... and the firstfruit of religion is emptiness

I like to think of myself as a pretty tolerant person when it comes to my faith ... I see lots of room for diversity in how people relate to God, the ways in which we worship, etc. You don't have to do it my way -- even if you attend my church. As a matter of fact, much of the time we won't do it my way, because I know that what works for me might not work for the people I'm worshiping with. Feel free to worship God in your own way.

But there's a strain of Christianity that I find myself becoming much less tolerant of lately. Throughout my life, I've seen it expressed well. It ruled at the bible college I attended, the churches I used to go to ... in the lives of many, including myself. The following of Christ has been turned into a maze of rules and regulations. Loving Jesus has been reduced to following a set of laws. And my peers and friends have reaped the consequences.

Don't get me wrong ... I know they/you/we meant well. (I am talking about the conservative evangelical/"independent fundamental" tradition) I know the goal was to be the most sincere, most devoted, most right Christians we could be. But somewhere along the line, we got so obsessed with a particular culture (perhaps, ironically, the one ingrained in a certain generation's mind as the ideal time in America's history) that we lost any hope of keeping our faith connected with the rest of our lives. This is probably not as true for my parents' generation, and certainly not for my grandparents. That's because they still had a connection with the culture they were so bent on preserving in the church. But the rest of us were faced with very limited options... we could leave the church, or we could be one person there and another person the rest of the time. Or, we could completely disassociate ourselves with the rest of the world and only function in that highly churched environment.

But it gets worse ... because of the disconnect between the church and the rest of our lives, a whole generation has grown up in these churches with no concept of what it means to have a God who who is relational -- who interacts with them and who loves them and is present in daily lives and who likes rock and roll and loves a good party. Church is a thing people do. God is someone who is out there. Jesus died on the cross for our sins. But it doesn't do anything in our gut, and we're not exactly sure how it ties in with the rest of our lives. And so, this religion of hymns and suits and skirts and good behavior has succeeded not in developing vital spirituality, but in producing a spiritual emptiness in the lives of its children.

I haven't always felt this way ... even after deciding that culture wasn't the place I wanted to be. I knew that different people need to worship in different ways. But now I am pursuing the call God has given me to minister, and I am doing damage control. Thanks be to God that he has given us the chance to make a difference in people's lives, and to pursue true spirituality in community with others. I believe there is life after religion ... and it gives everything that religion ever falsely promised and much, much more. It's found in authentic relationship with God and with each other. And I want it more and more each day.

Schleiermacher in his Hermeneutics & Criticism very importantly distinguishes between a philological reading of the text and a dogmatic reading of the text. The philological reading isolates every text of every writer while the dogmatic reading regards the New Testament as One work of One writer. Importantly, he places these in opposition.

"In the application to the N.T. the philological perspective, which isolates every text of every writer, and the dogmatic perspective, which regards the N.T. as One work of One writer, are opposed" (52, #22).

Now Schleiermacher will go on to posit that these are in a dialectical relationship (mutually dependent although in opposition). He does however say that the philological explanation must precede approaching the N.T. as a whole.

Translation (while running the risk of nuancing and oversimplifying): We cannot lose sight of the individual writers in the New Testament (with all their idiosyncrasies and different 'theologies' if you will) by saying that it is all written by the Holy Spirit in some way. In fact, we must first start with understanding what Paul meant (not just broader theologies, but also individual words) and take that seriously before we broaden out to understanding a general "NT theology". This also seems to play into our understanding of the role of Systematic Theology. Most scholars would agree that if a Systematic Theology is even possible (which many in the non-conservative camp deny) it has to rest on a good grammtico-historical exegesis of the text. In the words of Richard Gaffin, "Systematics rests on good exegesis".

My problem is when these lines are blurred. When we talk of things like a "Two-Adam Christology" in Paul or a Kline-ian reading of the "theophanic glory-cloud" or possibly even an "abeyance of eschatological judgment" found in Genesis 3 (although this is a little different in my mind), how much can we call this reading "Pauline"? When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 did he in fact have in mind a 2-Adam Christology that he was trying to get across to a new and morally immature church in Corinth? I am not in any way denying the validity of such a reading, I am only saying it falls under the realm of a dogmatic reading rather than a philological one and by calling such a system "Pauline" we might be blurring the distinction.

I posted this on my blog earlier this week, what do you guys think? Ultimately, I am beginning to question how it is we go about doing Systematic theology. I can't say that I don't think it's important (since it's how we get things like the Trinity) but I think we might be putting two categories together that need to remain distinct. Any thoughts?

Journey Through Lent (part two) - Silence

Our church is going through this series on transformation. I had the opportunity to teach our college class (i was nervous) this past Sunday. We talked a bit about how it is hard for us to hear the voice of God at times because we are so surrounded by noise. Each of us made commitments to spend a portion of our day this week in silence and I decided to drive to work without the radio.

Its driving me crazy.

And then there's this thought of Lent. Jesus and his journey into the wilderness for 40 days.

So even though Jesus didn't have constant background noise (the TV, radio, electronics and machines, cars...) I can only imagine that over a month of solitude and and silence would be a strain...and yet at the end of it all, the one voice that finally breaks the quiet is the voice of the deceiver...Jesus doesn't even let him speak for long.

I am so addicted to noise. Could it be that I am willing to put up with the voice of the deceiver because I am so desperate to break the silence...when I could wait on the still, small voice of the God?

Journey through Lent (part one) - Motivations

Why do you worship? What makes you come to church week after week, makes you read your Bible – why do we tithe, serve in the church, sing, spend a regular time in prayer?

During the life of Jesus there were three major issues in the life of a religious Jew; alms (giving to the synagogue and to the poor), prayer, and fasting.
Jesus talks about hypocrites (literally, actors) who walk around bragging when they give money or they do good for people. He says, “Don’t be like them, blowing a trumpet in the synagogue or in the street.” He’s using a figure of speech (its actually where we get the phrase “toot your own horn”). He may have even been talking about these trumpet-shaped chests (called shofar-chests) where money for the poor was collected. The point is: Don’t be like these religious people – they are only showing off – for man. They are doing right things, but for wrong reasons.

Next he talks about prayer. Pious Jews prayed at set times in the morning, afternoon, and evening. Sometimes they would stop what they were doing, wherever they were, and begin to pray – even loudly. Jesus says that they have their reward – kind of threatening, if you ask me.
Instead Jesus says to pray quietly, privately. (He’s not against public prayer, He did so himself) but Jesus calls them to go into their closets. Now the average 1st century person didn’t have a closet for clothes like we do now, and most of them didn’t even have private rooms. The word used for closets may refer to a storeroom, like one used for grain. It may even allude to this tradition of praying with your head tucked into a prayer shawl – your closet…Jesus is using metaphor and the point is that Jesus is instructing his disciples to pray to the Father (which is in secret) - not to pray to be rewarded by men. Prayer is good. They are doing right things, but for wrong reasons.


Next Jesus talks about fasting. And that’s what this day reminds us of. On Ash Wednesday we remember the wilderness fast of Jesus. It begins the 40 day period of Lent, which is a time of fasting…And Jesus says when you fast…don’t be a hypocrite.
Originally there was only one day of fasting required by the law. But later throughout the Bible more and more days were added. By the time of Jesus shows up some very religious Jews fasted twice a week, usually Monday and Thursday to mark Moses' trip up Mt. Sinai.
Jesus says don’t be like them, instead of putting ashes on your head and dressing in burlap sackcloth he told them to anoint their heads (similar to putting on perfume) and to look joyful. They were to enjoy life. He echos Solomon:

Ecc 9:7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
Ecc 9:8 Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.

Its not that fasting was wrong. But fasting is an inward dedication, one that is between you and God. They were doing right things, but for wrong reasons.

So why do you worship? Why are you serving, helping, singing, praying, reading the Bible? Is it because you want people to see you? Do you want people to think you are a good person? Are you trying to prove to yourself that you are a good? Or is it because we love God?

Here we are

This will be the blog (at least for now) of the Octagon Table.