Soteriology Is Lame
April 28, 2010
I was asked to write a five paragraph reflection on whether or not I am a “Calvinist” or an “Arminian.” As is my wont, my answer avoided the question, mostly because I do not care and I am a rubbish Systematic Theologian.
In our increasingly pluralized world, it’s important to step back occasionally and ask just what it is that makes us Christian. Debates over the precise role of God versus the individual in salvation are important and historic but also decidedly, “in-house” matters. They are reflections that most often take place after salvation, by Christians who are attempting to explain “what has happened” rather than, “how to make something happen.” This is not to say that the conversation isn’t important, but it is to recognize that the distinctions between Calvinism or Arminianism no longer function the same way as they did in the centuries following the the Reformation nor even during the previous century.
With that said, I believe prolonged reflection and emphasis on the grace aspect of salvation will and should become a central tenant of any Christian conversation about Soteriology—especially when this discussion involves non-Christians. In some sense this represents a “back to basics” approach but it should not mean that our theological reflection should thus become elementary. Rather, I believe the discussion of Grace—an aspect of Salvation that all Christians can gather around—can serve the Church, not only in ecumenical dialogue but also in the Gospel we hope to represent to the twenty-first century world.
First, in our own context, I believe that authentic Grace is ironically one of the hardest theological concepts for modern Americans to accept. This is not because we have trouble believing in a benevolent God, but because it has been ingrained into our consciousness that anything of value has a cost—often quite expensive—and that as Americans, our primary function is to earn and consume. However, historic Christian teaching tells us that Grace is neither something that can be achieved by “pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps” nor something that can be consumed, improved nor marketed. Grace is a gift—an undeserved one. In a society that often uses so-called “gifts” as a gimmick for selling something else, it can be difficult for us to accept a gift from God without waiting for some strings to be attached. These strings come in many forms—getting all of our doctrinal ducks in a row, practicing impeccable personal moral discipline or perhaps having an appropriately “tolerant” attitude towards this or that group. But the fact is, no matter how right or beneficial these ideas may be, they are not a requirement of salvation. We may look at them as additional gifts if we wish, but they can never stand in for THE gift..the BIG one…Grace.
Second, in an increasingly post-Christian context, Grace is a concept not often associated with Christian history. The reality is that many young people in our country grew up nominally or even anti-Christian and this group stands to increase for the foreseeable future. Rightly or wrongly, the dominant post-colonial interpretation of Western History associates Christianity with much of what is seen as the worst facets of Western culture including materialism, colonialism, patriarchy, fundamentalism and hypocrisy. There are a host of complexities that make this interpretation debatable but the cold fact is that this is the popular perception of the bulk of Christianity. We need only turn on the TV to see this confirmed.
Grace however, can change these attitudes. I believe that a Christian who is fully aware of the Grace that he or she has received lives in a radically different posture that is observable by others. If this person is a Christian, they challenge popular stereotypes in a fashion that is unavoidably admirable. The Gospel steps in when we acknowledge that what is being admired is not human effort but the grace of God. An individual who lives gracefully is an anomaly. A community who lives thus is a curiosity. But a movement that does so is magnetic.
Upcoming Reviews
April 27, 2010
In the coming months I am set to come good on review books that have been sent my way. By no means do I hope to overwhelm you the readers with an excessive and unnecessary slew of reviews but all the books I requested I think are pretty swell and I hope that you will be encouraged to look into some of them at least. After this I will return to a more moderate pace of reviews of around 2-4 per month.
From Westminster John Knox I’ve Kevin Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine and George Lindbeck’s justly famous “The Nature of Doctrine.” I’m hoping to have a couple posts that go off of these two concerning possibilities for evangelism, catechesis and unity in light of their work.
From Baker Academic I’ve received the next two books in the “Church and Postmodern Culture” series; the one by John Caputo and the other by Carl Raschke. This series is ending up slightly different than I expected so they should be interesting reviews. Also I received a great volume edited by James K A Smith and James H Olthuis entitled “Radical Orthodoxy and the Reformed Tradition: Creation, Covenant and Participation.”
I will bring this book into conversation with the next two books that Routledge sent me, namely their soon to be released introduction to Radical Orthodoxy and the accompanying Reader which I already have. I will likely use these three books to perhaps explain a bit more what Radical Orthodoxy, conceived broadly, is and how I hope to work within friendly reach of its program.
Eerdmans also sent me a couple both from last year and from this upcoming batch of new releases. Two books by new prominent Pauline scholars, Michael Gorman’s “Inhabiting the Cruciform God” and Douglas Campbell’s absolutely massive “The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul.” Finally I’ve received the first in what will eventually constitute a three volume collection of essays by now Pope then theologian Joseph Ratzinger comprised mostly of work done for the journal Communio. This volume deals with issues related to Church Unity and I’ve found it a stellar and quick read.
So there you have it, look forward to these coming soon!
Which Comes First, the Religio-Ethical Chicken, or the Geo-Political Egg: An Inner Dialogue
April 22, 2010
What follows is a sort of dialogue with myself. In italics you will find the words of James the citizen of the United States, and in bold (because it’s more important) you’ll find the words of James the citizen of the Kingdom of God. This is not an attempt, of course, to speak definitively the words of the Kingdom, or even the proper opinions of a US citizen, rather this is a first attempt to disambiguate for myself where my opinions are coming from, and what foundation they ultimately have.
One of the things I am trying to work out here is whether my citizenship in the Kingdom of God actually determines my behavior as a citizen of the US, or whether it is the other way around. I am working off the premise that my committment to the Christian tradition and Christian ethics SHOULD determine my behavior always and in every way, and that any allegiance to a place, or that places’ history, culture and politics is ONLY important as much as it lines up with my commitment to Christ (A more controversial corollary is that all the things that make up the citizenship of any earthly kingdom SHOULD be held with a certain amount of detachment, if not suspicion by citizens of God’s Kingdom).
Again,
Italics= James, Citizen of the United States
Bold= James, Citizen of the Kingdom of God
– — – — –
I can think of two reasons why I am interested in politics and engaged in political discourse. 1. Self-interest. 2. I honestly believe that following Jesus demands I speak out and act for and against certain social issues that inevitably have a political element.
If anyone wants to be a member of the Kingdom of God, they must die to self.
President Bush was one of the worst presidents of all time. Far from breaking with Bush’s flawed and misguided (if not evil and totally corrupt) administration, the Obama administration seems to be a continuation of it. The warmongering continues. The torturing continues. The wholesale disregard of the common good for the sake of profit and power continues. In fact, the essence of the American presidency hasn’t fundamentally changed since…well, maybe it never has: democrat, republican, or whig, Catholic, or Protestant, the President of the United States has presided over atrocity after atrocity: the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment, the Atomic Bomb, wars or covert actions in the following places: Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia, El Salvador, Mexico again (I’m talking about NAFTA), many other Central and South American countries, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, now Yemen, maybe Iran…and those are just the ones off the top of my head.
Christians are not to put their trust in earthly rulers, but in God alone. Christians do not believe in revenge. Christians do not believe that overcoming evil with evil is even possible, much less pleasing to God.
I almost sympathize with the Tea Party crowd. I say almost, because, if they are successful, they are going to put into place leaders whose moral compass will not be fundamentally different than either Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or…Nixon… or Roosevelt (take your pick)…or Jackson…or Jefferson…or…
I do not believe that any of these men had the best of interest of EVERY member of their country in mind when they made the most important and far-reaching decisions of the terms. I believe every one of them put power and money before the common good when making many history altering decisions.
There are ultimately several other reasons why I don’t quite line up with the Tea Party crowd.
In I Samuel 8, God warns the Israelites that if they get a king he will not have the common good of the people in mind. Even the best Israelite kings commit atrocities.
I, like the conservative faction of the US, am not a big fan of the healthcare bill as a matter of principle. However, to call it socialism is ridiculous and confusing (I am suspicious and at some level, somewhere, someone desires this confusion). The bill that creates billions of dollars in debt so that the government can subsidize millions of private insurance policies, thus enriching the very companies the politicians claim they want to change, is the essence of FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM, par excellence (to borrow Zizek’s favorite way of saying things).
Our government is not seeking and has never sought to bring capital and the means of production under its control. On the contrary, Capital has been in the process of bringing our government under control since the Industrial Revolution.
Jesus came and in direct defiance of Caesar Augustus claimed to be the Son of God. His early followers defied the empire by refusing to worship the emperor, and instead giving Jesus titles that by decree were only to be used by the Roman ruler: Prince of Peace, King of Kings, Lord of Lords.
You cannot serve both God and Money.
I, like the majority of the conservative faction of the US, claim to take a PRO-LIFE ethical stance. However, pro-life means more to me than anti-abortion. I feel like you have to be pro-ALL-LIFE in order to use the term without becoming a hypocrite.
The Tea Party loses credibility when they a) complain about the national debt, then b) claim to be pro-life, then c) support war efforts that are costing our country 3 TRILLION dollars.
Jesus says, ”Love your enemy.”
I recognize that under secular political philosophy dating back to the Greeks, a government by definition has the right and the power to violently punish crime, and violently protect its own interest.
Paul recognizes the “power of the sword” in Romans 13. But, how can a Christian honestly adhere to the injunctions of Romans 12–do not take revenge, overcome evil by doing good, live at peace with all people, etc.–and still participate in earthly governments as described in Romans 13?
I’m not a Republican, or Democrat, or Independent, or a Libertarian. I am a Distributivistic, Anarcho-Liber-Agrarian Localist.
My association with Christ and His Church is really the only one that matters. I desire to follow Jesus in the world, awaiting His return to reconcile all Creation to Himself. I suck at it.
– — – — –
Discussion questions:
1. Do my religious views, including my hermeneutic(s), determine my political philosophy or is it the other way around?
2. How would one go about determining which comes first political views or religious ones?
3. How are my political views in my self-interest?
4. How are my religious views in my self-interest?
5. Whatever else anyone wants to ask or comment on.
Should Christians Own Bars? Now, What About Restaurants?
April 20, 2010
I had a rather lively discussion with some friends at work today. There was certainly a diverse group. There were RC’s, Jerry Falwell ”Liberty Way” types, American Baptists, Episcopalians, Non-denoms; so, it seems like all persuasions were present. Somehow, the topic of Christians or churches owning and running bars came up during lunchtime conversation. The standard arguments were made for and against the consumption of alcohol, but the fulcrum of the conversation remained stubbornly on whether it was morally right for Christians to run establishments that served alcohol. The line of reasoning that prevailed was the existence of a biblical injunction not to cause one’s Christian brother or sister to stumble. If a Christian should not live life in a manner that provides an opportunity for others to sin, they reasoned, then it was morally impossible for a Christian to own and run a bar.
I was thinking about the basis of their argument, and it seemed fair. Sure, the number of people who responsibly use alcohol vastly outnumber those that abuse it, but look at the trouble that those who abuse alcohol are actually causing for themselves and others. If you’re unsure about the costly nature of alcohol abuse check out an article from the Mayo Clinic, here. In fact, it is the general practice of the American Medical Association to recommend abstinence from alcohol, though some claim their “research” is biased and unscientific, here. The point for me, however, was not to argue the minutiae of whether a Christian can drink responsibly. The issue that stuck in my mind was that I think it is a fair argument to say that a Christian should not serve alcohol to those that abuse it.
Then a thought, an elaboration of the principle they hoped to employ in their argument, struck me. If it is unethical for a Christian to serve alcohol to an addict, is it also unethical for a Christian to serve huge portions of unhealthy, over-priced food to an addict? Should Christians own restaurants?
Think about it. Is there any longer any doubt that obesity has far surpassed alcoholism as a health epidemic? The Mayo Clinic has this to say about the obesity epidemic, here. The CDC names heart disease as the greatest contributing factor to death in the US, here. The American Heart Association says that obesity is one of the major contributing factors to heart disease, here. So, is it ethical, in the midst of a nationwide obesity epidemic (see this), for a Christian to own a restaurant?
Let the fight begin.
Heretics and Their Beers: I
April 16, 2010
“For the time will come when they will not endure soundly crafted beer; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves imitations, having itching mouths;
And they shall turn away their tongues from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables, light beers and illusions.”
Every generation it seems needs an Athanasius. Not least in these evil times. There are a great many false beers about, deceiving the faithful and keeping them from coming into his glorious light, which is not light in that evil sense, but rather the Truth in golden, red, brown or black. The problem with heresy, like the beers that heretics drink, is that often times there is a significant overlap with true orthodoxy. But all it takes is a turn to the left or the right and fire will be their destination, for their god is their belly.
But fear not. We Theophiliacs are a Voice calling in the Wilderness. Behold, the axe is at the foot of the 12 pack, and any malted beverage that does not show good fruit will be chopped down. If you drink any of these beers, Repent! For the kingdom of God is at hand!
Arius was by some accounts, a bit of a conservative. Having the support of large swaths of the Church at various points it has been written that this falling away from the catholic doctrine was so pervasive that there was a time about which St. Jerome would say,”the Church awoke to discover that it had become Arian.”
Similarly, Newcastle Brown Ale has assumed such a wide audience that it is difficult not to find it at any moderately reputable bar and liquor store. One the surface of it, Newcastle does not appear a heretical beer. ”How can a beer this brown be heretical? Surely all damnable beers are light?” But it is not so. The brown color is a veil, underneath which is a pasteurized and negligibly mediocre beer. It has no complexity, no nuance, no identifiable traits to set it apart from other beers in this category. This is of course the allure of heresy, it is always clothed with reference to the true and good.
Be not deceived! Look for these other Brown Ales and be reconciled with the Church.
- Surly Bender (and Surly Coffee Bender) – A fruity, dry, surprisingly hoppy and thoroughly original Brown Ale. From the Twin Cities’ best brewery.
- Rogue Hazelnut Brown Nectar – Classic West Coast Brewery offers what many think is the greatest brown ever. Widely available
- Indian Brown Ale from Dogfish Head Craft Brewery – Wild and original combination of a Scotch Ale and an IPA
- See also this post.
Resurrecting Christian Imagination
April 15, 2010
www.brickartist.com/
Flobots – Stand Up
April 13, 2010
I have been listening to this album for a couple of years now, and I enjoy our music discussion – but have not heard much discussion about this genre. The flobots (a six man group from Denver) are what I would call “social justice hip hop.” They abandon the typical subject matter found in the hip hop culture for a more poignant (sometimes visceral) cultural critique. It seems like a prophetic voice is rising out of our metropolitan areas.
Here are the lyrics to the song that I have found myself listening to over and over again over the last several days.
Stand up
We shall not be moved
Except By a child with no socks and shoes
If you’ve got more to give then you’ve got to prove
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
Stand up We shall not be moved
Except by a woman dying from a loss of food
If you’ve got more to give then you’ve got to prove
Put your hands up and I’ll copy youWe still don’t understand thunder and lightning
Flash back to when we didn’t fund the dam
Didn’t fund the dam levee? No wonder man
Now our whole damn city’s torn asunder man
Under water but we still don’t understand
We see hurricane spills overrun the land
Through gaps you couldn’t fill with a 100 tons of sand
No we still don’t understand
We’ve seen planes in the windows of buildings crumbled in
We’ve seen flames send the chills through London
And we’ve sent planes to kill them and some of them were children
But still we crumbling the building
Underfunded but we still don’t understand
Under God but we kill like the son of Sam
But if you feel like I feel like about the son of man
We will overcomeSo Stand up
We shall not be moved
Except By a child with no socks and shoes
If you’ve got more to give then you’ve got to prove
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
Stand up We shall not be moved
Except by a woman dying from a loss of food
If you’ve got more to give then you’ve got to prove
Put your hands up and I’ll copy youI said Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
If you’ve got more to give then you’ve got to prove
Put your hands up and I’ll copy youWe shall not be moved
Except By a child with no socks and shoes
Except by a woman dying from a loss of food
Except by a freedom fighter bleeding on a cross for you
We shall not be moved
Except by a system thats rotten through
Neglecting the victims and ordering the cops to shoot
High treason now we need to prosecuteSo Stand up
We shall not be moved
And we won’t fight a war for fossil fuel
Its times like this that you want to plot a coup
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
So Stand up
We shall not be moved
Unless were taking a route we have not pursued
So if you’ve got a dream and a lot to do
Put your hands up and I’ll copy youI said Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
if you’ve got a dream and a lot to do
Put your hands upNow shake, shake
A Polaroid dream
nightmare negatives develop on the screen
We sit back and wait for the government team
Criticize they but who the fuck are we
The people want peace but the leaders want war
Our neighbors don’t speak, peek through the front door
House representatives preach “stay the course”
Time for a leap of faith
Once MorePut your hands up high if you haven’t abandoned
Hope that the pen strokes stronger than the cannon
Balls to the wall, Nose to the grindstone
My interrogation techniques leave your mind blown
So Place your bets lets speak to the enemy
Don’t let em pretend that we seek blood
And who’s we anyways Kemo Sabe?
Mighty warlord wanna-be street thug
a threat for a threat leaves the whole world terrified
blow for blow never settles the score
word for word is time need clarify
We the people did not want warSo Stand up
We shall not be moved
Except By a child with no socks and shoes
If you’ve got more to give then you’ve got to prove
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
Unless were taking a route we have not pursued
So if you’ve got a dream and a lot to do
Put your hands up and I’ll copy youI said Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
Put your hands up and I’ll copy you
if you’ve got a dream and a lot to do
Put your hands up
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
