

Chapter 3 of Dr. Collins’s book looks at the biblical and extra-biblical texts concerning Adam. In the last two posts we looked specifically at Dr. Collins’s discussion of Gen 1-5 and at the OT and the extra-canonical literature. These sections are not the ones that cause most Christians difficulty though – the New Testament references, and especially the relationship of the creation story to the theology taught by Paul – these are the big issues.

I have received several e-mails while working through this series, and the big questions in all of them are theological, not scientific or even biblical (i.e. arising from biblicism). These people are willing to accept the conclusions of science (with some reservations), and have a nuanced view of the authority of scripture (again with some variance). But still, there are serious issues here. The issues begin, but do not end, with the theology surrounding the concept of sin.

This is not a topic easily dealt with in one, or even a dozen, blog posts (or sermons, or academic monographs). There are no quick, pithy answers or rejoinders.

What NT texts cause the most concern for an evolutionary view of human origins?

Where does this impact our theology?

NT references to Gen 1-5 apart from Paul. Dr. Collins breaks his consideration of the NT texts into three categories – the Gospels, Paul, and the rest of the NT. The first and third don’t provide much guidance on the question of Adam. The references to Gen 1-5 in the gospels are passing references, we should not put too much emphasis on them. Dr. Collins suggests that the Gospel writers portray Jesus as one who believed that Adam and Eve were historical and that their disobedience changed things for us (p. 78). I think that the Gospel writers portray Jesus as a biblically literate Jewish male who was steeped in the scripture and the culture – he was localized in a time and place. What he thought about historicity can’t be discerned, and our opinion of this rests in part on what we take as the consequences of incarnation.

The references in the rest of the NT outside of the writings of Paul are likewise incidental, and the truth claims of the passages do not depend on the historicity of Gen 1-5 or Gen 1-11. The references in Revelation are, by the very nature of the book, clothed in figurative language. The writer of Hebrews (11:4-7) may assume historicity, but it is of no real import to our discussion or his truth claim.

The Teachings of Paul. The references to Adam and to Gen 1-3 in the writings of Paul are more substantive and require much more care and thought. Some of the references are incidental and subject to the same kinds of caveats above. Dr. Collins points to 1 Cor. 11:7-12, 2 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim 2:13-14 as examples of incidental references. The arguments in these passages do not depend on the historicity of Adam. Thus they are only compelling for our view of Adam in the context of some assumption of what scripture must be (what we might class as a biblicist view).

There are three passages, however, that Dr. Collins points to as foundational – where Paul’s understanding of Adam is not incidental to his point. In these cases an argument can be made that the historicity of Adam in some sense is essential to the truth claims made by Paul. Dr. Collins sees this in three passages – 1 Cor. 15:20-23, 42-49, Romans 5:12-19, and Acts 17:26. Thus he spends most of the chapter discussing these three passages.

1 Cor. 15: Today I would like to consider 1 Cor. 15, where Paul begins with his statement of the gospel.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-4)

Paul lays out his view of the gospel here – Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day, all according to the Scriptures, the plan and prophecy of the OT. This is our creed. In this passage Paul argues that the resurrection of Jesus is real and is essential to the Christian gospel.

and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. … If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15: 14,19)

For a more complete discussion of resurrection Dr. Collins refers the reader to NT Wright’s book The Resurrection of the Son of God.

1 Cor. 15:20-23. So far we have no reference to Gen 1-5, but this changes when Paul expounds on the importance of the resurrection. The issue for our topic here is v. 21,22:

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

The expressions “in Adam” and “in Christ” are covenantal language.

… to be “in Adam” means to be a member of the people for which Adam serves as the covenantal representative. This membership sets up a kind of solidarity, where what happens to the representative affects all members of the group, and vice versa. One prominent Pauline scholar has used the term “interchange” to describe the notion of mutual participation in a common life. (p. 79)

The prominent scholar referred to here is Morna Hooker, specifically her book From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul. Dr. Collins continues:

The person Adam is an individual who serves a public role as a representative, and there is no evidence that one can be covenantally “in” someone who had no historical existence. Indeed Paul seems to take for granted that something happened to “all” as a result of Adam’s deeds as a representative, just as something will happen to “all” as a result of Christ’s representative deeds. (pp. 79-80)

But Dr. Collins goes a bit further than this covenant relationship – he sees Paul’s claim as requiring a historical event as well. Adam is not merely representative, but is also a cause – he did something that has consequences for those he represents just as Jesus did something to correct the problem for those he represents.

1 Cor. 15: 45-49. Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 15 returns to Adam a little further on in his discussion of resurrection.

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. (I’ve quoted the NASB – Collins uses the ESV)

This text is dense and difficult to interpret. Dr. Collins refers to NT Wright’s discussion of the text in The Resurrection of the Son of God, which he cites and quotes, “with approval” (p. 81-82). The resurrection of Jesus is embedded in a theology that views embodied humanity as a feature of God’s good creation. The resurrection of Jesus is the starting point for God’s rescue and renewal of his people – as embodied beings. We are not rescued from our embodied nature but rescued to “go on to the promised final state of the final Adam, in which this physical body will not be abandoned, but will be given new animation by the creator’s own Spirit.” (p. 353 RSOG)

From all I’ve read and heard from Dr. Wright on this topic I would venture to suggest that he does not take the position that we must have a historical Adam, nor does he consider Adam and the fall someone or something to dispensed with lightly. Rather we need to hold parts of the story with an open hand and do some serious theological, biblical, and scientific work.

[Additionally], Dr. Wright and Dr. Collins both reject a strictly typological interpretation of Adam in this narrative. Dr. Collins quotes Wright:

This [argument from Gen 2:7] is not typological (two events related in pattern but not necessarily in narrative sequence), but narratival: Gen 2:7 begins a story which, in the light of vv. 20-28, and the analogies of vv. 35-41, Paul is now in a position to compete. (p. 82 quoting p. 354 n. 128 RSOG)

Dr. Collins concludes that Paul’s argument “presupposes Adam as an actual character in the narrative” (p. 82). Adam and the reference to the events of Genesis 2-3 are not incidental to the message of Paul but is an important part of his truth claim. This does not necessarily mean that Adam and Eve are the unique progenitors of the human race (two people from whom alone all subsequent people descend), but that the existence of a real person and a real fall is, according to Dr. Collins, an integral part of the gospel of 1 Cor. 15.

This post is already long – I will return to consider the other two passages, Romans 5 and Acts 17, in the next post. For now we can consider the significance of the 1 Cor. 15 reference to Adam.

Do you think that Paul’s argument here rests on the historicity of Adam and the fall?

Could the argument rest on the empirical observation of human falleness rather than a person and an act?

On what do you base your argument for your position?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net

If you have comments please visit The Search for the Historical Adam 6 at Jesus Creed.

A Dynamic Faith Requires Dynamic Restatement

Theology: Doing Away with Childish Things

http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/08/16/theology-doing-away-with-childish-things/

by J.R. Daniel Kirk

posted August 16, 2011

In yesterday’s post, I waxed… um… something… about life being dynamic, and not simply a set of givens. Where I had intended to end up was this: the church once upon a time had the luxury of thinking that Christian faith was a set of givens, and that accepting these givens was a necessary and sufficient expression of Christian faith.

The content of this childhood dream was The Rule of Faith.

It wasn’t a bad dream. But it was a child’s dream.

The Hobbit wasn’t a bad story, but it was a child’s story. It was a there-and-back-again tale. The story of Frodo was no child’s story, but a tale of death from which there was no “back again,” even if one was fortunate enough to arrive back home.

After 2,000 years, we know that the world, and the philosophy through which we assess it, is not simply a set of givens.

We, as Christians, are part of the dynamic process through which the church’s faith continues to be articulated. We live in a world that is changing, and the transformed context of knowledge and experience changes what we must say and how we must say it. And, God is still at work in the world, and so we must allow that God, too, is a dynamic participant in this ever-changing process.

These are some of the realities behind the failure of a rule of faith to bind the church as one. When Irenaeus said to his opponents, “You are wrong because the church has always said…” He was, in essence, claiming, “You disagree with us–because you disagree with us! Hah!”

There comes a time when we have to recognize that the continuance of the church itself cannot lean on the given of two millennia ago. Perhaps that church needs, now, to be disagreed with.

Perhaps what we thought was a given needs to be reaffirmed, restated given that the parties in the agreement (the church and its members) are both completely different now.

The idea that one statement, or a cluster of like statements, can continue to define the relationship for two thousand years rests on a static view of the world that does not measure up to reality. The church did not “arrive” when it articulated the rule of faith. It said what needed to be said [for its time in] circa AD 200.

But this does not answer the question of what is necessary or sufficient to be said or done in AD 2000. We must regularly say afresh what needs to be said. This is not only because the world is dynamic and in flux, and not only because the church is dynamic and in flux, but also because God continues to be dynamically at work in both the world and the church.

About J. R. Daniel Kirk: Professor at Fuller Seminary, resident of San Francisco, consumer of dark chocolate, brewer of dark beer, reader of Flannery O'Connor, watcher of the Coen Brothers, listener of The Mountain Goats.

Peter Rollins - Unbelieving the Lies We Tell Ourselves

ThinkFWD - Pete Rollins - Resurrection as Insurrection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYtBUvfYTUE&feature=player_embedded

Pete Rollins – Resurrection as Insurrection

Interview by Spencer Burke

Posted February 2, 2010


Recap

What we believe emanates from who we are. And who we are is not about dogma, or even about moral behavior, but about dying to ourselves. This is part of the conversation between ThinkFwd host, Spencer Burke, and Pete Rollins, author of How Not to Speak of God and The Orthodox Heretic. They explore the ideas of truth and God, of resurrection and insurrection.

Truth, says Rollins, is not one extreme or the other; it’s not the middle of the extremes. Truth is at both extremes. While traditional Christians say, “God is present. God exists, and Christianity is true;” atheists say “God isn’t there and Christianity isn’t true.” These two extremes push Rollins to explore a 3rd position and he likens it to the story of Jesus on the cross, when He felt forsaken by God– God not present–and yet God was completely present.

And so the 3rd position dwells in the very place in between. Rollins says Christians are called to dwell not on one side of the other, but in the very split that Christ opens up: between old and new; between Judaism and Christianity.

Rollins and Burke turn to the idea of self. What is our true self? Can we disagree ideologically and philosophically, and at the end of the day still be friends and go out for drinks together? Can we have a public and private profile that are at odds? Rollins believes the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves are a type of fiction. That our conscious self is an idealized representation of who we are.

We can say we believe certain things, but the truth of who we are plays out in the reality of our lives. And our goal is to bring the stories we tell ourselves (I’m a good person, I’m loving, I’m kind) in line with the reality of who we are. For Rollins, the truth is, he aspires to believe in God. To live a life of mercy, faithfulness, self-control. But we are not truly living Christian lives unless we are dying to ourselves—participating in the death and resurrection of Christ.

This Easter, Rollins is doing a pub tour, “I believe in the insurrection.” What is it about? It’s about being invited to transformation. Rollins thinks the apostle Paul had it right. Paul doesn’t talk about who Jesus hung out with. Or about Jesus’ miracles. He says that being a Christian is participating in the death and resurrection of Christ. You die, and you are reborn. You can say, “I believe x, y, and z” but if you don’t think about where you live, and the work you do, and how your consumerism affects others, then that is the truth of your life, not what you SAY you believe. And so the resurrection, the insurrection is about dying, being reborn, transformed, so we are no long the same.

Learn to Unlearn and Let Go

narrow gate, wide gate: a story about letting go.

http://theloverevolution.org.uk/2010/05/narrow-gate-wide-gate-a-story-about-letting-go/

Artikel von theloverevolution
theloverevolution’s Webseite

words and meanings to keep in mind.

sha`ar – gate; opening, city/town,

halak – through; walk; torah

enter- be invited into

In Jewish life-philosophy there seems to be this trend. A trend marked out by two choices. One of life and one of death. We see this throughout the Old Testament. Jeremiah is [where] some of the inspiration for the words of Jesus [found] in Matthew amongst other non-biblical sources, including the Sirach and the Dead Sea Scrolls to name a few.

Jeremiah 21:8 (New International Version)

8 “Furthermore, tell the people, ‘This is what the LORD says: See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death."

Jesus is playing on the idea of choice. That on a daily basis we have to make a decision to follow the crowd (wide is the gate) or to be art of the minority. In context, Jesus is talking about teaching. Since the verses surrounding it speak of false teachers. These verses then become about how people use Torah. Jesus deals with false prophets in this context. False prophets think they are doing what God wants them to do. But they too are given a choice. They can either unlearn what they have been taught (narrow gate) or maintain their practices and travel into the wide gate.

[Entering] into Jerusalem there were many gates. Some of them were narrow. Jesus alludes to this same gate when he talks about the camel coming through the eye of a needle, which is a direct reference to one of the gates which happened to be called ‘eye of the needle’. Jesus was referring then to what he could also be referring to now. To enter through the narrow gate you had to unpack everything. Unload all that you came with. Everything you knew you had to leave behind to get through. All your theology. All of your answers. To get through the gate you had to let go of everything.

But, the wide gate was easy.

You could take everything with you. You could [take] all of the things you learned and keep them close like a blanket. You could accrue even more as you went along and still had room for more. You could keep consuming as much as you wanted because the wide road had room for that. The wide gate invited you in. It gave you the feeling of having arrived. The feeling of arrival makes you feel safe and secure because you have the answers.

The wide gate is safety.

Couched in context, Jesus is giving the Jewish scholars a choice. Either they unlearn everything that have come to know and experience heaven (a metaphor for a perfect reality) or keep all that they had mentally amassed and end up living their life as it was not meant to be lived (hell).

Later on in verse 22, Jesus starts talking about a day when people might use flash terminology to get in God’s good books. In context, the person speaking to God already knows the words. Knows how to address God as ‘Lord, Lord’. Remember, Jesus is talking about people who aren’t using the Torah correctly and the false prophets. So he is saying that there are some religious people who think its about saying the right things. Its about scripting God. Or that by simply having information one can experience the divine.

And it's as if Jesus says God will get amnesia. God will forget. God will turn his back on those who live their life on stage. These are terms of Judgement, I might add that they are a warning not what is going to happen, but what might happen if these ‘know-it-all’s’ keeping walking through the wide gate. I also don’t think the point of this short story is whether God is angry enough to deny people access to Him. Again, heaven is a metaphor for a perfect state of experience. Jesus is saying that there are behaviours that can impede our experience of the Divine. That by excluding others, depending upon our own answers (theology), and denying ourselves the willingness to let it all go will keep us in the wide gate.

Jesus is giving us the choice, daily. To give it all up and unlearn what we think we know. To be a blank slate toward the day(s) ahead. To be open to receive. To be an open vessel. To hold what we know lightly. When we do this, when we choose to not take ourselves so seriously, we [will] get to enjoy life as it was meant to be. Jesus wasn’t.

Kutless

I've heard Kutless a couple times in concert this year and wanted to share their music and testimonies with you. They have a mix of old and new songs that appeal to all listeners but for my taste I'd like them to go more with the hard rock whenever they get into it. When they do its pure joy. Here are musical samples, promos, trailers and interviews with this amazing Christian band. - sh

KUTLESS

Portland, Oregon

http://www.kutless.com/default.aspx

 

 

 

Encountering the Monster That I Am

http://peterrollins.net/?p=2988

by Peter Rollins

posted August 9, 2011

At various times I have discussed the idea of encountering our own monstrosity through an encounter with the other. Recently someone asked me to give a concrete example to help her understand what I meant. I wanted to offer something rather mundane, something that would not expose me too much. But I could not deny that one situation overshadowed all the others. It was something that happened when I was in my early twenties. An event that I am, understandably, very embarrassed about.

One evening I was with a group of dear friends in a dingy bar in Belfast. As usual our conversations jumped around from the sublime to the ridiculous. I can’t remember now what the conversations were, but I do remember one point where someone said “that is so gay” to a comment from one of those in the group. This comment was then repeated a number of times at various points in the evening, probably even by me, although I don’t recall (no doubt because I don’t want to).

A few days later I happened to be out with one of the people who was part of that group. We were just catching up and having small talk when he stopped mid sentence, looked right at me, and said, “Pete, I am gay, can you imagine how I must have felt when everyone started using the term ‘Gay’ to describe what they thought was unmanly and embarrassing the other night.”

At that moment I was undone. I wanted to defend myself by pointing out my disgust with homophobia, by telling him that I would never align myself with anyone who had an issue with same sex relationships and that I think those who would misuse a pseudo philosophy, psychology or theology to justify their inherent prejudices ought to be exposed in their game of rationalisation. Yet I could not in all honesty do it. Instead I was brought to silence. I saw myself through the eyes of my friend, and I could not believe what I saw. I saw a monster.

It was only because I was given grace and understanding in that moment that I was able to face myself. This was a moment of crisis in that it was a moment in which I had to choose whether to defend myself or acknowledge the truth of what had been presented to me, horrible though it was.

So often we avoid confronting our own monstrosity by covering it over and avoiding anyone who might expose it. But it is the other who so often holds the key to our development. Not by presenting us with some new information, but rather by presenting us with something we already are, something we refuse to acknowledge.

John Stott - Authenticity Overcomes Controversy

http://kylearoberts.com/wordpress/?p=487

by Kyle Roberts

August 2, 2011

In the days following John Stott’s death, I have read numerous reflections and eulogies on his life, writings, and impact on evangelicalism and Christianity. He has been held up by the NY Times Nicholas Kristoff as a foil to the “blowhards” and has been honored by several Gospel Coalition voices as a defender of the centrality of Christ and the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement. He dialogued with liberal mainline theologians and spoke regularly at conservative evangelical institutions, such as Wheaton College. During a chapel Q&A session at Wheaton, Stott responded to a student who asked him about his controversial annihilationist position, a notion that the unredeemed wicked will cease to exist after the general resurrection (they will be “burned up” in the flame of judgment). Stott’s modeled in his answer both a quest for the truth as well as a reverence for the authority of Scripture.

I have sometimes wondered, incidentally, why it is that annihilationism seems to be less threatening to conservative evangelicals than hopeful, inclusivistic universalism (the notion that everyone might eventually be saved through faith in Jesus)? I suspect, at least in Stott’s case, it has partly to do with his explicit attention to biblical texts in mounting his argument (and, correspondingly, with biblicism, as a high value in evangelical theology). Yet there are “evangelical universalists” today who are also mounting arguments from Scripture (see Gregory McDonald’s The Evangelical Universalist, for a good example).

In that controversial book referred to by that student, Stott wrote,

“Emotionally, I find the concept [of eternal conscious torment] intolerable and do not understand how people can live with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain. But our emotions are a fluctuating, unreliable guide to truth and must not be exalted to the place of supreme authority in determining it . . . my question must be — and is — not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say?”

I suspect that Stott’s consistent reverence for Scripture and his stated desire to be faithful to biblical truth, enabled him to remain in the generally good graces of even the most conservative evangelicals. J.I. Packer, taking on Stott’s annihilationist position decades ago, concluded his essay by saying “it would be wrong for differences of opinion on this matter to lead to breaches of fellowship…”

In that 2003 chapel address I mentioned earlier, Stott answered a student who was looking for advice about evangelizing “post-modern people,” by saying that “I, myself, am persuaded that the major way in which the gospel can be presented to a post-modern age is not by anything we say but how we live. There needs to be in us Christian people an authenticity which cannot be denied, so there is no dichotomy between what we say and what we are…there must be no dichotomy between what we are in private and in public. What we say. What we are. That is authenticity. People have to see Christ in us and not just hear what we talk about.”

The admiration in these days expressed for the ministry and life of John Stott, despite an eschatological position that runs against the mainstream of conservative evangelical theology, can perhaps best be explained by the fact that he seemed to follow his own advice.

Authenticity can overcome controversy.

(for more reflections and a link to his 2003 talk, see this essay by David Malone)

Deconstructing Our Faith

It is with deepest of appreciation towards Peter Rollins and to his engaged work of deconstructing the Christian faith that his current article has been presented within this web journal focused on interacting with vital emergent issues of today as they can be discovered, uncovered, and intelligently presented. Now I realize that there are many differing opinions within emergent Christianity as it focuses on key evangelical as well as liberal ideas, phrases and words that have suffocated the Christian faith. One such is that of a literal Bible. But as my dear, conservative, evangelical, NT professor (now past) had said many times, the word literal can mean many things, and then proceeded to repeat about 40 different nuances of the word literal as he huffed and puffed over the shortcomings of any one word meant to canvas an entire spectrum of Christian dogmas. I always got a chuckle out of his portrayals and learned early on to take our faith both seriously and with a little light-heartedness. For we are not God and do make significant mistakes in our reasoning, endeavors, organizations, and studies however well (or unwell) intended.

Recently, I have attempted to begin to clarify this issue of literal-ness in the areas of "Hermeneutics" and "Biblical Authority" sections of this blog focusing on what the historical-critical method means and why an inerrant Bible is unnecessary. But for now, let's be patient with Mr. Rollins expression of his idea of the word literal as presented below and seek to focus on the main issue on hand that he goes on to define past his evangelic example.

Which is - either in our private lives or in our church lives - that thing that we wish to safeguard within our psyche, our behavior, our church, or our denomination, that would become undone should we hesitate but for a moment to allow some kind of reflection into that area. It is a valid problem. And it is this, I think,  that is driving Peter to get our religious communities to focus upon. To rid our faith communities from the contemporary need for religious tribalism into an honest, unpretentious discussion about our faith without the frills and thrills, dressings and frocks that we have learned to live with - and in many cases, ignorantly or willfully.

To learn to deconstruct our faith of its unnecessary essentials and to reconstruct our faith upon its foundational elements newly regarded in light of our progressive streamlining. As a new Christian this was one of the first lessons I had to learn. What parts of my life did God first want for himself and that I had to let go. Then as I matured into my Christian faith His scalpel became both wider and narrower requiring more introspection and release of unwarranted thoughts, beliefs and behavior. At Bible school and in seminary this process continued - both that of deconstructing our faith and reconstructing our faith. It is a necessary first principal of the Christian life and one that if, left uninspected, could enlarge in a more serious form of religiosity or bibliolotry rather than critical biblical study. So then, this is not a new emergent form of introspection, it has even been a necessary reaction of our historic Christian faith. But the scalpel this time focuses on our religious expression and it must seem extremely sharp to many (including myself) to fearlessly allow its work of penetration, extraction and repair. Now I must admit that my gifts lie in the area of construction, but I have learned to clean up an area before building any new rubble upon the old - pun intended! Mr. Rollins is more the opposite and so we may find more hesitation with his approach rather than that of grateful appreciation.

And because emergent Christianity is a very large, very global, pluralistic movement, encompassing liberals on the left and conservatives on the right, one would expect a variety of results and interpretations as we deconstruct our faith. But as we have been working in the systematics portions of this blog - for instance, ontology, universalism, Cal-minianism (for want of a better word: meaning Calvinism/Arminianism) - we will be better able to discern and divide the various shades of results in historical hindsight that will later prove to be helpful or unhelpful in the reconstruction of the postmodernistic expressions of Christianity widely composed of its emergent, post-evangelic, and post-liberal elements.

So then, be patient, be willing, seek to be honest with yourself, and allow God to dig deeply as He must, trusting to the Holy Spirit who infills, guides, and superintends the living Church of God.

RE Slater
August 16, 2011

**********

How To Cut Up The Bible Without Anyone Noticing

http://peterrollins.net/?p=3005

by Peter Rollins

posted August 11, 2011

From when we are young we develop a narrative that helps us understand who we are, who we are becoming and why we are here; a narrative that we largely adopt from our parents and then develop gradually over time.

Perhaps more interesting than what this narrative says is what it avoids saying, what it does not symbolise. For while we come to see this story as describing who we are it often has nothing to say about certain behaviours we engage in. There are behaviours that we enact which we treat as taboo in that they exist and yet remain unspoken. This is somewhat analogous to a family who never speaks about an affair that everyone knows took place. It is a reality that has not been given form in the discourse of the family.

In a similar way there are things we do that clash with the clean, coherent and cohesive story that we have about ourselves. Acts that are patently real and yet not acknowledged as such. By definition these are very hard to see because they are parts of our personality that have not been brought to the light. In order to find them we often need others to reflect back what they see. These kinds of encounters can be described as wounds from a friend because they are difficult conversations that expose something we would prefer not to acknowledge, yet they are required if we hope to grow and mature. When confronted with our taboos we can initially be astounded and then engage in an act of rationalisation in which we try to deny the truth of what has been pointed out.

An example will help. Often tabloid talk shows operate with a similar logic. Someone is brought onto the show, often thinking they are there for a reason other than the true one, and confronted with some problematic behaviour. They may have a problem with overeating, aggression or drug abuse. In such situations the individual might initially be shocked and surprised by the accusations (having never articulated the material reality themselves). Then there is often a point where the person considers what is being said but dismisses the accusations (claiming they are false) or defends themselves (claiming the actions were justified and can be explained within the coordinates of their current self-understanding).

However, sometimes after the initial shock and defence the individual might break down and admit that they have a problem, at which point they are often offered professional help by the presenter. Of course by using this example I am not defending such shows, in fact I would be concerned about their effect for what they attempt to do is take a number of key moments in the process of human change and make them all happen in a 20 minute slot for entertainment. This however makes them useful in seeing how disavowal (not seeing what one sees), defence (trying to justify oneself) and acknowledgement (bringing ones own behaviour before oneself) operate.

We can see the same logic at work with the way that many people read the Bible today. For large numbers of churchgoers it is presented as a clean, coherent and cohesive text, an image that we tend to adopt for ourselves. Then, depending upon what we think the message of the text is, we simply refuse to see anything that might contradict our reading. We thus treat those parts of the text that might contradict our interpretation as taboo. In other words we see them without acknowledging them, we look at them in much the same way as a cow gazes at a passing car.

When we are confronted with the broken nature of the text and the way in which we have repressed some parts of it at the expense of others we can often be shocked. Talking with young Evangelical Christians about the text I have often found this reaction. They simply never thought it was possible even though they have read the text a number of times themselves. When the facts are presented there can often be an anxiety and even hostility as they either explicitly avoid looking at the evidence provided or attempt to find ways of integrating the new information with their already existing worldview. Finally however there can be a point of recognition that opens up a different way of approaching and engaging with the text.

There have been various attempts by the liberal tradition within Christianity to remove parts of the Bible that they don’t agree with (e.g. the Jefferson Bible), something that conservative Christians have vehemently attacked. However the truth is that the conservative Christians simply engages in a different, more clandestine, form of deletion. One that doesn’t require physically cutting up the text: they do the cutting internally.

Philosophically speaking the claim that the Bible in its entirety is literal and inerrant (i.e. self-evident, internally coherent, and a reflection of the mind of God) operates as a ‘master signifier’. This means that it is a claim without any specific content that is worn as a badge to let you know what team you play for. It doesn’t matter too much how you actually fill in this empty container as long as you make the claim. It functions then as a shibboleth that identifies you as being in a certain tribe.

For as soon as one attempts to actually enact what it might mean to hold the bible as literal and inerrant (i.e. to fill this claim with content) one must treat large parts of the text as taboo. What becomes clear is that the person who makes the abstract claim that the bible is literal and inerrant, when enacting the claim, always refutes themselves.

Are All Sins Really Equal?

I wanted to include Dr. Olson's reflection on sins in order to begin a discussion on this topic. When reading, please keep this article to topic (re: whether "all sins are equal") for I can readily see additional sidebars topics such as forgiveness, reconciliation, atonement, sin(s) of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, matters of church discipline, positional salvation vs. functional states of fellowship, among others, as problematic areas requiring greater discussion. And as I read along I found quite a few items I may disagree with as presented, but assume that Dr. Olson, given the brevity of space to discuss each "sin" area, simply glossed rapidly over these areas so as to make his main point that not all sins are equal per society's general reasonings (sic, what he calls "folk religion").

To any new Christians reading this article I apologize beforehand for the many questions its throws up in the form of morality and social/ethical issues. It can be all very confusing and requires time, the fellowship of believers, and maturity in Christ, to sort out and digest. I have heard many good sermons and have read or produced myself many good writings in all these areas - not as authoritarian pieces but as suggested directives, which may help sort out the conflicts and doubtful areas that arise from such discussions. Through prayer, guidance of Scripture, counsel and wisdom will come answers but none that I wish to thinly answer with overly brief explanations and analysis.

With that said, here is an area of agreement that I would definitely feel comfortable discussing between my Protestant faith and another's Catholic faith. For with this popular Catholic sentiment comes an honest description to the profound guilt that we - as overly sincere Protestants - may too easily trip over and unnecessarily burden ourselves with, in our misguided pursuit of "holiness". That said, overall may we let Jesus bear our sins as we forebear another's sin, forgiving all trespasses in love and honest communications.

-skinhead

**********

Something Protestants should borrow from Catholics

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/08/15/something-protestants-should-borrow-from-catholics/

By Roger Olson
August 15, 2011

Earlier (some months ago now) I posted an essay here arguing for a Protestant version of purgatory. (Hold your fire unless you’ve read that post!) - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/08/protestant-purgatory.html

Now I’d like to argue for a Protestant version of categories of sin–something like the Catholic categories of mortal and venial.

Recently someone commenting here repeated the Protestant cliche that all sins are equal. I think that is folk religion UNLESS it has been reflected on critically and a strong biblical case made for it. Far too many Protestants simply mindlessly repeat it having no idea that it conflicts with scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Now, IF all it means is that all sins (like sinfulness itself!) offend God and harm (if not destroy) relationship with God…fine. We could easily transfer that to human experience and say that every little act of selfishness harms any relationship. But we also know from experience that, in a relationship of love, not every act of selfishness equally harms the relationship.

So what is my biblical evidence for this distinction between sins that can destroy a relationship with God (at least in this life if not in the next) and sins that harm but do not destroy it? Romans 14:23 says that whatever is not done with faith is sin. Can anyone claim he or she always does everything with faith? What about sins of ignorance and omission? Jesus talked about a sin that is unforgivable. 1 John 5:14-17 talks about sins that are mortal and sins that are not mortal. This distinction appears throughout Christian history–even in the Protestant Reformation. But Protestants have generally relegated “mortal sin” to the one “unforgivable” sin.

I would like to suggest that this Protestant tradition (and the cliche that expresses it in folk religious style) is simply an over reaction to Catholicism. In fact, something LIKE the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins makes a lot of sense–biblically, rationally and experientially.

IF we say that all sins are equal, even “in God’s sight,” then we have to say that kidnapping, raping and murdering a little child is on the same level as telling someone their new hair style is becoming when it isn’t. That just doesn’t make sense. Sure, of course, both child murder and the “little white lie” offend God but surely not equally!

Let’s apply a little mind experiment to test this. Suppose a true Christian–a saved person–gives into an awful impulse and rapes and murders a child and does NOT repent of it. Then suppose another real Christian–a saved person–gives in to the temptation to deceive a co-worker with a hideous new hair style by saying “It’s so pretty” and does NOT repent of it (for whatever reason but for the sake of argument let’s say she forgets about it).

Do both sins equally break the persons’ relationships with God? (Let’s not get into a debate about “once saved, always saved” over this. For now, in this context, I am simply asking whether both sins equally damage a person’s fellowship with God in this life.) Will God equally withdraw his blessing from each person? Will communion with God be damaged equally by both sins not repented of? I think that’s ludicrous–to think so.

I remember these debates in church youth group and in Sunday School–many years ago. We were told by some of our mentors that every little sin, including a “little white lie,” breaks off your relationship with God until you repent of it. But we were also told (sometimes by the same mentor!) that the condition of “sinfulness” causes everyone to commit sins of omission and ignorance but these are “covered” by the “blood of Jesus” so that they do not break off fellowship with God or God’s blessing. (Although we were also always encouraged to ask God’s forgiveness in “blanket style”–for all our sins known and unknown to us.)

What is that but something LIKE the Catholic doctrine of mortal versus venial sins? And yet, our mentors would ALSO say “All sins are equal.” I remember struggling with these contradictions but being afraid to point them out or ask for clarification. Then–during my years in a fundamentalist Bible college I DID ask about them and was harshly criticized for doing so!

So what would a Protestant version of categorizations of sin look like? I see no problem with borrowing the terminology “mortal” and “venial” sin from Catholic theology, but I know many especially evangelical Protestants will choke on those words EVEN IF they agree that not all sins are equal in terms of damaging our relationship with God. However, I haven’t come up with alternative single words for the two categories. Do we necessarily need them?

I suggest we teach our people that there are sins that damage and even break off one’s personal relationship with God and that SHOULD result in church discipline if discovered–unless the person repents. Some of them should result in the committer being barred from some levels of leadership for a time of restoration. (The fact that many Protestant denominations and churches already do this supports my contention that most Protestants really do NOT believe “all sins are equal!”) Then there are sins that do NOT break off a saved person’s relationship with God even if no specific repentance follows. We don’t have to say these are harmless or unimportant; we can say that if they become practice and a part of a person’s lifestyle they CAN add up to serious sin that harms or even breaks off the relationship with God.

In my book Questions to All Your Answers I have a chapter on this issue and I use an example from my own family history. I recall that occasionally a letter would arrive not postmarked so that the stamp could be cut off the envelope and re-used. My father insisted it was okay to do that. My stepmother insisted it was sin to do that. My brother and I listened with some amusement (but also confusion) to their discussions about this. Now, one of my parents was right and the other one was wrong. But let’s say my stepmother was right and, in God’s sight, re-using the stamp was a sin. Did reusing a stamp break my father’s relationship with God? I can’t imagine it. Years later he was caught embezzling from his church. Did that break off his relationship with God? (I’m not talking about the being caught but the first willful, conscious, presumptuous theft he did not repent of.) I think so–unless and until he repented.

Now, was there some connection between my father’s re-using a stamp and his later embezzling from his church? Perhaps. But that doesn’t make them equal! What it means is that even those things we think are not sin but MAY BE should be carefully considered and avoided if possible–but not to the point of scrupulosity about everything (like Luther’s spending hours in confession confessing every thought that might possibly be sinful until his confessor told him to go away and not come back until he had something really sinful to repent of!).

In short, I think “all sins are equal” is simply a cliche. We should drop it–and challenge it when overheard. It doesn’t make any sense–biblically, in terms of the Great Tradition, rationally or experientially.

Divine Synchronicity: What Does It Mean for Christianity?

LOST in Purgatory?
(Purgatory - Yeah or Nay?)

Part 1 of 2

While reviewing Roger Olson's thoughts on a conjectured Protestant Purgatory I couldn't help but think of another popular purgatorial position being espoused not long ago in the TV series LOST as it was aired over a six year period (Sept 2004 - May 2010). Here we witnessed the island adventures of trapped celluloid souls living through decisive moments of their re-created lives. Some failed their tests and immediately "died" (possibly to revisit the island again-and-again in a never-ending cycle of "purgatory" until they got it right; or, if they didn't get it right, to proceed immediately to hell, death, or some final stage of life); some passed their first tests but later failed to pass their "summary review test" and then were immediately killed; some got it right and left with a suddenness, separating from the constant struggles of island life (I assume to go to heaven, or some place of personal completion); and some knuckleheads took awhile to get it right but eventually did to then be reunited with all their island loved-ones in one grand finale six years later.

And though the LOST purgatorial theory at the end of season 1 was immediately and hotly denounced by the show's producers, Damon Lindelhof and Carlton Cuse, in the end we viewers who tenuously clung to our theories of an island purgatory were granted vindication (along with an unsettling feeling of being surreptitiously lied to over the very long, lost years of faithfulness at the end of season 6's grand finale). And so, I would point to this form of purgatory as a modern day, updated, sophisticated, form of purgatory held by today's cultural standards and understandings of the afterlife (appealing not only to those theists amongst us, but to those agnostics and atheists amongst us as well!). Where death is never quite dead, and where mankind gets repeated opportunities for eternal solidarity and redemption.

LOST became an immediate TV-land fan hit and lived mostly in the Internet's chat rooms and blogs to be fussed and fumed over by addicted LOSTIES such as myself. It was a great ride and one that gave a very satisfying sense of relief when completing its journey - or the journeys - of all its survivors from Oceanic 815 seen in Clip #1.

So how does this all tie into the biblical themes of love and justice, reconciliation and spiritual healing? Well, let's first get a better sense of the many theologic and philosophic issues LOST was dealing with through its global audiences (Clip #1) and while we're at it, peruse the 3-minute Clip #2 created by a chap using yellow post-it notes to help add to the quirkiness of this very unusual show!

Clip #1
Lost (The Ending Explained REAL)
~ the quality is poor but content excellent




Or, What Many of Us Thought...

LOST, the REAL Ending




Clip #2
LOST in 3 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-HWECQa23Cs

Before proceeding towards biblical themes I must also mention another book and movie that also comes to mind on this same topic of purgatory. Taken from Mitch Albom's fictitious biography of "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" in which he shares how our past sins might be absolved in heaven's absolution of divine love and forgiveness. Here is a very fine summary that must, MUST, be viewed in order for me to say what I intend to say next:

This is an Excellent Summary

and may be watched by clicking to "YouTube"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYwlJXWuL2w

or

http://youtu.be/qYwlJXWuL2w

Point 1

Overall, I am unconvinced that a Christian purgatory was ever a requirement for heavenly destination - even though I am a Lostie and Mitch Albom fan at heart! - for the concept seems to rest upon the silence of the bible if it is at all true. However, what I do know is that from the clips I have provided above, we can expect our lives to work within a process similarly conducted within this life. It will have its own judgments, as well as its own blessings, and I think that Thornton Wilder may have gotten it right when writing of the completeness and finality of this life before being ushered into the next in his book, The Bridge of San Luis Rey (1927) - . In it he took the historical instances of a Peruvian tragedy from a long time ago (about 500-600 years ago) and worked through it the theosophic questions of:

"Does everything in life happen for a reason? Or are there some unexplainable, random events we may expect within it? If everything happens for a reason, why do bad things happen to the innocent? Why do some of the wicked prosper and the just suffer? If there is a reason, what is it? And if the universe is purely a random set of events, how does one explain the obvious order in most aspects of the physical and social universe? Did all of this order come out of chaos? Does accepting the fact that there are some chance occurrences which will occur in this life deny the existence of God? Or, can the two matters be reconciled logically?

And so, when I listen to, and review, these Lost clips, and the very fine clip made by an English student on Mitch Albom's book above, I think to myself that all these existential elements must be applied within this life of ours first and foremost. That we should - we must - expect the essential themes of forgiveness, reconciliation from abandonment, release, love, persistence, resolution, as vital parts of our earthly existence. And to not assume those qualities of life to occur separately - and unconnectedly - from our contemporary experience of this frail, human life we live in now. To be then experienced later in resolution at another time and place outside of our experience of this life we live and breath within (such as a purgatory, a heaven, or a hell). No, it occurs in the here-and-now of our daily existences, in our relationships, and at our work-a-day worlds of impoverishment and plenty.

Point 2

This, I would submit, is another important emergent Christian theme that we must accept when we speak of God's dynamic interaction with our world and our lives. A theme demanding a full appreciation for the meaningfulness of life this side of heaven (or hell, or death). One that does not wait for goodness and mercy to come after death, but works diligently to rectify and reconcile our humanity within our own personal experiences of society. That healing and forgiveness importantly occur now in this life, and not in the next. Otherwise there is no value in holding to the belief of seeing the Kingdom of God become a structural part of our earthly history. For it is, at the last, a Kingdom of flesh and blood, and not of ethereal spirits devoid of evil's affects. Hence, God's redemption is both historical (by Covenant, and by Jesus), and historically working itself out within man's existential experiences (salvation, and renewal). It is meant to be especially meaningful in this life of ours now, and not to be regarded as some non-sequitur metaphysical property to be discovered later in a dimensionless time and space. This would be an illogical inference or conclusion to the biblical idea of God's here-and-now Kingdom.

That we must grasp the indefatigable truths that God, through his Holy Spirit, ineffably works  within our seemingly small, but very sacred lives, towards those many essential themes that would fill us with a hope and determination. Which speak to the fact that through Jesus, God is dynamically reconciling, and is intimately involved with, the world - both within our private lives as well as our communal, relational lives. And it is within these spiritually esoteric intricacies wherein lies our complex of hope connecting our living present to God's living eternity.

RE Slater
August 16, 2011

The Concept of Synchronicity
Part 2 of 2

(Continued from the above article, "LOST in Purgatory")

A significant concept that was not readily apparent on the TV show LOST until the flash forwards and flash sideways episodes began appearing in the third and fourth seasons was the concept of synchronicity. When reviewing my notes from several years back I believe that some of what was being implied through the concept of purgatory discussed above could easily fall into this metaphysical idea here, where, during our lifetimes, and quite unknown to us (if at all), coincidences based upon a-causal events may interlope (or intersect) within our lives in phenomenal ways. Some Christians call these events miracles, others an "intervention of grace," where non-normative events, ideas or people may enter into our lives in either profound or non-significant ways.

Most philosophers, psychologists and physicists, regard synchronicity as an extremely rare event (as initially conceived), but I am more or less of the opinion that synchronicity is a very common, normative event at work at all times in everyone's lives and that we are simply unaware of it, just like we are unaware of the act of breathing, or thinking, or behaving, or acting, or passing through time for most of our lives. It is an all-pervasive fact that we only may rarely glimpse like the tip of an iceberg. This has become known as a joined collective dynamic very similar to the physics term of quantum mechanics, but operative on a metaphysical level that occasionally intersects with our physical, symbolic world, and with others who cross-sect our daily routines sometime in life.

Taking this concept one step farther, I would entertain the idea that the operating mechanism behind the concept of synchronicity is that of the Holy Spirit infilling (or, infusing) all creation to bring it into the very plans and purposes of the Godhead. And it is through this metaphysical idea of a joined collective dynamic that God interweaves the lives of people with one another through the work of His Spirit to bring about both His purposes as well as our spiritual well being. Not our physical well being, but our spiritual well being (some would call it a blessedness to our lives). So that, regardless of our experiences in this life under the reign of sin, death, hatred, evil, wickedness, brokenness, abandonment, dissertion, betrayal, and dysfunctionalism and so on; but through all of this, God is weaving a redemptive tapestry predicated upon His purposes of redemption, reconciliation, wholeness, and healing. Whether we understand this or not. Whether we see this or not. Whether we acknowledge this or not. It is synchronous.

So then, we are given this time to make amends, to recover, to process our existence into a meaningful existence at one with the union of God's purposes. To allow what order can be made of it before we are removed from this life. And in a sense, this life of ours is our time of purgatory (one which emergent Christians have lately been calling our "heaven on earth" or a "hell on earth": sic, Rob Bell's book, Love Wins). Now I'm sure this is not what Bell had in mind, but as long as we're thinking through the concept of purgatory, we could very easily align it into this life rather than into a future expectation that is un-discovered (or, un-stated) in the Bible, just like Bell is aligning acts of heaven and hell into this life (otherwise known as Inaugural Kingdom Eschatology).

Consequently, though there may be a purgatory-like existence into heaven's entrance, (or in fact, into hell's entrance) - if we wish to allow for a type of universalism into this discussion - but I am not of the opinion that it is either necessary or biblical. For me, this meager life that we live will contain all those facets of purgatory, heaven and hell, to be sufficient for the redemptive purposes of God of establishing a creative order of blessedness. He does not need to extend our agonies nor our pains yet another second beyond this, our lifetimes. He will have worked out his purposes in our lives sufficiently despite evil, the devil, this sinful world, and ourselves, to be satisfied with its culminating end (which is a good working definition of Sovereignty). And the true fact is - one that should cause fear and trembling in our souls - is that we must not allow even one more breath or life-event to pass living separate from God's grace, love, and care in our lives!

For like the survivors on the mythical island of LOST we may be indeterminately and immediately snatched away by death once our purpose of existence have been completed. Should those purposes have striven towards wickedness and sin, towards striving against God, towards hatred and creating a hell for those around us, than we should not expect anything less than what we have brought into the lives of those whom we have harmed. And if, as Christians believers, we continue to seek ungodly and wicked demonstrations of harsh judgments upon both innocents and the true seekers of God alike, we too should expect nothing less than a judgment upon our hearts (known as the bema seat of God in Scriptures). There will be tears and agonies, vexations and the gnashing of teeth, on both sides of heaven and hell, but in the end God shall rule as He now rules in a broken, mis-shapened world. So then repent and be at peace.

RE Slater
August 17, 2011