Job: Some intial thoughts.

I have struggled with theodicy my whole life and so I thought it would be wise to take Job Exegesis this quarter with Butler, an amazing Job scholar, and delve into the Hebrew text.  I am currently writing my exegetical paper on Job 1:6-12, which is the dialogue between the accuser and Yahweh that sets the stage for the rest of the book.  I just wanted to share some of my initial reactions and see if anyone has any thoughts or comments on them.

First, this is a horrible book to bring to people who are actually suffering.  DO NOT USE THIS BOOK TO COMFORT PEOPLE. The reason this book is, itself, “a miserable comforter” is the fact that it is not a biblical manual on pastoral care for those going through grief, loss, death and dying.  It is a book that wrestles with very difficult questions regarding theodicy, faith, and when traditional righteousness breaks down.  As such it is not best read in the midst of tragedy.

Second, the beliefs concerning Satan in Job show an earlier understanding of the Devil.  Today popular notions of the Devil run the gamut from the Devil in Dante’s inferno who is chewing on betrayers in the lowest center of Hell to the red-skinned, horned devil in Southpark who has a homosexual relationship with Saddam Hussein.  The notion of a spiritual “prince of darkness” is a much later development of the concept of Satan and the Satan depicted in Job does not match the description of Satan presented in 1st Peter.

Here in Job, Satan is presented as a servant of God doing his job.  Satan’s role is to be an accuser, and like a district attorney, this is not inherently evil or ultimately against YHWH.  There is much evidence to suggest the concept of Satan in here is actually modeled after secret police in the Persian empire. (More about this in my paper).  Their job was to observe, test and report back on the loyalties and activities of the king’s satraps (local governors).

Later developments of the concept of Satan seem to come from tradition more than they do from scripture.  By the time of the New Testament Satan is a figure that has risen as an evil adversary to God, not a loyal servant.  Satan is not co-equal with God.  I fear that the importance of the Devil was and has been over-exaggerated to avoid wrestling with theodicy.  If something good happens, it is God’s providence and loving nature.  If something bad happens, it’s a spiritual attack from the Devil.  Even if this is all true the Devil still ultimately is under the authority of God, and if Job is correct, God could prevent Devil from taking any malicious action.  So why doesn’t He?

Third, Job admits that traditional righteousness and the retributive principle (good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people) breaks down.  In this, the Bible essentially admits other parts of the Bible are wrong.  Dueteronomy 28-29, and similar passages, are not always true, according to Job.  While they may be truisms, they are not promises. Job’s real innocence is presented by the narrator and affirmed by God himself; there is not some secret sin Job is being punished for.  The evil that befalls Job is ultimately “for no reason.”  Shit just happens.

Let me be clear: the Bible is saying that faith is not a talisman that will ward off tragedy. Christians are just as exposed, vulnerable and unprotected against tragedy as any human being on this planet.  Our relationship with Jesus Christ offers no protection or guarantee against cancer, disease, addiction, divorce, betrayal, accident, etc.  Just as the Lord sends rain on the just and the unjust (blessing and prospering both the Good and the Evil) so God also sends (or allows, or permits, or fails-to-prevent-from-happening) calamity on both the just and the unjust.  When was the last time you heard this being talked about in Church?

Any thoughts so far?

More to come.

Posted in Class or Paper Take Away | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Recovery Journal: Learned Helplessness and the Theology of the Abused (Part 1)

Part 1: My identity is not in Christ, it is in Seligman’s dogs.

During my Introduction to Psychology class at Pasadena City College we covered something briefly that I think was very impactful for my life and I’m sure my future work with abuse survivors and addicts.  It helped me understand better my struggle with faith, my struggle with many teachings of the Church and even the words of the Bible.

In discussing proper psychological experimentation, control groups, placebos and such Dr. Kiotas used the work of Martin Seligman as an example. As she explained it Seligman put dogs in one control group in inescapable cages and applied electrical shocks to their feet.  Eventually the dogs, realizing they could not escape to pain, simply lied down and whimpered.  Faced with uncontrollable pain they gave up and accepted their situation.

A new group of dogs were brought into the experiment and both groups of dogs were tested in the same way only this time it was possible for both groups to escape their cages.  Dogs from the second group quickly escaped their cages without exception.  They easily saw the means of escape and took it. However, the dogs who had previously learned they could not escape the shocks in the first experiment simply laid down and whimpered again, even though the cages themselves were visibly different.

Then the two groups of dogs were tested in sight of each other.  The belief was that the easy escape of some dogs would show the dogs who were subjected to the inescapable cages that they could escape as well. Seligman found that only 30% of the time did the escape of the previously untested dogs provide enough of a precedent for the dogs who had learned to be helpless to attempt and succeed at their own escape.

This all lead Seligman to pioneer the concept of “learned helplessness,” a condition in “which a human being or an animal has learned to behave helplessly, even when the opportunity is restored for it to help avoid an unpleasant or harmful circumstance to which it has been subjected.” Seligman came to suggest that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from this condition which arises from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation or the violence and/or pain one is suffering.

When Dr. Kiotas was explaining the experiment I strongly identified with the dogs that were shocked in the inescapable cages.  While it might sound odd that I would identify with a bunch of laboratory dogs, I too was subjected to a lot of pain I could not escape.  As a young child I had absolutely no chance of escaping my home or my arthritic body. Like many abuse survivors I was completely dependent on my abusers, had no financial resources to leave, and no place to go. No one helped.  God did not respond after literally years of prayer.

There appeared to be only one way to escape this situation and stop the pain and that was suicide, which was a very real option at times. Every time I drive through the intersection of Dragoo Park Drive and Sylvan I am reminded of a time when I was about to drive my car into oncoming traffic hoping that a driver’s side impact would kill me and conceal my suicide.

While I am here, I would like to say I hate it when people suggest that suicide is a selfish thing to do.  I think only people who have never been faced with the cold reality that not living might be better than living can say such a thing.  It doesn’t even make sense when you think about it. Self-annihilation is quite the opposite of selfishness.

However, I ultimately decided against suicide and to cope with my situation I accepted both physical and emotional pain as inescapable. Like Seligman’s dogs I lied down and accepted the pain. Life, I told myself, was just always going to be this hard.  And why not?  As a result of the abuse that went on into the home I had come to believe I was a bad and worthless person, and bad and worthless people probably deserve a life like this.

This learned helplessness has had a crippling effect on my life over the years. While there is certainly some pain that is inescapable, like my arthritis, I have wrongfully perceived every painful circumstance as inescapable.  As such, I have failed to make decisions and take action to work my way out of hard places or mitigate painful experiences. Failing to make normal rational decisions to leave painful relationships or situations behind has led to self-destruction, self-sabotage, and even self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand I have not endured inescapable tragedy that strikes us all trusting that such things will only last a season. Instead I have seen such tragedies as the way it will always be for me.

Sadly, I have always had a high view of God’s sovereignty and agency in this world. That meant that I understood many painful experiences as a punishment from God.  After all, if such painful experiences were not caused by Him, why would He not intervene? Doesn’t God work out all things for the good of those who love Him? (I must not love him enough.)  Doesn’t He have plans to prosper me and not to harm me but give me a hope and a future? (Apparently these promises are for other Christians.) Isn’t He close to the broken-hearted? (Do I really want the God who broke my heart to be close to me? And when and where is this comfort ever going to come.)

Realizing this about myself in a deep way and more importantly, realizing this was a result of things beyond my control that I was subjected to, has had a huge impact on me that I am still sorting out.

Just recently my struggle with faith had come up again.  In the midst of heading to Modesto to confront my parents well meaning friends had promised to pray for the upcoming conversation.  I accepted their offers but quietly acknowledged I expected absolutely no help from God in this matter and was not praying about it myself.  I did not believe that God was going to intervene and supernaturally impact my though processes, those of my parents, or the situation as a whole for the better.  Why would He?  And if God was going to do so now, where had He been when the abuse was going down?  If He was going to answer these prayers, why had He not answered or even responded to countless other prayers of mine?

Whenever I struggle like this, I inevitably feel like it is a reflection on my worth as a person.  I have seen many other Christians go through much deeper trials and maintain their faith. I must be a “Doubting Thomas” that Jesus would rebuke, or a Christian who fails to believe in what I cannot see. Very rarely I am directly told this by other Christians. The conclusion I come to, usually on my own, is that I am a weak or “bad” Christian. This over the years has ultimately only served to reinforce my belief that I am a bad and worthless person.

However, as I mulled over learned helplessness in the five hour drive home, I started to ease up on myself. I saw that just as it would be ridiculous for cancer patients to be mad at themselves for not being able to run a marathon while going through chemo treatment, so it is likewise ridiculous to be mad at myself, a child abuse survivor, for struggling with faith. My struggle with faith is the struggle all abuse survivors. We have to try and make sense of an allegedly loving and powerful God and our experiences in this life. And who can easily see and know a loving God through a lens of personal terrors, some of which cannot even be articulated?

We read the same scriptures other Christians do, but with a host of life experiences they do not. We may experience the very same hardship another Christian goes through, but a Christian coming from a more stable home with “good enough” parents might have a wealth of positive experiences of God to draw from.  From these experiences their faith can eventually, if not immediately, absorb tragedy as a trial or one-time exception to the general rule of God being loving and caring. We, on the other hand, do not have access to a wealth of such experiences to balance the scales in favor of a loving God.  A very reliable pattern of terrible experiences teaches us to expect the worst from life and far from being an exception, hardship is the rule. To declare God as loving we either have to suspend all of our experiences from our estimation of God’s character or have a lot of new experiences with this loving God. While it may be easy for some to suggest that our experience of God should not inform our theology this is essentially tantamount to denial and I believe a shallow caricature of faith. The first option sounds like denial and one cannot force the second.  If God is not going to act, or you are too wounded to see God acting on your behalf, it’s just not going to happen.  In the words of one of my peers, “I need God to do a miracle.”

Not only do we have a harder time seeing a loving God but sometimes we are outright enraged and incensed at Him. If we were spiritual at the time of the abuse or come to faith later we are often more angry at God for not intervening than the actual abusers themselves. Abused persons are often more angry at those they perceive as having been powerful enough to have stopped the abuse but did not.  If God is as powerful as He says He is, certainly He could have stopped the abuse.  So why didn’t He?  Where was the God that was ever-present in the time of trouble when all this heinous stuff was going down?  While this might look like a classic struggle with theodicy, it is, in my opinion a different ball-game.  It is a struggle with theodicy that is highly personal, pervasive and tinted with trauma and one that usually starts very early.  This is not a well-adjusted thirty year old person dealing with the unexpected death of their child in a car accident in the midst of a caring Christian community.  This is a vulnerable child struggling to see a loving God in the midst of abuse that happened in the past, exists in the present, and shows no sign of stopping. The question might be the same but the players are very different.

From this very bleak place we have to try and find our way to a loving God and this is very difficult if not impossible for some.  It is not abnormal but normal for such persons to struggle to attain and maintain to any relationship with Christ.  In fact, I would be highly suspicious of anyone who came from such a background and professed to have easily believed in a loving God and never to doubted His benevolence.

This realization that my struggle with faith is a natural and obvious by-product of my woundedness, not a sign of weakness or a defect in my person, was very freeing and I would hope other abused persons would “get this” as well. This of course launched me into thinking about how this has impacted my relationship to other Christians, the Church, and Christian theology and teaching.  But I will address that in a second post.

 

Posted in Recovery Journal | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Confronting my abusers.

This last weekend I went home and I confronted my abusers, which sadly means for me I had a very difficult conversation with my parents.

I grew up in a dysfunctional and abusive home.  Verbal, emotional, and even physical abuse and threats of violence were relatively normal in my “Christian” home. As my brother and I were talking about it earlier this summer anger was the most common emotion expressed in my home.  Both of my parents unloaded their stress on their three children.  My mother used me in particular for their emotional comfort and I was triangulated with her and my father as she tried to work out her marriage difficulties with me.  I think of the three siblings I took it the hardest. My mother focused on me as the youngest, a child with a genetic defect, and a willing accomplice in that I took to my role rather quickly assuming responsibility for her emotions. I was also the youngest of the children and have always been very sensitive. This abuse and the chaos of my home, and God’s apparent indifference as evidenced by his inaction, is the primary source of my deep wounds.

Complicating this has been the fact that these deep wounds were never ever addressed.  My family enforced a code of silence in a variety of implicit and explicit ways and we, the children in the family, were never allowed to talk about our experiences in the home. When I talked about this with my sister she talked about how we were pitted against one another.  I remember I could join my mother in her condemnation of my brother or my sister and as a “reward” would escape her accusations and scrutiny at least for the moment. It was not until college that I began talking to my siblings about what went on in the home.  This combination of abuse and secrecy left me in a place where I was not really in denial about how bad it was in my home; the Big Lie that we were a loving Christian family was so pervasive I had actually come to believe those lies were true. Consequently I was perpetually searching for healing for a wound I denied was even there. This lead to self-destruction in chasing after solutions that were not solutions and addictions. Even at my recovery testimony I gave at Celebrate Recovery, a healing place of catharsis and honesty, I said that I came from a loving Christian home…and at the time I believed it.

During my Pastoral Care and Abuse class last year I again recognized the insanity of my home as I had many times before but for some reason I was at the place to start dealing with it.  I was away from home, I had made progress in my recovery, I was in a loving and caring relationship and my heart said it was time.

Over the last several months I have been dealing with this in counseling and to a lesser extent, at Sex Addicts Anonymous, coming to grips with the nature and extent of the damage done by my parents and how this has subtly dictated my life.  When you are this wounded you just live from your wounds.

Over Christmas I spent time with my family for three weeks in the Philippines seeing all the behaviors, subtle manipulations, and character defects of my family up-close and personal away from all of my support groups and friends.  I dealt with this by “turtling” into myself and my resentments, as I had many times before.

My father did not seem to notice and I realized we don’t really speak at all so he did not see anything out of the ordinary.  Most of my friends were shocked when I reported that for ten days I said a total of about five sentences. Normally people can’t get me to shut up. My mother is more sensitive and knew something was wrong.  Since I came back to Pasadena my mother had been after me to talk about what is wrong. However, I could no longer respond to my parents because in responding to their questions I would be honest, and they did not want to hear what I had to say.  I decided to  take the easy route and I simply did not respond to any texts, calls, or emails for the last three months.  My parents started to get manipulative to get me to talk to them and I felt I needed to do something but feared the outcome.

Then I became frustrated with an acquaintance who talked of wanting reconciliation with me but did not take any action towards that end. I quickly calmed myself, reminded myself that I was dealing with a human being, and with the gifts of the Twelve Steps I was able to reflect this question onto myself. I instantly saw that I behaved in the same way with my parents.  I professed that I wanted a new relationship with them, that I wanted reconciliation, but I was not taking the actions I needed to.

So I decided to confront my parents and be honest with them over break. When I got home It was very tempting to just let things slide and play along with my parents when I went home but I asked to talk with them and sat them down.  Then I proceeded to talk about the things that happened in our family that we’d buried for the last twenty years.  I cannot communicate how difficult this conversation was, but it was good.

From my father, I received the closest thing I am going to get from him by way of an apology.  He, in his own way, acknowledged that he had done certain things that I was expressing had deeply hurt me.  One shocking thing was that he revealed he believed that what had happened in our home was “normal” for families and marriages…and I could see he was entirely sincere. I had to explain to my father, “No Dad, screaming at the top of your lungs that your children are pieces of shit and then hitting them is not normal.” I have known for some time that my father grew up in a screwed up home situation, the aftereffects of can be seen throughout my father’s side of the family, but this reality really sunk in for me when I saw his sincerity. Because of the home that he was raised in my father truly believed what happened in our home was “normal.”  I think this, more than anything, will help me to have grace and compassion on my father and his behavior in our home.

My mother, however, blamed, deflected, and minimized what I talked about.  She blamed everyone from me, my counselor, my father, to smaller things such as the amount of activities I was involved in, for my pain.  She never accepted responsibility for anything or truly heard me, she was too busy defending her own actions.  She in fact rather quickly attacked me, and my fellow siblings, for not staying closer to home and not having a relationship with her that her nieces and nephews do with her sisters. If anything constructive came of this conversation with her is that I have seen her character defects and underlying assumptions with more clarity.  While this does not excuse her behavior I see why she did what she did and also have a better understanding of what needs to change before I have a restored relationship with her, what boundaries need to be established, and where I need to assert myself (for the first time?) as an equitable human being in our relationship, not just something that exists to serve or validate her.

For me this conversation has opened up my ability to talk about what is really going on with me if and when my parents contact me and also increased freedom for my siblings to talk about these issues amongst ourselves and with our parents.  Early on in my recovery I “killed” the Golden Boy image I had been maintaining for years by introducing myself to non-recovery peers as I did in CR very publicly.  Taking a mic and saying “Hi, my name is Kevin and I am grateful believer who struggles with sexual addiction” in front of 150 Christian young adults freed me to talk about my recovery and my addiction and this newfound freedom has been incredibly healing for me.

I hope in the coming months the same will be true for me and my family though I know this is just a beginning.

 

Posted in Recovery Journal | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

Dear David Canon: Atonement theories have never fed the poor.

Dear David Canon,

First off, thank you for your kind words.  While it is self-evident that I am the most wonderful of all the Gonzagas here at Fuller, it is always nice to be reminded.

Second, I apologize for starting this conversation several days before I had to bury myself in the library to finish final papers and finals. I would have responded to you sooner had this not been the case.

Third, I wanted to clarify some points and respond to some of your question.

In regards to the issue of experience influencing one’s practical theology…

You wrote, “…I don’t believe that experience should be the most formative element of a person’s ‘practical theology.’…”

I am not saying that a person’s experience should inform their theology more than any teaching. I am suggesting one’s experience inherently does regardless of if we want it to or not.

I think it is impossible to completely divorce our experiences in this life from our practical theology. At the very least it has been impossible for me.  This came up at the recent Hauerwas lecture where a student asked him how his experience (of being married to a mentally ill woman for many years) impacted his theology.  Haurewas was perturbed by this question, as were many seminarians who “got” his Barthian theology, because Haurweas believes that one’s theology should not be formed by one’s experience.  To him, and other the question was not applicable.

On one hand I agree with this notion.  The theology revealed in scripture does not change with our experiences in this life. As such, orthodox Christian theology that all Christians should seek to bring their practical theology in line with does not change.  Ever. Our experience does not change what is written in the Bible.

However, I think separating our practical theology from our experience is impossible.  While my experience in this life does not change what is written in scripture it will highly impact how I understand it, what scriptures I give weight, or if I even belief what Scriptures says. I have not met any titans of faith, who like Job, after major tragedy simply say, “The Lord gives and the Lord takes away…blessed by the name of the Lord,” presumably showing that despite the circumstances of his life changing God was exactly the same and worthy of praise.  Most people question the God of revelation through their experience in this world, and in terms of forming one’s practical theology I think the latter often wins out.

To be clear I am not saying this should be the case, I am suggesting this is the case regardless of if we want it to be or not.

Think about it. If a friend constantly said, “I am trustworthy” but kept breaking their promises eventually you would stop believing them. I have been, and I have encountered many people, who say they ascribe to some virtue but live completely differently. In this we are judged as hypocrites regardless of our statements.  If revelation declares that God loves us, cares for us, answers prayer, etc. and yet we experience a God who appears indifferent or even against us, unconcerned with our plight, and silent in response to prayer, is it reasonable to think that one’s practical theology will stay in line with the teaching of revelation?  I think not.

On the Bible teaching theology…

“Christian theology in its purest form, I think, is simply making sense of the theology in the Bible. Contrary to what some people think, the Bible actually teaches theology…”

I would agree.  Revelation provides what God says about God and for Christians this means this is how we are to understand God.

On settling theological differences…

You wrote, “Theology is not settled in the way you imply.”

I am curious, what did you think I was implying?

On using good theology to correct bad theology…

“Lots of people believe bad theology! What a terrible situation, Kevin. There’s quite a lot at stake here. But what better weapon do we have against bad theology other than good theology, founded on scripture and informed by tradition and communal discernment?”

On one hand I agree with you.  Much of what I have written could be termed “theology” and I do believe that in some cases people’s practical beliefs must be brought in line with good teaching…that in turn comes from theology that is, “founded on scripture and informed by tradition and communal discernment.” This seems especially true with new believers who are unfamiliar with basic Christian beliefs.  To use a whimsical example, if a Christian came to believe they were a previously unknown fourth person in the Trinity, they would need to be taught the error of their ways from scripture and tradition.  And again, the only way to understand scripture and tradition is to in some way engage in theology.

However, I would suggest this is often not enough to bring one’s practical theology in line with orthodox Christian theology revealed in the Bible. If someone suffers a painful tragedy and comes to believe that God is not good, we cannot simply point them to verses that talk about God being loving or near the brokenhearted.  I personally would want to really search out how people got to their practical theologies that were so different from what is made plain in scripture and Church tradition and come along side them as they wrestle with their experience.

To use an example of what I am talking about…how many Protestants would profess with their mouth that their works do nothing to contribute to their salvation, but then turn around and work thinking their Christian behavior directly controls God’s attitude towards them and consequently compulsively engage in ministry as a result? How many Protestants approach devotional time as a work, thinking if they do it for one hour a day they are close to God and He love them, and when they forget or fail to set aside time for the Lord, God is mad at them? For how many of our peers at Fuller is this true?  The answer lies not just in teaching them justification by faith…again…which they may already believe in…but exploring how they got to this practical theology in the first place.

On the nature of schism…

You wrote, “…We must humbly and selflessly bring theology to bear against bad theology (whether it be too obsure, etc.) which begets schism, bitterness, and sin in the church!”

I do not think “bad theology” causes schisms because this is just a contextual label that means nothing.  “Bad theology” versus “Good theology” often coined by the victors and used by one theological camp to label an opposed theological camp. One cannot say “bad theology” causes schisms because one camp’s bad theology is another camp’s deeply cherished orthodoxy.

I have argued previously that obscure theology is the source of schisms.  On further reflection I have come to realize that I believe that it is truly how we handle competing views on what the Bible says about a given doctrine that is the source of schisms.  Rarely have Christians approached maintaining orthodoxy in humility and sometimes one is called to fight against false teachers.  Jesus, Paul, and others are not so meek and mild when confronting false teachers and false teachings, however I fear that often systematic theologies become a list of “right beliefs” that are used more to exclude outsiders than they are to maintain orthodoxy. During the Reformation everyone seemed quite comfortable with executing heretics, meaning people who did not share their systematic theologies, even though there was widespread consensus on a lot of the basics of the faith.  Burning people alive at the stake was not exactly correcting “bad theology” with “good theology.”

Systematic theologies, concerned with many things beyond the basics of the faith, often become a means by which we learn who is not “one of us.” In this systematic theologies just become a new set of purity laws by which one knows whom to welcome and whom to condemn, exclude and hate. But I am moving too far into my next answer so let’s move forward…

On the nature of my claim that theology is useless…

“So why say ‘theology is useless’ if you agree that Jesus and the apostles teach theology, and that we should affirm the creeds? That’s a rather sweeping statement, and I suppose that you were going for edginess. Why not say ‘bad theology is destructive’ or ‘theology is useless if its distant from or warps scripture and tradition,’ or something of the sort. Why the edgy, Kevin?”

From my initial post I created divisions between practical theology, declared theology, orthodox theology, and obscure theology for a reason.  I think the last is the theology that is useless.  If you ignore these categories, you ignore my whole argument.

To reiterate: I do not think all theology is useless, I think obscure theology is useless if not detrimental. I think people’s practical theology is important because that is what motivates their life.  I think declared theology is important in that it is what they teach and espouse to others.  I think orthodox theology in scriptures is important because it is the theology we are supposed to declare and live from.

However, I absolutely detest, loathe and hate obscure theology. Obscure theology is theology that is usually extrapolated from a small section of verses in the Bible, such theologies really serve no function in this world, change no one’s faith, do not change how anyone lives in this world, do not help anyone.

To use an example let’s take atonement theories. I am about to in respond to another post and engage in a discussion regarding atonement theories.  There is support for a variety of understandings regarding exactly how atonement works.  But regardless of which answer is “right” (or if there is even a “right” understanding of the atonement) no atonement theory really changes anything.  Neither Christus victor nor penal substitution has ever put food in the mouths of the hungry or motivated anyone I know of to take action in this world.  Neither satisfaction nor divine love have comforted the bereaved or motivated anyone I know to comfort the bereaved.  Furthermore, the whole discussion of atonement theories completely misses if not obscures the point.  In pondering the “how” of salvation we miss the Who in salvation.  I think the real issues at stake is “Is forgiveness and salvation possible, and if so by what or whom is it gained?”

While obscure theologies serve no purpose and are as such a complete waste of time, resources, education, and effort, they sadly do not often remain neutral. Many obscure theologyes are promoted as central to the Gospel and/or become part of a larger set of doctrines to divide the Bride of Christ into warring factions.

To use another example, the addition of the filioque clause in the Creeds by a non-ecumenical council in Toledo was discovered and several hundred years later was one of the reasons the Eastern and Western Churches split.  The belief that the Holy Spirit came from God the Father or both God the Father and Jesus the Son, was one of the reasons the Eastern Orthodox Church went its own way.  This is a complete tragedy in my opinion.  I do not think single or double procession actually changes anyone’s faith, feeds the poor, or clothes the naked but the debate over single or double procession provided theological grounds for a monumental schism of the Church several centuries before the Reformation.

I refer to it as obscure theology because the labels of “bad” and “good” are too contextual (as I have previously argued) and obscure theology might be in one tradition a core tenant and could hardly be called something too distant from scripture or tradition.

More to the reason I am so adamant about this issue is that I fear that much of what is engaged in in our own context would fall under this category.  In the Library I regularly see loads of dissertations and in my own research have seen literally hundreds of books and writings from past and current Fuller graduates and things that are being and have been used to educate Fuller students.  Much of this I fear fails to ever have any application or implication for how Christians live in this world.  Is this how we should be spending our time?  Should we be discussing the beliefs of dead Europeans had regarding half merits and full merits when the world is on fire with pain ans suffering and our Churches appear to be in an appalling state of apostasy?  How many of our peers pursue obscure theology to attain a degree so that they can eventually teach other students the same? I fear that many of our graduate programs at Fuller are essentially perpetual motion machines that are based on and produce an unending amount of obscure theology. Have we just created a system that fails to ever connect with the real world beyond the limits of our own microcosm?

Posted in Letters between friends | 3 Comments

Letters Between Friends: Dear Kevin (From David Cannon)

Dearest Kevin, most wonderful of the Gonzagas,
Thank you for the very kind words man, and also for finding a wife for me. That’s so nice of you.

I really enjoyed your letter, and largely agree with you. I’m simply and befuddlingly amazed at the compelling nature of your argument! Everyone that believes in a god does have some sort of theology, though I don’t believe that experience should be the most formative element of a person’s “practical theology.” Its widely known that many teenagers (and adults!) call themselves Christian but instead affirm a “moralistic therapeutic deism,” which is what their culture and their own hearts basically teach them to believe. That’s what we get when experience is the foundation of our theology… and that’s bad! I think we both can agree on that.

Christian theology in its purest form, I think, is simply making sense of the theology in the Bible. Contrary to what some people think, the Bible actually teaches theology. Jesus didn’t simply give us moral exhortations, he also teaches that “I am in the Father and the Father is in me…” Well now, Jesus said that for a reason. Jesus didn’t simply speak these words to the disciples because he needed some filler material between exorcisms. And what about the Olivet Discourse, where he cryptically describes how he’ll return in power in glory? What of Christ’s statement: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Jesus and his apostles didn’t simply teach us what to do, but what to believe and how to think. The ancient ecumenical councils and the creeds sought to make sense of these some biblical statements, and it seems that we both know that they hit a lot of nails on the head.

A lot of people, however, don’t think so. Even leaving aside heretical groups and classical liberals, the creeds even get put down for being quaint bits of contextual theology even at Fuller, “platonic” (what a versatile and popular slander that is!) treatises that bear no relevance to us today. Theology is not settled in the way you imply. We all should be of one mind as we are commanded, of course, but we all make mistakes in our understanding of the teachings of the Holy Spirit, and many teachers are destructive. There are wolves among the sheep!

Both of us and the reformers agree that the scholastic theologians taught some doctrines that were destructive. The problem is that people believe this bad theology, whatever you want to call it. Lots of people believe bad theology! What a terrible situation, Kevin. There’s quite a lot at stake here. But what better weapon do we have against bad theology other than good theology, founded on scripture and informed by tradition and communal discernment? C.S. Lewis said that philosophy is useful at the very least for combating bad philosophy, and the same can be said about the utility of theology. We must humbly and selflessly bring theology to bear against bad theology (whether it be too obsure, etc.) which begets schism, bitterness, and sin in the church!

So why say “theology is useless” if you agree that Jesus and the apostles teach theology, and that we should affirm the creeds? That’s a rather sweeping statement, and I suppose that you were going for edginess. Why not say “bad theology is destructive” or “theology is useless if its distant from or warps scripture and tradition,” or something of the sort. Why the edgy, Kevin?

 

Posted in Letters between friends | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why do we believe…God is not a threat? (Rob Bell and Luther)

Recently Dr. Thompson made some amazing comments in a class on Luther that sparked a lot of thoughts in my head and a number of conversations with friends.  Recently, Rob Bell has been accused of universalism stemming from previews of his book and this video.

In this video Rob Bell appears to think that it is not true, or a ridiculous notion, that Jesus saves us from God.

Given my recent class and some additional searching of the scriptures for myself, I do not think this is the case.

To begin with what Dr. Thompson said…

Dr. Thompson presented that Luther did not believe in a detached theology that was highly speculative, Luther’s theology was highly invested because what is at stake for Luther is no less urgent than this: “How can I survive in the presence of God.”

Luther was concerned with surviving in God’s presence because not everyone does. The sons of Aaron who offered strange fire before the Lord did not.  Uzzah who caught the ark when David was bringing it back to Jerusalem did not. Isaiah, when he found he was in the presence of the Lord, seemed to share Luther’s terror.  Simply put, not everyone survives when they get too close too the Holy of Holies.

This is why Luther’s work was not marked by a concern for sanctification (if one was making real progress towards real holiness in this life).  Luther was far more concerned with justification because that is a fancy word for the real question Luther was trying to answer: “Why doesn’t the Holy God destroy me, a sinner?”

For Luther, God was a threat.  The puzzle of theology was figuring out how one survived this threat.

Dr. Thompson admitted that talking about God in this way, where God is a threat to sinners because He is holy and cannot and will not tolerate sin, is not popular for our culture.  Rob Bell is one of a gigantic list of Christian leaders who want to minimize, ignore, or downplay God’s justice and wrath because people want a “buddy-God.”

Thompson argued pursuing this “toy-God” is not scriptural and costs us dearly. God is merciful and loving but also just and holy.  We can’t just take whatever traits of God appeal to us and conveniently forget the parts of the Bible that offend us.  To the point of what it has cost us we have traded away the terror that can come from the presence of the living God but in doing so do so we are left with a lesser sense of joy, a lesser sense of God, a lesser sense of rootedness in the divine character. Without knowing the full threat God poses we cannot know the fully joy at having been forgiven and escaping this threat unscathed.

Now more to my thoughts that were sparked by this discussion…

I believe that catering to this “toy-God” is not scriptural. This toy-god it is not a complete picture of who God says He is in the Bible.  Christians are very uncomfortable with the concept of God intentionally doing harm to humans but we need to get over this.

The Bible is filled with violent imagery and history where God is the perpetrator. If one reads the Bible one will be confronted with a God who kills many of His own creatures. The Floodthe instance where God seeks the life of Moses (like a “terrifying night demon” to steal phrase from Michael Coogan) the the killing of Egyptian first-born, the killing of disobedient Israelites in the desert, the destruction of Canaanites in the taking of the Holy Land, the bloody establishment of the Davidic monarchy, the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles, etc. etc.

Either directly or through human agents God has killed countless human beings, both those in and outside of Israel and even those in and outside the Church. In pursuit of a “toy God” who is only safe, loving and merciful, we have to expel, ignore, or explain away a lot of who God says He is. This is a very dangerous and unfaithful pursuit for Christians to practice. We need to seek to understand these passages and the violent, wrathful, just and holy aspects of God’s character or we open the Bible up to numerous abuses.

Furthermore, I think Luther is right.  God is a threat. To illustrate this point I want to use a line from the common hymn Come Thou Fount…

“Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood

I was singing this in the shower when I was pondering through this issue. And it made me ask the question, “God interposed Jesus’ precious blood…between what? Between whom?” I believe God did, in his lovingkindness, His mercy and His love for humanity interposed Jesus’ precious blood between ourselves and Himself, to rescue us from His holiness.

Let me deal with two comments I already anticipate.

First, we are not saved from Satan.  Polytheism has it easy when it comes to theodicy.  When something bad happens a polytheist can blame a bad God or a bad spirit.  In monotheistic religions we have to wrestle with there is no other culprit for evil. Christians have historically blamed the Fall, other humans, or the work of Satan to avoid the concept that God might wish some humans ill (you know…like He does in the Bible).  I dare say that for some Christians they have raised up Satan to be another God, to blame all the bad things on.  This is not, biblically speaking, orthodox.  Satan serves God and if Satan has any dominion in this world or the next it is through the express permission of God.  Satan, is like Gabriel, not another god equal to God.

Second, some might suggest we are saved from the just punishment of our sins.  My question is who determines what is a sin and that people deserve to be condemned to Hell and/or destruction for sins?  The answer is God, a holy, awesome and just God.

As sinners we face face a holy God that cannot be escaped in this life or when we die and face Him.  For Jesus’ followers, Jesus’ blood is interposed between God’s absolute and unchanging just and righteous character and our sins.  God’s vision of us is stained with the blood of His Son who took our punishment in Himself and is our righteousness.  This is how we can be in the presence of a Holy God: we are counted as righteous and holy through the blood of Jesus.

Jesus’ sacrifice did not change God’s just nature, God did not switch from a holy and terrible God to a safe neutered one that was loving towards all at the Cross.  The cross is how God’s just demands as a holy God become satisfied in us, even as we are sinners.

Speaking of God in this way, where God is holy, terrible and awesome, is not popular in our culture or in our churches.   We want a buddy God who is safe.  We want a God who is forgiving and merciful.  Some conjure this up and take it to the extreme where God is a like a senile benevolent force who just wants to make sure everyone has a good time in their life.  Others scale it back a bit and just focus, almost exclusively, on the forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ and certain versebites from the Bible such as, “God is love.”

The first option, for me, is much less of a threat because it is so clearly non-biblical and represents a universalism that it is easily seen by many.  The second option is far more common, far more subtle and something I want to bring out more.  But I shall leave that for another post.

What is at stake for luther is no less urgent than this – “How can I survive in the presence of God” – not everyone does.

-Sons of Aaron who offered strange fire

-Uzzah who caught the ark when david brought it over (trying to do a good deed)

-Not everyone survives when they get too close to the holy of holies

Posted in Why do we believe... | Tagged , , , | 11 Comments

Letters Between Friends: Dear David Cannon

To those of you know do not know David Cannon here is quick fact sheet:

David Cannon hails from Idaho.  He is a Calvinist/Reformed theologian. He went to Whitworth with a large group of people who also attend Fuller.  He is single and we are looking for a suitable wife for him. He is very nice and patient and has a great sense of humor.  He is also a good friend of mine who I met before I began at Fuller and who has consistently and patiently pushed back on my extreme statements which are either intentionally provocative to push the envelope or come from a place of stupidity and ignorance.

Dear David,

I have recently begun to be more open with my incredibly low view of theology and said things like, “theology is useless.”  On this point you have disagreed with me and I received your permission to write you this letter on my blog to go deeper in our discussion.  I would like to here clearly explain my position and what I mean by “theology,” to whom it is useless, and why it is useless.  Then maybe you can help me understand where I am wrong or help me make some positive connections between said “theology” and the rest of the world.

But first I want to make plain some of my assumptions and get clear on my terminology.

First, I believe everyone, even an atheist, has a basic theology about God and the spiritual realm that drives their actions in this world.  I call these beliefs “theology” because anything said or believed about God can be referred to as theology; so even the atheist who says, “God does not exist” believes something about God and has a theology.  I think people do exactly what they believe and how one conceptualizes the spiritual realm, God, and our eternal destination as human beings undoubtedly influences how people act in this word.  However, surprisingly I have found that this theology for most people is unstated and not clearly defined, but is nonetheless very real.  For the sake of clarity I will call this theology, inherent to all people, “practical theology.”

Second, I believe most people’s practical theology is primarily from their experiences in this world, which may or may not include some type of formal religion, or direct religious teaching.  I believe life experiences are far more influential and formative in establishing a person’s beliefs than formal religious teaching.

Third, this practical theology may or may not be in-line with one’s formal or declared theology.  By “declared theology” I mean what a person says they believe, mentally assent to, or what doctrinal statements they would sign to and agree with.  What one says one believes is often not what one “really” believes as displayed by ones actions.  In my experience people’s practical theology, which they truly live from, is only partially in line with their declared theology.  Often private fears or un-articulated beliefs about God compromises a large part of a person’s actual beliefs.  But more about this later.

With those basic assumptions and beliefs made plain let’s move a little closer to our discussion…

I think to be a faithful Christian what is required to know about God, salvation, justification, humanity, creation, etc. is revealed in scripture.  Read in humility, and guided by basic Church tradition (such as the Apostle’s Creed), I believe the Bible is readily comprehensible to most people.  From the Bible Christians can and should know orthodox Christian theology and it should be the goal of any Christian to bring both their declared and practical theology in line with what God has chosen to be revealed in the Bible.  If a Christian’s declared theology is not formed by the scriptures they teach heresy.  If a Christian’s practical theology is not formed by the scriptures they will perpetually struggle to live in line with the Bible.  People simply cannot act against their beliefs and values which I would suggest are to be primarily located in one’s practical theology.

From everything I have said above, one might wonder how I could ever say, “theology is useless.”  Truth be told I think that practical theology is incredibly important.  It shapes how we live in this world and how we experience the divine.  To a lesser extent I think even one’s declared theology is important, if only for the practical implication of that this is what they will espouse to others, their children, their fellow Christians, etc. and it will in some cases dictate how they will interact with other Christians.

The theology that I think is useless is what I will for simplicity sake refer to as “obscure theology.”  I am tempted to call it “high theology” as some tend to do but this would implicitly suggest that it is a “smarter” or “better” or “higher” theology or a theology for “smarter”, “better,” or “higher” people.  Nothing could be further from the truth. I would suggest there are three kinds of obscure theology.

The first kind of obscure theology as theology that is over-concerned with what is clear and plain in revelation. To use an example…in the class that made me want to dis-enroll from seminary this came up with a force.  The Scholastic theologians were spending countless hours (decades?) arguing over what a person could do to please God.  In describing half-merits, and full-merits and what a person could do that was good in the sight of God I was bashing my head against a table.  First, it is incredibly presumptuous for any human to tell other humans what pleases God.  Second, and more to my point, it seems abundantly clear that there are things people do that please God and God has made very direct explicit statements about this in scripture such as, “For I (God) desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6) It seems like if God tells us what He wants and does not want form humanity continuously and clearly throughout the Bible and it seems a colossal waste of time to ask if we can do things that can please God and what these things are.

The second kind of obscure theology is theology that seeks to answer or claims to have answered questions that are, by God’s wisdom, intentionally not revealed in scripture; this type of theology seeks to go beyond what we need or are meant to know. To explain my position on this point more I will use your dearly loved Calvin. (Forgive me if I have misread or misunderstood him.  In his Insititutes it is clear the Jean Calvin is concerned with the limits of revelation and human knowledge.  Whatever is in scripture was put their by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of Christians.  As such, if Christians gloss over, ignore, or diminish what is in scripture, we are committing a gross error.  On the other side, and more to my point, Calvin also believed that certain things about God are not revealed to us in scripture and it is impious, improper, and quite dangerous for human minds to search after what God has decided to keep hidden.  I agree with Calvin.  Yet some theologians have spent years and lifetimes squeezing meaning out of scraps of Greek or Hebrew grammar to provide the “biblical” answer to a question the Bible does not answer clearly.  This is, as Calvin suggests, impious and dangerous.

The third kind of obscure theology is theology that has no discernible pastoral or practical use or function. When faced with the question, “Does this change anything?” or “So what?” such theology is silent in response.  In my estimation of Christian history, theology with no purpose or implication does not remain neutral but has  tendency to get used to the detriment of the Church.

These categories are not mutually exclusive and it is quite possible for any given theology to be a mix of the above three categories.

It is this obscure theology that I think is useless.

In fact I would say such theology has almost exclusively been detrimental to the Church.  Basic Christian orthodoxy was settled centuries ago in the councils.  As Christians have spent more time investigating minute aspects of scripture and delving too deeply into secondary or tertiary doctrines, obscure theology began proliferate and this was not without consequences. I fear it is obscure theology that has most fragmented the Church.  The standard narrative is this: some obscure theology gets promoted as a core belief of Christianity, an obscure theology turns an area of freedom into a new Law, an obscure theology turns a vice into a virtue, etc.  The confused Church becomes the Church divided and we end up with decades of intra-Christian religious wars, a post-Christian Europe, and 30,000+ different Protestant denominations, many of whom think they are the “one true Church.”

While I could probably continue on I think this is enough for now and hope this has given you a better understanding of my argument.  I eagerly await either your correction, insights, or simple befuddled amazement at the compelling nature of  my argument.

-Kevin

Posted in Letters between friends | 1 Comment

Letters Between Friends: Intro

Throughout most of my life, most of my learning has happened outside the classroom and in discussions with friends.  When I was in ministry this was in learning groups, when I was undergrad and back at seminary, it is now often with classmates as we go over assignments and talk through our ideas.  In an effort to have some fun, push some of my friends, and deal with questions more directly I wanted to start up a new series, Letters Between Friends.  I will post a “letter” to a friend and when they get me their response I will post that as well.  While this is a bit of a glorified comment hopefully it will be fun and educational. First up…David Cannon

Posted in Letters between friends | Leave a comment

What it’s like to have Juvenile Arthritis…

I am incredibly open about my life with the exception of one significant area.  For whatever reason I rarely talk about my arthritis.  When it comes up people are usually surprised. In an effort to talk about it more and process its impact on my life I wanted to write at least one post on what it has been like so far to grow up with it and how it is impacting my life now.

I started experiencing pain in my ankles when I was six.  I continued to have pain which that was misdiagnosed as one thing or another, the most common one simply being growing pains, for the next two years.  When I was eight however my pinky toe swelled up twice its size.  We initially feared it was broken, or that my baseball cleats were too tight. The doctors did blood work in case it was something else…arthritis was brought up as an extremely remote possibility.

Two weeks later I was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, a form of juvenile arthritis.

Arthritis can be caused from a variety of reasons, but one of them is an auto-immune disease that is genetic.  People who are carriers for this genetic defect obviously have it from birth but it usually does not develop until much later in life.  Juvenile arthritis, for whatever reason, sets in early.  It is possible that the reason it set in early for me was as a psychosomatic response to the abuse that was happening in my home during this time, but there’s no way to know for sure.

My particular kind of arthritis is common to young adult males, but it usually sets in after adolescence.  It normally causes pain primarily in the lower back, though mine started in the ankles, and knees before finally making its way up to my lower back.  While it is not nearly as painful or aggressive as other types of arthritis there is one huge danger: bone fusion.  If I do not maintain my mobility there is a very real danger that my joints will fuse together.  This has already happened to some degree in my spine and the X-rays of my upper back do not show clearly separated spinal joints but a “carrot stick” looking single piece of bone that represents the permanent loss of mobility. Once this has set in, there is no remedy for it.  In a double-bind of sorts I have to continue to exercise, stretch, and flex joints that are painful to do so, or permanently lose mobility in them.  As the bodies natural reflex is to shy away from pain I have to very intentionally do this, and I am very bad at disciplining myself to do so.  If have developed a sort of unconscious tick in that I often flex or rotate my neck and back in an attempt to counteract the effects of this stiffness.

As a young child my diagnosis was very difficult for me to comprehend and understand.  It really rocked my faith and I started to significantly struggle with theodicy at a very young age.  I retreated from everything, especially anything physical, as a result of my diagnosis.  After an arthritis conference my mother informed me of the message of one of the speakers who encouraged arthritic youth to accept their limitations and adjust their lives.  I subsequently quit all my sports, not because they were too physically difficult for me but because I thought that this was “accepting my limitations.” 

On the playground growing up I was slower than other kids, never ran as fast, jumped as high, or competed as well.  I was not the last pick for sports teams but I became riddled with self doubt.  Did I suck at these games because I sucked at these games or because of my arthritis?  If the playing field was level, and I didn’t have arthritis, how would I really measure up to my peers?  I dealt with these fears and insecurities by never fully applying myself, so that I could always say, “Well if I really tried…I would have won…” I also latched onto the belief that no matter who you are or what you are doing, there is always someone better than you.  Since this time, I have never been that competitive, if I ever was in the first place.

I also felt incredibly isolated and different from every other child.  I had an “old person’s” disease and this led to extreme feelings of “otherness”. I was already retreating from relationships and living inwardly in a fantasy world to avoid the abuse in my family and this only further encouraged that behavior.  It is no surprise I so readily adopted the role of Lost Child in my family and hid from the world and people in videogames, books, and my fantasy world.

I began to take medicine twice a day for my pain but this had side effects. It was very rough on my stomach and I had to routinely get blood tests done to monitor how my body was accepting the medication and my kidneys were not being damaged.  While initially I cried a lot when I was having a needle put into my arm I quickly got used to it and to this day have absolutely no problem with needles or injections.  I remember once taking pride in the fact that I could swallow my pills whole, without them being crushed up in yogurt.  It really saddens me to think that this is what I had to be proud about as a young child.

Even with all this the pain was managed, not eliminated.  The pain ebbed and flowed.  In extreme situations, where a variety of factors compounded one another, I would be in so much pain I could not move effectively or even sleep.  I toss and turn a lot in my sleep to try to find a comfortable position but usually this doesn’t prevent me from sleeping.

I had routine check ups at the local hospital and would twice a year have to go to UCSF to visit arthritis specialists.  In retrospect these were the worst parts of having juvenile arthritis.  While I understand their intentions were good and my doctors were there to help me, I would be brought into a room, have a doctor visit and then have several interns come in.  While this was part of their training as pediatricians and/or rhuematologists, their poking and proding, and the sheer number of them made me feel like a lab rat and a space alien.

In middle school I developed an eye condition called iritis (uveitis). 20% of the people with my arthritis have this eye-condition and I am one of them.  I have had several bouts of irits in both eyes over the years and this has subsequently diminished my vision.  I am also now totally insensitive to bright lights being shone in my eyes as I got used to the routine eye-examines where this is the only way they can look into your eye to see what is going on.

When I became passionate about joining the military I realized very quickly my arthritis would prevent me from enlisting but I persistently pursued this path.  When I got back into sports in high school and began to exercise more I found I could do things that other people did, it just required more of me.  I remember breaking an 8:00 minute mile for the first time in my life in high school and feeling like this (sorry, just needed to throw some humor in).  Point being I realized that I could do a lot more physical things than I thought I could, and I had been limiting myself needlessly. During this time I did not have a great sense of my physical limitations and in many ways was attempt to escape my arthritis through extreme physical performance.  I lied to myself saying that, “If I could just perform ‘enough’ the military might overlook my arthritis.” I really tried to push myself physically too far, often to the breaking point. The line between physical exercise and self-harm became incredibly blurred and often I would exercise not despite the pain but because of the pain.  At one time I threw away all of my arthritis medicine and continued to exercise as I had before.  Eventually I let go of my plans to join the military and came back to a more sane attitude towards my body.

After college I had a flare up of iritis that went over a year long during the Bad Old Days and I developed Glaucoma as a result.  The surgery to solve this Glaucoma after trying everything else was a rock-bottom for me in my struggle with faith, and part of what opened me up to attending Celebrate Recovery.  While the surgery went well I have nerve damage in my left eye that is not correctable and I will have to have more eye surgeries in the future.

Currently I am incredibly blessed.  While I did not go into the military I did return to sports and become more physically active in general and am lucky to be so active.  Most people with my arthritis are in incredible pain.  There are kids who are in wheelchairs not because their legs do not work, but because the pain of walking is so great.  I am able to run 5k’s and am not really limited in my physical activity beyond the pain that I have to work through.  I have developed an incredibly high pain tolerance over the years from dealing with chronic pain and can push through the minor aches and pains I need to to stay active.  Currently I am on a new medicine that I inject twice twice a month.  It is some serious science fiction medicine that will hopefully actively fight against the bone fusion which is my greatest fear, though it comes with some incredibly extreme but incredibly rare side effects…like leukemia.  So far everything has been fine and my pain has been well managed.

I do not talk about these issues that much for two main reasons.  First of all, my physical health can be a source of despair for me.  In some ways I feel fated to slowly losing more and more of my body to my arthritis and my vision to my iritis.  While I know many people have body issues and lose their vision, it’s more the sense of knowing that gets me. Medical check-ups for me are not times where I get treated and get healthy, its where I found out how bad it is going to be or if I dodged a bullet…for the time being.

Second, to some degree, after twenty years of chronic pain, I have come to peace with my arthritis.  Sometime in high school I accepted that God would not heal my arthritis, no matter how hard I prayed, who annointed me with oil, or the quality of my faith.  I believe I will struggle with my health issues until the day that I die and that is okay.  The question and complaint of, “Why me!?” has very recently been replaced with the question of, “Why not me?” We are not promised perfect physical health in this life, and God does not miraculously cure every disease for every Christian, but we are promised bodies in the Resurrection that will not know pain, disease or death.

Overall things are okay. While at times I am starkly reminded of my situation and in the moment this can be overwhelming emotionally, I am increasingly comfortable within my own skin and accepting of myself and even the difficulties I’ve had along the way.

Posted in Personal Commentary | 8 Comments

Why do we believe…church attendance should be directly related to if and how we are getting our needs met?

I have written about how I believe that many Western Christians are functioning at some level of syncretism.  Instead of understanding the Gospel and critiquing culture from this understanding we have left our culture unexamined (even the places where it is incompatible with the Gospel) and try to hold both in hand, at times assuming the whole mess is actually the Gospel.  To illustrate this point futher I want to take a deeper look at how many approach Church attendance.

Many Western Christians have uncritcially adopted Western values, even mistaking them for biblical ones, and our attitudes towards the local Church attendance reflect this.  Deeply marked by the individualism and consumerism in our culture we often go where we “get fed.” We do not gravitate towards where we are called or where we might be of service, but where we get ours.  I am not saying people should go to a church where they have no connection or are totally uncomfortable or disagree with the theology but when people switch congregations like they do outfits, something is wrong.   We treat the Body of Christ as something that should service our needs, not something to be a part of and in relationship to that will equip us for the work of services. (Eph 4:11)

This perpetual search for the newest and best Christian products from a Sunday service and local congregation, which is especially clear when people are looking for a new church, often leads to transient church membership.  People leave to another Church at the first experiences of discomfort, displeasure or discipline.  This in turn leads to  abysmally low levels of discipleship.  We are in relationship to no one, submit to no authority and can quit easily if and when we are made in the slightest bit comfortable, say by church discipline.  This is probably why the iChurch is filled with people like me. We self-report as Christians on questionairres and live ridiculously non-Christian and hypocritical lives – and no one from the Church stops us.

Speakfaitfhully Public Service Announcement:  Let me spell out very explicitly what this looks like in real congregations to put some teeth to my point.

Big Valley Grace Church – http://www.bigvalleygrace.org

Shelter Cove – www.cometosheltercove.com

Redeemer – www.theredeemerchurch.com

Calvary Chapel – http://www.ccmodesto.com

Calvary Temple – http://www.ctwc.com

First Baptist – http://www.fbcmodesto.com

As someone who is a young adult who grew up in the church culture in Modesto, CA, and has worked extensively with young adults and in and for churches and ministries in Modesto I feel I should make you all aware of something…

You are totally and completely interchangeable with one another to the young adults in Modesto.

Our attendance at your church, which probably started by a segments of a clique from a high school youth group checking out your “new thing”, is now totally dependent on your ability to continually entertain us. Our continued attendance is performance based and superficial.  If you currently have a high attendance of young adults, you better keep it up and never drop the ball.  Also be aware that we are probably involved in, serving at, or considering one or more of the other major churches in the area.  Instead of investing in our local congregation, we take the best of what’s avaialbe…a little worship at this church, a little teaching at this church, and a little community at another church.  If you are experiencing or have experienced an exodus from your young adult ministries, you most likely made some change that somehow did not sit with our preferences or the preferences of one of our friends.  But do not worry.  Give it about 3-5 years and we will be on to the next congregation(s) and/or young adult ministry, the next fad place to attend, where the preaching is relevant, you have paid enough attention to Christian cultural trends, the girls dress nice, and the guys are hot, which could very well be your congregation once again.

With that last statement I will no doubt offend many in Modesto, both young adults and pastors who are denial about their assumptions regarding church, or see the issues as far more complicated than that.  While I know not every decision to switch churches is selfish and this is a simplification of very serious issues that have arisen within the churches in Modesto, I will stand by my belief that the transient young adult church attendance is driven more by consumerism and individualism, values inherent to Western culture, than they are by any other factor.

Posted in Why do we believe... | Tagged , , | 4 Comments