Quite often, what is seen as a strength carries with it its own set of liabilities. Such is the case for many a denomination's foundational set of confessions. Confessions provide a denomination's interpretation of the Scriptures. It also allows denominations to distinguish themselves from other denominations. But how a denomination's members, especially its leaders, regard these confessions will determine if an adopted set of confessions hurts more than it serves its denomination. This is what Roger Olson (click here for a bio) addresses in one of his recent blogposts.
What Olson successfully does is to distinguish when allegiance to a denomination's set of foundational confessions crosses the line in terms of what is healthy and biblical (click here for the article). Olson, who produces a very good and challenging blog to read, makes a distinction between what he calls 'creedalism' and being confessional. And the difference between the two lies in the height of the pedestal on which one places the confessions of their denomination.
Certainly, to make a set of confessions foundational to a denomination is to elevate the importance of those confessions over the other writings of the members of the denomination. To make a set of confessions foundational is to say that these confessions define the beliefs of those who belong to a given denomination. So that set of confessions is regarded as special.
But when people start to quote from their denomination's set of confessions too many times or regard those who disagree with non-essential individual points of their denomination's set of confessions as being those who should not be in the denomination, then we have the problem of creedalism.
Olson notes that there are two problems with creedalism with one problem leading into the other. The first problem is that we are elevating a given set of confession to a point where, either by de facto or de jure, the confessions are being treated as if they are at least as important as the Scriptures. This is what is being referred to as a paper papacy. For while the Roman Church regards the Pope as being infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, so too do members of a denomination think their that their set of confessions speak infallibly when they put their confessions on a pedestal that is too high. And that can be done by those who are oblivious to what they are doing. That is because while given members of a denomination may not formally declare that their confessions are on par with the Scriptures, they act like their confessions are equal to the Scriptures by how they use the confessions to address issues in a discussion.
Jesus noted this problem in the Pharisees of his day. In Mark 7:1-12 (click here for the Scripture passage), Jesus told the Pharisees that they were using their traditions to set aside what was commanded by God in terms of how one should treat their parents. The traditions were to the Pharisees back then what a given set of confessions is to a denomination. They contain the interpretations of God's word. And by putting their traditions on too high a pedestal, the Pharisees were paying more attention to their traditions than to God's word. And, as will occur, when those traditions misinterpret God's word, the result is some will set aside God's word in order to follow the traditions. And that is exactly what often occurs with those who put their denomination's set of confessions on too high a pedestal.
Putting the confessions on too high a pedestal can be indicated by how a person talks to those who disagree with either a statement from one's denomination's confessions or how to interpret a statement from the confessions. And this should not surprise us because, more than we care to admit, how we regard and treat God is revealed by how we treat others. Olson's point here is that not allowing room for enough disagreement with one's denomination's set of confessions leads to unnecessary divisions in one's own denomination. It can also lead to unnecessary divisions within the Church. The latter occurs when people believe that they have everything to teach and nothing to learn, to adapt a Martin Luther King Jr. statement, from those from other denominations.
Olson does a wonderful job in addressing an important part of life in denominations. Yes, a given set of confessions can be important to us; but they can also be too important. And when they are the latter, we run the risk of setting God's word aside for them or we actually divide Christians into opposing groups. Both are serious sins that cause great damage to the Christian life and to the Church. I highly recommend that people read this article on Roger Olson's blog.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Friday, January 19, 2018
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Paul Ryan Does A 360 Degree About-Face On Ayn Rand
Has Paul Ryan pulled a "Mitt Romney" on Ayn Rand? We must ask because Ryan first declared that Rand was his inspiration for entering politics and now he claims to have rejected her basic philosophy.
But many could care less about Ryan's allegiance to Rand's principles asking, "Who's Ayn Rand?" This ironic question could be answered in terms of her history and philosophy. Above all, Ayn Rand is an all-or-nothing thinker who favors individualism over collectivism. This simply means that with any issue whether it be social policies, economic policies, or religion, she always sides with the individual sovereignty over outside help or control. As a result, almost everybody could find areas of agreement with Rand but whether one could be considered a disciple of Rand depends on how comfortable one is with their place on a continuum towards her all-or-nothing thinking. This is perhaps where Paul Ryan has found himself in trouble.
But before we get to Paul Ryan, one must note the source for both Rand's favoring the individual and her black-white thinking. The reason for both could very well come from her own history in Russia as it became a Communist country. What is necessary here is to consider the before and after effect that the Bolshevik Revolution had her life. Her family had to flee their home and her father lose his prosperous business to find safety from the violence of the revolution. In addition, she found the Bolsheviks to be control freaks. The trauma that must have been part of the experience can easily explain the all-or-nothing thinking Rand employs, but it cannot explain the preference for individualism since the latter preceded the revolution. Here we might refer again to her family's place in society as well as the fact that she was a highly gifted person.
Now, who is Paul Ryan and how does he regard Ayn Rand? In 2005, when speaking at an event celebrating Ayn Rand, Ryan gave her high praise as he credited her with inspiring him to enter public life. He also highly encouraged all of this staff to read her works. But a funny thing happened to Ryan on his way to the Vice Presidential nomination, he had to comfort Conservative Christians who take issue with Rand's opposition to religion, abortion, and, last but not least, Ronald Reagan. So Ryan pulled a "Mitt Romney," or a "John Kerry" if you are still living in the year 2008, and claimed that he only had a passing fancy in Rand and was interested in her economic views only. Should we mention to Ryan that Rand's economic views flow from her atheism?
So the question becomes whether Paul Ryan has a different view of Ayn Rand now as he did when he tried to force his interns to read her. To answer this question, we must first discern how much Ryan already disagreed with Rand. Rand was both an extreme individualist, a fiscal conservative, and was antiwar. As an individualist, she was a libertarian who favored abortion rights, and she promoted atheism and saw that as integral to her idea of individualism. Thus, she rejected religion because something other than one's own reason would rule over a person and their own self-interest.
Except for being a fiscal conservative, Paul Ryan has never agreed with Ayn Rand. So for Ryan to suddenly say that he now disagrees with Rand is disingenuous to say the least. Where has Ryan always agreed with Rand? It is in the area of laissez-faire Capitalism. Here, no one should be forced to give to any in need and there should be no government regulation of business practices. To what degree Ryan believes that Capitalism should be laissez-faire and business should be regulation free is difficult to ascertain because no one who is in government has shown themselves to be absolutists there. But that Ryan goes strongly in the direction of the all-or-nothing thinking of Rand is beyond dispute when one considers what he proposes for Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Since Ryan is in favor of privatizing Social Security and parts of Medicare, he follows Rand's self-interest philosophy where a service is provided only on the basis that someone profits from it.
Ryan's proposal also puts programs like Head Start at risk though the degree of risk is unknown because of the lack of details coming from Ryan and the Republicans. But what is clear is that Ryan views both financial and environmental regulations as chains that weigh down business performance. In addition, Ryan wants to reduce tax rates and simplify the tax code. But what nobody is admitting is that the Bush tax cuts are one of the leading causes to today's budget deficits along with increased military and wartime spending.
Whatever statements elected officials make, none of them can fully implement Rand's philosophies. That is because government is too big to be totally ruled in a wide scale all or nothing fashion. But general directions can be determined. And what is clear is that Ryan's following of Ayn Rand principles have seen no change. Ryan has always selectively followed her.
But more is involved than just partially implementing Rand's philosophies. For example, as Ryan predicts doom for the Social Security fund because of the increasing number of beneficiaries versus the number of contributors, he neglects to mention that our Social Security fund is the largest holder of our nation's debt. So that the biggest threat to the Social Security trust fund is not the beneficiary to contributor ratio, it is government's willingness to steal from this fund to save face. That Ryan objects to the Social Security philosophy of current contributors paying for someone else's benefits is merely a philosophical disagreement that bears no consequence.
In addition, that Ryan wants to reduce or privatize social services goes in the direction of Ayn Rand philosophy. But Ryan's belief in both increasing defense spending and in American Exceptionalism are contrary to Rand's philosophy. Such inconsistency might point to the fact that virtue and self-interest can oppose each other rather than go hand-in-hand as Rand claimed.
That Ryan can point to flaws in Obama's policies implies no merit to Ryan's proposals. For most of the analysis that Ryan provides on Obama and what he promotes rests on an incomplete context for Obama's failures. And the constituents about whom Ryan expresses his deepest concern are businesses. So when Ryan parts with Rand, such as in exorbitant military spending, it benefits certain businesses. And when Ryan at least partially implements Rand's ideas and values, such as reducing regulations and taxes on businesses, again, it helps the business community.
So perhaps all of the talk that ties to or distances Ryan and Rand is merely a slight-of-hand that exists to simply distract the audience while the trick of promoting corporate interests is being performed. And Ryan's motivation for protect business interests seems to come from a personal self-interest.
From a Christian perspective, self-interest at the expense of others is rarely if ever put in a good light. It certainly does not follow the model Christ provided and promoted without a real twisting of the Scriptures. Neither is Rand's all-or-nothing approach to individualism what is taught in the Bible. Besides the many examples where the Biblical writers appealed to authority to determine what believers should do, collectivism is taught throughout both testaments. For throughout the Bible, people are severely judged for withholding help from those in need. That their lack of giving would have violated the kind of personal integrity that Ayn Rand taught was never an issue in those judgments.
From a human perspective, a red flag must always be raised when people speak in absolutes. This is not meant to deny the existence of absolutes, it simply means that their presence is a strong indicator that we are playing on very thin ice. For one thing, psychologists warn against such thinking. So do most philosophers. But we should also note that many strongly religious people indiscriminately favor this kind of thinking. And we should note that because too many corporations follow an all-or-nothing approach to self-interest when they commit to maximizing profits, our economic system is about to implode rather than grow.
Perhaps this is why Martin Luther King preached a synthesis between Capitalism and Communism as the only viable social and economic alternative available to us. He promoted this because Capitalism's weakness is that it forgets that life always involves others, what the business world referred to as stakeholders, while Communism's weakness forgets that we are individuals. And the question becomes, when a public figure compares Ayn Rand to Martin Luther King as people, why would any sane leader base more of their theories on Rand rather than King. The answer to this question is simple. It is because of their self-interest. And it his own self-interest that determines how Ryan has and continues to selectively follow Ayn Rand.
But many could care less about Ryan's allegiance to Rand's principles asking, "Who's Ayn Rand?" This ironic question could be answered in terms of her history and philosophy. Above all, Ayn Rand is an all-or-nothing thinker who favors individualism over collectivism. This simply means that with any issue whether it be social policies, economic policies, or religion, she always sides with the individual sovereignty over outside help or control. As a result, almost everybody could find areas of agreement with Rand but whether one could be considered a disciple of Rand depends on how comfortable one is with their place on a continuum towards her all-or-nothing thinking. This is perhaps where Paul Ryan has found himself in trouble.
But before we get to Paul Ryan, one must note the source for both Rand's favoring the individual and her black-white thinking. The reason for both could very well come from her own history in Russia as it became a Communist country. What is necessary here is to consider the before and after effect that the Bolshevik Revolution had her life. Her family had to flee their home and her father lose his prosperous business to find safety from the violence of the revolution. In addition, she found the Bolsheviks to be control freaks. The trauma that must have been part of the experience can easily explain the all-or-nothing thinking Rand employs, but it cannot explain the preference for individualism since the latter preceded the revolution. Here we might refer again to her family's place in society as well as the fact that she was a highly gifted person.
Now, who is Paul Ryan and how does he regard Ayn Rand? In 2005, when speaking at an event celebrating Ayn Rand, Ryan gave her high praise as he credited her with inspiring him to enter public life. He also highly encouraged all of this staff to read her works. But a funny thing happened to Ryan on his way to the Vice Presidential nomination, he had to comfort Conservative Christians who take issue with Rand's opposition to religion, abortion, and, last but not least, Ronald Reagan. So Ryan pulled a "Mitt Romney," or a "John Kerry" if you are still living in the year 2008, and claimed that he only had a passing fancy in Rand and was interested in her economic views only. Should we mention to Ryan that Rand's economic views flow from her atheism?
So the question becomes whether Paul Ryan has a different view of Ayn Rand now as he did when he tried to force his interns to read her. To answer this question, we must first discern how much Ryan already disagreed with Rand. Rand was both an extreme individualist, a fiscal conservative, and was antiwar. As an individualist, she was a libertarian who favored abortion rights, and she promoted atheism and saw that as integral to her idea of individualism. Thus, she rejected religion because something other than one's own reason would rule over a person and their own self-interest.
Except for being a fiscal conservative, Paul Ryan has never agreed with Ayn Rand. So for Ryan to suddenly say that he now disagrees with Rand is disingenuous to say the least. Where has Ryan always agreed with Rand? It is in the area of laissez-faire Capitalism. Here, no one should be forced to give to any in need and there should be no government regulation of business practices. To what degree Ryan believes that Capitalism should be laissez-faire and business should be regulation free is difficult to ascertain because no one who is in government has shown themselves to be absolutists there. But that Ryan goes strongly in the direction of the all-or-nothing thinking of Rand is beyond dispute when one considers what he proposes for Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Since Ryan is in favor of privatizing Social Security and parts of Medicare, he follows Rand's self-interest philosophy where a service is provided only on the basis that someone profits from it.
Ryan's proposal also puts programs like Head Start at risk though the degree of risk is unknown because of the lack of details coming from Ryan and the Republicans. But what is clear is that Ryan views both financial and environmental regulations as chains that weigh down business performance. In addition, Ryan wants to reduce tax rates and simplify the tax code. But what nobody is admitting is that the Bush tax cuts are one of the leading causes to today's budget deficits along with increased military and wartime spending.
Whatever statements elected officials make, none of them can fully implement Rand's philosophies. That is because government is too big to be totally ruled in a wide scale all or nothing fashion. But general directions can be determined. And what is clear is that Ryan's following of Ayn Rand principles have seen no change. Ryan has always selectively followed her.
But more is involved than just partially implementing Rand's philosophies. For example, as Ryan predicts doom for the Social Security fund because of the increasing number of beneficiaries versus the number of contributors, he neglects to mention that our Social Security fund is the largest holder of our nation's debt. So that the biggest threat to the Social Security trust fund is not the beneficiary to contributor ratio, it is government's willingness to steal from this fund to save face. That Ryan objects to the Social Security philosophy of current contributors paying for someone else's benefits is merely a philosophical disagreement that bears no consequence.
In addition, that Ryan wants to reduce or privatize social services goes in the direction of Ayn Rand philosophy. But Ryan's belief in both increasing defense spending and in American Exceptionalism are contrary to Rand's philosophy. Such inconsistency might point to the fact that virtue and self-interest can oppose each other rather than go hand-in-hand as Rand claimed.
That Ryan can point to flaws in Obama's policies implies no merit to Ryan's proposals. For most of the analysis that Ryan provides on Obama and what he promotes rests on an incomplete context for Obama's failures. And the constituents about whom Ryan expresses his deepest concern are businesses. So when Ryan parts with Rand, such as in exorbitant military spending, it benefits certain businesses. And when Ryan at least partially implements Rand's ideas and values, such as reducing regulations and taxes on businesses, again, it helps the business community.
So perhaps all of the talk that ties to or distances Ryan and Rand is merely a slight-of-hand that exists to simply distract the audience while the trick of promoting corporate interests is being performed. And Ryan's motivation for protect business interests seems to come from a personal self-interest.
From a Christian perspective, self-interest at the expense of others is rarely if ever put in a good light. It certainly does not follow the model Christ provided and promoted without a real twisting of the Scriptures. Neither is Rand's all-or-nothing approach to individualism what is taught in the Bible. Besides the many examples where the Biblical writers appealed to authority to determine what believers should do, collectivism is taught throughout both testaments. For throughout the Bible, people are severely judged for withholding help from those in need. That their lack of giving would have violated the kind of personal integrity that Ayn Rand taught was never an issue in those judgments.
From a human perspective, a red flag must always be raised when people speak in absolutes. This is not meant to deny the existence of absolutes, it simply means that their presence is a strong indicator that we are playing on very thin ice. For one thing, psychologists warn against such thinking. So do most philosophers. But we should also note that many strongly religious people indiscriminately favor this kind of thinking. And we should note that because too many corporations follow an all-or-nothing approach to self-interest when they commit to maximizing profits, our economic system is about to implode rather than grow.
Perhaps this is why Martin Luther King preached a synthesis between Capitalism and Communism as the only viable social and economic alternative available to us. He promoted this because Capitalism's weakness is that it forgets that life always involves others, what the business world referred to as stakeholders, while Communism's weakness forgets that we are individuals. And the question becomes, when a public figure compares Ayn Rand to Martin Luther King as people, why would any sane leader base more of their theories on Rand rather than King. The answer to this question is simple. It is because of their self-interest. And it his own self-interest that determines how Ryan has and continues to selectively follow Ayn Rand.
Monday, July 30, 2012
ONIM for the week of July 30, 2012
Christian Groups Angry Over PM's Gay Marriage Comments -- Christian Today (UK)
National Prayer Day Organizers Sign Wembley Contract -- Christian Today (UK)
When Breast Cancer Leaves You Gasping For Words -- Christianity Today
Bible Museum Closes Deal For D.C. Location -- Christianity Today
Christian Olympians Give God The Praise -- Christian Post
Winning Battle Through Intimacy With Christ -- Christian Post
Do We Have A Global Death Wish -- Religion Dispatches
Money, Technology, And The Silence Of Churches -- Religion Dispatches
National Prayer Day Organizers Sign Wembley Contract -- Christian Today (UK)
When Breast Cancer Leaves You Gasping For Words -- Christianity Today
Bible Museum Closes Deal For D.C. Location -- Christianity Today
Christian Olympians Give God The Praise -- Christian Post
Winning Battle Through Intimacy With Christ -- Christian Post
Do We Have A Global Death Wish -- Religion Dispatches
Money, Technology, And The Silence Of Churches -- Religion Dispatches
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Why Must Fundamentalists Be So Literal
Perhaps one the most charming and endearing traits that unbelievers find in us Fundamentalists is that we take things very literally, perhaps too literally. And never does this occur more often than when we are talking about the Bible. To us, taking the Bible literally is second nature. It is sometimes inconceivable to read the Bible any other way. And yet, not all Fundamentalists apply the same degree of literalness when interpreting the Bible.
Sometimes taking things literally so often is just part of one's personality. It is a part of mine. Though I can sometimes joke with people, I often do not initially understand jokes from others because I tend to take things literally. Thus, their jokes often go over my head. In addition, those who prefer simplicity also prefer literalness. And people who prefer control, like simplicity. Once we allow for non-literal interpretations of any part of the Bible, we allow for ambiguity, complexity, and diversity. And once we allow these things, we have less control and uniformity.
There are two theological reasons why Fundamentalists read the Bible so literally. The first reason is what we believe about God's Word says about itself. For the Bible describes itself as being inspired, literally God-breathed, and thus every word must be true. Other parts of the Bible give a similar message. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus tells us that not one "jot or tittle" will pass away from God's word. Realize that Jesus is saying that not the smallest letter or part of a letter will be done away.
Different from what many unbelievers would expect, these Scriptures do not cause all Fundamentalists to apply the same degree of literalness to the whole Bible. Why? Because some Fundamentalists believe that some translations, like the King James version, to be inspired while others understand that inspiration applies to the original autographs, what was literally written by God's prophets and apostles, only. Those from the former group will tend to read more of the Bible literally than the latter group.
For those who believe that only the original autographs are inspired, there are two different working definitions of the inspiration. Some believe that inspiration implies that God dictated most, if not all, of the Bible to his prophets and apostles. Such a belief in inspiration tends to cause people to read the Scriptures literally without regard for context.
Other Fundamentalists understand the inspiration of God's Word in a different way. To them, rather than being dictated, the contents of the Bible were the product of God's Sovereignty as God moved different people to write. The result here is that we can see God using different styles of speech to express His Word and yet, in the end, He controlled what was written. Thus, we must be aware of the style of speech as well as other contexts to understand what God is saying. So the fact that parts of the Bible were written in other than a series of declarative statements or historical narrative could tell us that we might not want to take what is written there so literally as we would take other parts of the Bible.
The second reason why we can read the Bible so literally depends on the role we ascribe to the Bible as having in our lives. There are some who look at the Bible as being a user's manual telling us how to restore, at least partially, the paradise that was lost in the Garden of Eden. Those who see the Bible fulfilling such a role will tend to be more literal than those who see the Bible has playing a different role.
Why? Those who see the role of the Bible as telling us how to restore paradise simply need more specifics for governing every area of life. They will need specifics in terms of what kind of economic and political systems should be used to run the country and community, what kind of social mores should be acceptable to society, what rules should be used to run every area of our individual lives, and so forth. Such people look for specific laws and principles that would govern everything because, if paradise is to be restored, every fault must be corrected. After all, it took only one bite of the apple to cause God to kick man out of the Garden.
The result is not just an embracing of literalness, it is a clutching to a legalism that Jesus challenged the Pharisees on. This legalism leads to a sense of entitlement, to receive what one has earned. So what is camouflaged by an insistence on being literal and meeting the requirements of the user's manual is selfishness. Those who seek to restore paradise are those who seek their own heaven on earth. It is this selfishness, not the tendency to take too many things literally, that is the root for all of the nastiness and intolerance that we see in Fundamentalism today. Along with this selfishness is a tendency to revel in self-exaltation because if one charged with doing things God's way to find paradise, then one is likely to assume that one's own group are doing things right. Thus arrogance, and then intolerance, become byproducts of selfishness combined with a utopian philosophy.
An alternative, and I think more Biblical, view of the Bible is to look at it as a guide for navigating the wilderness. Here, even in the best of places, the Christian is in a foreign land because God's rule is not followed. Here, we are not looking to sanctify our earthly homes and treasures, we are looking to stay faithful in a land full of distractions and siren singers. Here, we are looking to bear our cross rather than wear it around our necks as a fashionable decoration. And finally, though the general principles are there to guide us through this wilderness, there are fewer specifics when there is no paradise to restore.
In the end, there is no bearing of the cross when one is looking to restore paradise because one is working to earn a heaven on earth. In contrast, there is no gloating or living in self-exaltation when one is trying to remain faithful while one is homesick. Rather, there is a constant awareness that though we may enjoy some of the things that are here, we cannot afford to become too attached to them for attachments can lead to the dark side of putting down our cross.
Seeking to restore paradise seems to be an odd pursuit of those whose leader humbled Himself to wash the feet of other and to die on the cross and who charged His followers to do the same. Seeking to restore paradise seems to be at odds with Jesus' command to not store up earthly treasures. And the seeking to establish one's own earthly paradise has no known precedent in the New Testament--that is literally speaking.
Sometimes taking things literally so often is just part of one's personality. It is a part of mine. Though I can sometimes joke with people, I often do not initially understand jokes from others because I tend to take things literally. Thus, their jokes often go over my head. In addition, those who prefer simplicity also prefer literalness. And people who prefer control, like simplicity. Once we allow for non-literal interpretations of any part of the Bible, we allow for ambiguity, complexity, and diversity. And once we allow these things, we have less control and uniformity.
There are two theological reasons why Fundamentalists read the Bible so literally. The first reason is what we believe about God's Word says about itself. For the Bible describes itself as being inspired, literally God-breathed, and thus every word must be true. Other parts of the Bible give a similar message. In Matthew 5:18, Jesus tells us that not one "jot or tittle" will pass away from God's word. Realize that Jesus is saying that not the smallest letter or part of a letter will be done away.
Different from what many unbelievers would expect, these Scriptures do not cause all Fundamentalists to apply the same degree of literalness to the whole Bible. Why? Because some Fundamentalists believe that some translations, like the King James version, to be inspired while others understand that inspiration applies to the original autographs, what was literally written by God's prophets and apostles, only. Those from the former group will tend to read more of the Bible literally than the latter group.
For those who believe that only the original autographs are inspired, there are two different working definitions of the inspiration. Some believe that inspiration implies that God dictated most, if not all, of the Bible to his prophets and apostles. Such a belief in inspiration tends to cause people to read the Scriptures literally without regard for context.
Other Fundamentalists understand the inspiration of God's Word in a different way. To them, rather than being dictated, the contents of the Bible were the product of God's Sovereignty as God moved different people to write. The result here is that we can see God using different styles of speech to express His Word and yet, in the end, He controlled what was written. Thus, we must be aware of the style of speech as well as other contexts to understand what God is saying. So the fact that parts of the Bible were written in other than a series of declarative statements or historical narrative could tell us that we might not want to take what is written there so literally as we would take other parts of the Bible.
The second reason why we can read the Bible so literally depends on the role we ascribe to the Bible as having in our lives. There are some who look at the Bible as being a user's manual telling us how to restore, at least partially, the paradise that was lost in the Garden of Eden. Those who see the Bible fulfilling such a role will tend to be more literal than those who see the Bible has playing a different role.
Why? Those who see the role of the Bible as telling us how to restore paradise simply need more specifics for governing every area of life. They will need specifics in terms of what kind of economic and political systems should be used to run the country and community, what kind of social mores should be acceptable to society, what rules should be used to run every area of our individual lives, and so forth. Such people look for specific laws and principles that would govern everything because, if paradise is to be restored, every fault must be corrected. After all, it took only one bite of the apple to cause God to kick man out of the Garden.
The result is not just an embracing of literalness, it is a clutching to a legalism that Jesus challenged the Pharisees on. This legalism leads to a sense of entitlement, to receive what one has earned. So what is camouflaged by an insistence on being literal and meeting the requirements of the user's manual is selfishness. Those who seek to restore paradise are those who seek their own heaven on earth. It is this selfishness, not the tendency to take too many things literally, that is the root for all of the nastiness and intolerance that we see in Fundamentalism today. Along with this selfishness is a tendency to revel in self-exaltation because if one charged with doing things God's way to find paradise, then one is likely to assume that one's own group are doing things right. Thus arrogance, and then intolerance, become byproducts of selfishness combined with a utopian philosophy.
An alternative, and I think more Biblical, view of the Bible is to look at it as a guide for navigating the wilderness. Here, even in the best of places, the Christian is in a foreign land because God's rule is not followed. Here, we are not looking to sanctify our earthly homes and treasures, we are looking to stay faithful in a land full of distractions and siren singers. Here, we are looking to bear our cross rather than wear it around our necks as a fashionable decoration. And finally, though the general principles are there to guide us through this wilderness, there are fewer specifics when there is no paradise to restore.
In the end, there is no bearing of the cross when one is looking to restore paradise because one is working to earn a heaven on earth. In contrast, there is no gloating or living in self-exaltation when one is trying to remain faithful while one is homesick. Rather, there is a constant awareness that though we may enjoy some of the things that are here, we cannot afford to become too attached to them for attachments can lead to the dark side of putting down our cross.
Seeking to restore paradise seems to be an odd pursuit of those whose leader humbled Himself to wash the feet of other and to die on the cross and who charged His followers to do the same. Seeking to restore paradise seems to be at odds with Jesus' command to not store up earthly treasures. And the seeking to establish one's own earthly paradise has no known precedent in the New Testament--that is literally speaking.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Reviewing Brickner Vs Piper Discussing Israel And Palestine
Christianity Today is sharing a discussion between John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, and David Brickner, the executive director of Jews For Jesus, on Israel and the Promised Land. This discussion is on Christianity Today's web version only. So far, three of the four parts in the series are online and we've decided to review what has been posted to save time. The links are part one, part two, and part three.
Our purpose here is not to take sides but to point out some traditional problems that both John Piper and David Brickner can be vulnerable to. The first problem is to think that placing our first allegiance with Christ and our second allegiance with country is the way to go. I have heard, all to often, from the pulpit that we are to think of ourselves as Christians first and Americans second. I believe this pecking order is an effort to sanctify patriotism and it seems that Brickner adheres to this prioritizing of nationalism. From what he has written, he believes that Israel, despite its lack of faith in Christ, should be a Jewish Democracy, what American born, Israeli activist Jeff Halper calls an ethnocracy--a democracy that is dominated by a particular ethnic group.
Thus, David Brickner would love to see more Israeli Jews come to Christ to show that the nation has repented from unbelief. In contrast to Brickner's position, John Piper christianizes a position that the Jewish Ultra Orthodox group, Neturai Karta (see NK), have. That is that Israel has no right to the land until the Messiah comes. And further reading indicates that Piper is not the nationalist that Brickner is. Here, Piper is seeking to avoid the idolatry that can come with patriotism.
Returning to the rule that we should think of ourselves as Christians first and citizens of a nation second, though lacking Brickners penchant for nationalism, Piper also trips over the same hurdle that Brickner does. The flaw in their thinking is not that we should not consider ourselves Christians first; the difficulty is that we have recognized only two identities rather than three. For not only are we people of a particular faith and citizens of a country, we are all made in the image of God. And if we do not recognize this last identity, we could find ourselves callously killing other image bearers of God for the prosperity and glory of a country.
So instead of seeing ourselves as citizens of another country second behind being believers in Christ, we should see ourselves as Christians first, image bearers of God second, and citizens of a nation third, if that high. Such an order in priorities could reduce the killing of others who are made in the image of God for national pride because such an order strongly ties us to those who live outside of our own borders.
How would this then apply to the Israeli-Palestinian situation? Christians should equally pressure both sides to refrain from attacking and stealing from each other. That is, rather than taking sides based on perceived similarities with one's own country, Christians should act as honest brokers--to do otherwise is to embrace a gang or tribal mentality. This is the only approach that could end the senseless heartbreak and increasing hatred that a reliance on force brings. For when we review recent history, we find that, for both sides, attacking combatants is brutally futile while attacking civilians is highly immoral and criminal. And unlike Brickner's and Piper's point of agreement where they say that one cannot morally equate attacks on civilians, that is attacking Israeli civilians being implied, with defending one's country, attacking Palestinian civilians, the Christian position must oppose reliance on force which has been used as a substitute for trusting in justice.
There is another problem with the discussion between Piper and Brickner. That problem has to do with their description of the Abrahamic Covenant and it applies more to Brickner's position than Piper's. Both leave out a condition for Abraham's descendants inheriting his promise: circumcision (Genesis 17:10). This poses a problem for Christians who read Paul, especially his letter to the Galations because he says a couple of things regarding Abraham. First, Paul declares that it is those who believe in Jesus who are the true descendants of Abraham (Galations 3:6-9, 14-16). And second, Paul states that if a Christian receives circumcision, then one has been severed from Christ (Galations 5:2-4) through whom the blessing of Abraham comes today.
When one interprets the Old Testament passages in the light of the New Testament passages, those who insist on a literal interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant at every point must decide between admitting the Blessing of Abraham mentioned in the Old Testament undergoes significant changes or that one cannot use the same literal hermeneutical principle to the New Testament where it talks about Abraham. Considering that we are suppose to use the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, the latter choice would seem out of place. And if the literal condition of circumcision is no longer a part of the covenant, what other literal components have been changed as well?
Finally, in part three, David Brickner states that the state of Israel arose from the Holocaust. This is partially true but it is more partially false. For Modern Zionism actually started in the 1800s, first in the minds of men, and then through an ever increasing immigration. By the 1800s, Jews came to the realization that despite their own personal pledges of allegiance and good citizenship, they would never be accepted as equals by their fellow European citizens who were also Christians. And there were many times when the rejection of the Jews included horrible persecution and even death. When Jews were accepted and treated as allies, it was only temporary and sometimes during a crisis and their fortunes quickly changed. Christians were simply too scared of the "differences" they perceived between themselves and the Jews to react any other way.
If one strongly objects to the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, as I do, then one must realize that much of the credit for that treatment belongs to the European Christians and their centuries of harsh treatment of the Jews. The Holocaust itself provided an unparalleled zenith for the maltreatment of the Jews.
The above three points are what is so far missing in the discussion between Piper and Brickner regarding Israel and Palestine. One can only hope that these points are addressed in the last part of the series.
Our purpose here is not to take sides but to point out some traditional problems that both John Piper and David Brickner can be vulnerable to. The first problem is to think that placing our first allegiance with Christ and our second allegiance with country is the way to go. I have heard, all to often, from the pulpit that we are to think of ourselves as Christians first and Americans second. I believe this pecking order is an effort to sanctify patriotism and it seems that Brickner adheres to this prioritizing of nationalism. From what he has written, he believes that Israel, despite its lack of faith in Christ, should be a Jewish Democracy, what American born, Israeli activist Jeff Halper calls an ethnocracy--a democracy that is dominated by a particular ethnic group.
Thus, David Brickner would love to see more Israeli Jews come to Christ to show that the nation has repented from unbelief. In contrast to Brickner's position, John Piper christianizes a position that the Jewish Ultra Orthodox group, Neturai Karta (see NK), have. That is that Israel has no right to the land until the Messiah comes. And further reading indicates that Piper is not the nationalist that Brickner is. Here, Piper is seeking to avoid the idolatry that can come with patriotism.
Returning to the rule that we should think of ourselves as Christians first and citizens of a nation second, though lacking Brickners penchant for nationalism, Piper also trips over the same hurdle that Brickner does. The flaw in their thinking is not that we should not consider ourselves Christians first; the difficulty is that we have recognized only two identities rather than three. For not only are we people of a particular faith and citizens of a country, we are all made in the image of God. And if we do not recognize this last identity, we could find ourselves callously killing other image bearers of God for the prosperity and glory of a country.
So instead of seeing ourselves as citizens of another country second behind being believers in Christ, we should see ourselves as Christians first, image bearers of God second, and citizens of a nation third, if that high. Such an order in priorities could reduce the killing of others who are made in the image of God for national pride because such an order strongly ties us to those who live outside of our own borders.
How would this then apply to the Israeli-Palestinian situation? Christians should equally pressure both sides to refrain from attacking and stealing from each other. That is, rather than taking sides based on perceived similarities with one's own country, Christians should act as honest brokers--to do otherwise is to embrace a gang or tribal mentality. This is the only approach that could end the senseless heartbreak and increasing hatred that a reliance on force brings. For when we review recent history, we find that, for both sides, attacking combatants is brutally futile while attacking civilians is highly immoral and criminal. And unlike Brickner's and Piper's point of agreement where they say that one cannot morally equate attacks on civilians, that is attacking Israeli civilians being implied, with defending one's country, attacking Palestinian civilians, the Christian position must oppose reliance on force which has been used as a substitute for trusting in justice.
There is another problem with the discussion between Piper and Brickner. That problem has to do with their description of the Abrahamic Covenant and it applies more to Brickner's position than Piper's. Both leave out a condition for Abraham's descendants inheriting his promise: circumcision (Genesis 17:10). This poses a problem for Christians who read Paul, especially his letter to the Galations because he says a couple of things regarding Abraham. First, Paul declares that it is those who believe in Jesus who are the true descendants of Abraham (Galations 3:6-9, 14-16). And second, Paul states that if a Christian receives circumcision, then one has been severed from Christ (Galations 5:2-4) through whom the blessing of Abraham comes today.
When one interprets the Old Testament passages in the light of the New Testament passages, those who insist on a literal interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant at every point must decide between admitting the Blessing of Abraham mentioned in the Old Testament undergoes significant changes or that one cannot use the same literal hermeneutical principle to the New Testament where it talks about Abraham. Considering that we are suppose to use the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, the latter choice would seem out of place. And if the literal condition of circumcision is no longer a part of the covenant, what other literal components have been changed as well?
Finally, in part three, David Brickner states that the state of Israel arose from the Holocaust. This is partially true but it is more partially false. For Modern Zionism actually started in the 1800s, first in the minds of men, and then through an ever increasing immigration. By the 1800s, Jews came to the realization that despite their own personal pledges of allegiance and good citizenship, they would never be accepted as equals by their fellow European citizens who were also Christians. And there were many times when the rejection of the Jews included horrible persecution and even death. When Jews were accepted and treated as allies, it was only temporary and sometimes during a crisis and their fortunes quickly changed. Christians were simply too scared of the "differences" they perceived between themselves and the Jews to react any other way.
If one strongly objects to the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, as I do, then one must realize that much of the credit for that treatment belongs to the European Christians and their centuries of harsh treatment of the Jews. The Holocaust itself provided an unparalleled zenith for the maltreatment of the Jews.
The above three points are what is so far missing in the discussion between Piper and Brickner regarding Israel and Palestine. One can only hope that these points are addressed in the last part of the series.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Righteously Selfish
Few institutions represent what America is all about like the Free Market. The Free Market can be charitably described as an economic system that relies on man's self-interest alone to control his greed. In other words, we only need to think of what is good for us, this usually involves considering long term consequences, to keep us from going too far. Some might say that the Free Market teaches us that the ONLY way to fight fire is with fire.
The Free Market mentality has permeated much of American culture which puts the Christian in a dilemma. The dilemma is how a Christian controls greed by relying solely on self-interest. Though most Christians recognize the need to pull in the reigns on the wild horse called greed, using self-interest to do so is questionable because it has often been looked at with suspicion and rightfully so. But the Free Market, being an American Icon, gives self-interest a strong endorsement. Thus, the American part of the American Christian is saying let self interest be your guide. And many American Christians have concluded that while greed could destroy them, self-interest can protect and save them by telling them when to say no.
The self-preserving wisdom that comes from self-interest would have to be on guard for two problems caused by greed. The first problem is when what we want is ok, we just want too much. The second problem would be when we want what is bad for us.
No doubt there is a wisdom that comes from an enlightened self-interest. Such wisdom should not be dismissed. It can bring us a better life and thus, it could be beneficial. One could argue that Jesus used self-interest as a motivation for obeying his Word. For example, in Matthew 6:19-21, Jesus tells his followers to lay up treasures in heaven rather than earth because the vulnerability of earthy goods. A little later, Jesus assures his disciples that if they seek God's Kingdom first, God will provide for them.
Though the right self-interest can help, the problem is when we use it as our only guide. When that happens, we turn inward and look outside of ourselves less and less until, because of atrophy, we become blind to the world around us. At the same time, as we think that choosing out of self-interest leads us away from excess or choosing what is wrong, we begin to think of it as righteous. In the end, we have become righteously selfish. Righteous because of what we are not doing and selfish because of our focus.
But is being righteously selfish possible for the Christian? If we look back at Matthew 6:33, Jesus not only tells his followers of God's provision as motivation, he commands them to seek God's Kingdom rather than self-interests. And according to Jesus, all of God's commandments are fulfilled by obeying two of them: you are to love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40). Paul fleshes out an implementation of the latter command when talking about doing things your conscience allows but offends a brother or sister. He basically says to let the welfare of your brother or sister be your guide because we are to live for the Lord (Romans 14).
It doesn't take much reading to realize that the Bible is completely at odds with the notion of letting our self-interest be our only guide. This puts the Bible at odds with America's Free Market mentality. That self-interest is sometimes appealed to does not imply that it can always be appealed to. Rather, love for others and, more importantly, love for God should trump self-interest. This is the kind of love Jesus demonstrated when He died on the cross for us.
But what about society? Should people who live in a society that is based on religious freedom be required to using other criteria besides self-interests when making decisions? That is a tough question but it could also be the wrong question. The more important question is can a society survive where self-interest is the only guide for each person? Considering that there are many important occupations and vital needs where too much attention to self-interest by the participant is counterproductive to performance, a society where every member uses self-interest their only guide will turn against itself. Again, it is not that self-interest should never be a guide for every person; rather, the question is society livable if everyone used self-interest as their only guide. Such a society provides no logical basis for anyone who is discontent to respect the laws of that society. You would then have a messy anarchy where there is less incentive for the disgruntled to respect the rights and property of others.
Conservatives often complain that our country seems to be headed for the abyss because of the values it is abandoning. Perhaps that is not the entire story. When we look at the potential destructive power of a society where each person makes decisions based only on what is good for him or herself, then we might also want to say that America is going downhill because of the values it is holding on to. The values that we have embraced is a staple to the Conservative's diet. We can see how the embracing of the Free Market mentality pushes America downhill by looking at two groups.
One group whose adoption of the Free Market mentality is hurting America consists of those who are comfortably content. Too often, these people live in a bubble world where they remove themselves from the harsh life that the have-nots experience. Because they are not doing anything wrong, they feel quite justified in neglecting those who are in need. Another group who adopts the Free Market mentality that is hurting America are those who are discontent. Those who are not satisfied with what they have can consist of both the haves or the have-nots. People in this group show a lack of concern for the law and for the rights of others as they grab all they can for themselves.
It is time that American Christians look at all of the implications of the Free Market mentality instead of taking it for granted because the Free Market is an established American institution. Many of the ideas inherent in the Free Market mentality stand diametrically opposed to what God has said in the Bible. Therefore, to adopt the Free Market mentality is to have a mindset that leads us away from Jesus.
But even America's society that is based on religious freedom should also start questioning the Free Market mindset. That is not because of the mentioning of self-interests, but it is because a society whose members are only concerned with themselves will eventually destroy itself.
The Free Market mentality has permeated much of American culture which puts the Christian in a dilemma. The dilemma is how a Christian controls greed by relying solely on self-interest. Though most Christians recognize the need to pull in the reigns on the wild horse called greed, using self-interest to do so is questionable because it has often been looked at with suspicion and rightfully so. But the Free Market, being an American Icon, gives self-interest a strong endorsement. Thus, the American part of the American Christian is saying let self interest be your guide. And many American Christians have concluded that while greed could destroy them, self-interest can protect and save them by telling them when to say no.
The self-preserving wisdom that comes from self-interest would have to be on guard for two problems caused by greed. The first problem is when what we want is ok, we just want too much. The second problem would be when we want what is bad for us.
No doubt there is a wisdom that comes from an enlightened self-interest. Such wisdom should not be dismissed. It can bring us a better life and thus, it could be beneficial. One could argue that Jesus used self-interest as a motivation for obeying his Word. For example, in Matthew 6:19-21, Jesus tells his followers to lay up treasures in heaven rather than earth because the vulnerability of earthy goods. A little later, Jesus assures his disciples that if they seek God's Kingdom first, God will provide for them.
Though the right self-interest can help, the problem is when we use it as our only guide. When that happens, we turn inward and look outside of ourselves less and less until, because of atrophy, we become blind to the world around us. At the same time, as we think that choosing out of self-interest leads us away from excess or choosing what is wrong, we begin to think of it as righteous. In the end, we have become righteously selfish. Righteous because of what we are not doing and selfish because of our focus.
But is being righteously selfish possible for the Christian? If we look back at Matthew 6:33, Jesus not only tells his followers of God's provision as motivation, he commands them to seek God's Kingdom rather than self-interests. And according to Jesus, all of God's commandments are fulfilled by obeying two of them: you are to love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-40). Paul fleshes out an implementation of the latter command when talking about doing things your conscience allows but offends a brother or sister. He basically says to let the welfare of your brother or sister be your guide because we are to live for the Lord (Romans 14).
It doesn't take much reading to realize that the Bible is completely at odds with the notion of letting our self-interest be our only guide. This puts the Bible at odds with America's Free Market mentality. That self-interest is sometimes appealed to does not imply that it can always be appealed to. Rather, love for others and, more importantly, love for God should trump self-interest. This is the kind of love Jesus demonstrated when He died on the cross for us.
But what about society? Should people who live in a society that is based on religious freedom be required to using other criteria besides self-interests when making decisions? That is a tough question but it could also be the wrong question. The more important question is can a society survive where self-interest is the only guide for each person? Considering that there are many important occupations and vital needs where too much attention to self-interest by the participant is counterproductive to performance, a society where every member uses self-interest their only guide will turn against itself. Again, it is not that self-interest should never be a guide for every person; rather, the question is society livable if everyone used self-interest as their only guide. Such a society provides no logical basis for anyone who is discontent to respect the laws of that society. You would then have a messy anarchy where there is less incentive for the disgruntled to respect the rights and property of others.
Conservatives often complain that our country seems to be headed for the abyss because of the values it is abandoning. Perhaps that is not the entire story. When we look at the potential destructive power of a society where each person makes decisions based only on what is good for him or herself, then we might also want to say that America is going downhill because of the values it is holding on to. The values that we have embraced is a staple to the Conservative's diet. We can see how the embracing of the Free Market mentality pushes America downhill by looking at two groups.
One group whose adoption of the Free Market mentality is hurting America consists of those who are comfortably content. Too often, these people live in a bubble world where they remove themselves from the harsh life that the have-nots experience. Because they are not doing anything wrong, they feel quite justified in neglecting those who are in need. Another group who adopts the Free Market mentality that is hurting America are those who are discontent. Those who are not satisfied with what they have can consist of both the haves or the have-nots. People in this group show a lack of concern for the law and for the rights of others as they grab all they can for themselves.
It is time that American Christians look at all of the implications of the Free Market mentality instead of taking it for granted because the Free Market is an established American institution. Many of the ideas inherent in the Free Market mentality stand diametrically opposed to what God has said in the Bible. Therefore, to adopt the Free Market mentality is to have a mindset that leads us away from Jesus.
But even America's society that is based on religious freedom should also start questioning the Free Market mindset. That is not because of the mentioning of self-interests, but it is because a society whose members are only concerned with themselves will eventually destroy itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)