Can someone please tell me why the anti-Trinitarian heretics of the Swedenborgian Church were granted admission to the NCC?
Can someone please tell me why the PCUSA is funding the NCC so extravagantly while we starve our own missionaries?
2007-05-23
2007-05-21
Correspondence on discipline and doctrine
Here's my initial email.
Rich,
I'm heartsick as I write this, but I don't know to whom I should turn.
Is Holston Presbytery aware of the theological positions of John Shuck? He broadcasts them on his blog, casting vitriolic derision on anyone who asks why a Presbyterian minister denounces the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the unique/ontological divinity of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. Many (if not most) of his "theological explorations" end up equating God with the universe, or some other panentheistic concept. This is most repugnant because it represents a thorough collapse of Trinitarian Godhead. Given the level of misuse and neglect of the Trinity throughout our denomination (on both "sides"), the last seems especially troubling.
Am I alone in my concern for both him and the sheep entrusted to his care? I've gone to him personally, and communicated privately and semi-publicly. I'm not sure what else I can do
--
Chris
Here's the response I got.
Chris,
Thanks for your email.
You ask, "Is Holston Presbytery aware of the…" I can't speak for all of Holston Presbytery… but I can speak for myself and in regard to the Constitution of the PCUSA. So, let me try to address those concerns from my perspective and the Constitution.
I am aware of John Shuck's blog site. John is free to express his opinions and theological views—although much of what is on his blog are the viewpoints of other scholars and theologians—even if they are different from yours or mine or even mainstream Presbyterianism. John (and any ordained officer or church member, for that matter) is not free to depart from the practice of Presbyterian polity or Scripture.
The examination of officers and candidates for ordination is where an individual's conduct and beliefs are tested and judged by the Constitutional standards and according to the session's or presbytery's sense of orthodoxy. Church discipline in the PCUSA is designed to bring about repentance, reconciliation and restoration for those who have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.
John has appropriately and Constitutionally been examined by the Committee on Ministry, approved for membership in Holston Presbytery, and John has affirmed the Constitutional Questions required of ordination. I am not aware that John has acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA. (Just as I am not aware that you have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.)
I and the Committee on Ministry are charged with the responsibility of caring for pastors and congregations. Ideally, as the entire body of Christ, we all care for one another. So, my answer to your question, "Am I alone in my concern for [John] and the sheep entrusted to his care?" would be "No, you, Chris, are not alone."
Richard L. Fifield
I've sent comments along to other ministers within our presbytery, asking them to talk with John or the COM or the EP. No response has been given.
I was always proud (in a good way) to be from Holston. Good work is going on there. The gospel is being faithfully proclaimed (in word and in deed) by presbyters, deacons, and "laity." But when it comes to exercising discipline (formal or otherwise) against "troubler(s) of Israel," I'm guessing this is going to go in pretty much one direction.
I imagine that my CPM will see this as further evidence that I'm too adversarial to lead a church. Maybe. I doubt that the "heretics" at the various congregations I've served would say so. I'll talk Spong and Borg with them, and gently express what criticisms (and true statements) I find therein. But they are church members. Sometimes they are officers - but none are ministers.
As I read Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus, the most pastoral approach to take with people that are unsteady in their doctrine is an educational one backed up by prayer for illumination and kindness. But this is not acceptable with those who would teach and lead. To turn a blind eye or deaf ear is not only unloving to the person who is stumbling in their doctrine, it's downright hateful to those who are under their teaching authority.
When I spoke with a friend in the Renewal network, I was asked if this was a hill I was willing to die on. The answer is "yes." I will risk my future in the PCUSA in order to clarify our denominational position towards those who mock the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus and decry God's merciful provision of salvation through Christ as mere exclusivist provincialism.
To that end, here are my public questions of complaint.
1. I'm not a polity guy, so there are things that aren't always clear to me. But my reading of the "shall" statements in our Directory for Worship (especially 2.2007, 3.3101(1), and 3.3401d) seem to necessitate that sermons be based upon the Scriptures. Would that mean that sermons based on the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary are acts contrary to our Constitution?
2. If doctrine doesn't matter, why would Timothy be instructed to watch both his life and his doctrine , because his (and his hearers') salvation was impacted by it?
3. Is preaching about the rotting body of Jesus an acceptable position within Holston Presbytery?
The problem isn't that Mr. Shuck reads and posts about these things. I'm all for that sort of freedom. The problem is that he believes them - so convinced is he of the truth that the Bible is not inspired (a belief he sees as sentimental at best, spurious, pernicious, and moot at worst), Jesus' body is still in the grave, and that there is no afterlife that he PREACHES these doctrines from a pulpit of Holston Presbytery. He veers dangerously close to (if not into) gnosticism, docetism, and unitarianism. If these doctrines - which are condemned by the Church catholic - are acceptable in a Minister of the Word and Sacrament in our denomination, then I need to know now before vows bind me any further.
As for me, there seems to be a veiled implication of my activity that is contrary to Scripture or our Constitution. I must admit that I have acted contrary to both. When I see the standards of righteousness and justice set before me in the pages of Holy Writ, I know that I not only fail to meet them but in many cases I willfully transgress. When I led a catechism class through the Westminster commentary on the Decalogue, I caught a renewed sense of my error (both in omission and commission). I was also driven even more forcefully to Christ as my only righteousness before the Godhead (and a foreign righteousness, at that).
That's why resurrection is such a big deal to me. I sin in my body and in my mind. And Paul declares that Jesus was raised for my justification ( Rom. 4:25). If Jesus is just a man, then he died for his own sins and not for mine - and that leaves me with a vain faith and no hope.
I have spoken with Mr. Shuck personally. I have communicated with him electronically. A number of ministers and elders from around the country have communicated with him and he still does not recant. I have no other option but to ask the church to intervene - for his sake and for the sake of his hearers. And if this action is considered unloving, mean-spirited, or arrogant then I need to go somewhere else, because I can almost guarantee that at some point in the future, I'll need a loving rebuke too.Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir! Amen.
Rich,
I'm heartsick as I write this, but I don't know to whom I should turn.
Is Holston Presbytery aware of the theological positions of John Shuck? He broadcasts them on his blog, casting vitriolic derision on anyone who asks why a Presbyterian minister denounces the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the unique/ontological divinity of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. Many (if not most) of his "theological explorations" end up equating God with the universe, or some other panentheistic concept. This is most repugnant because it represents a thorough collapse of Trinitarian Godhead. Given the level of misuse and neglect of the Trinity throughout our denomination (on both "sides"), the last seems especially troubling.
Am I alone in my concern for both him and the sheep entrusted to his care? I've gone to him personally, and communicated privately and semi-publicly. I'm not sure what else I can do
--
Chris
Here's the response I got.
Chris,
Thanks for your email.
You ask, "Is Holston Presbytery aware of the…" I can't speak for all of Holston Presbytery… but I can speak for myself and in regard to the Constitution of the PCUSA. So, let me try to address those concerns from my perspective and the Constitution.
I am aware of John Shuck's blog site. John is free to express his opinions and theological views—although much of what is on his blog are the viewpoints of other scholars and theologians—even if they are different from yours or mine or even mainstream Presbyterianism. John (and any ordained officer or church member, for that matter) is not free to depart from the practice of Presbyterian polity or Scripture.
The examination of officers and candidates for ordination is where an individual's conduct and beliefs are tested and judged by the Constitutional standards and according to the session's or presbytery's sense of orthodoxy. Church discipline in the PCUSA is designed to bring about repentance, reconciliation and restoration for those who have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.
John has appropriately and Constitutionally been examined by the Committee on Ministry, approved for membership in Holston Presbytery, and John has affirmed the Constitutional Questions required of ordination. I am not aware that John has acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA. (Just as I am not aware that you have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.)
I and the Committee on Ministry are charged with the responsibility of caring for pastors and congregations. Ideally, as the entire body of Christ, we all care for one another. So, my answer to your question, "Am I alone in my concern for [John] and the sheep entrusted to his care?" would be "No, you, Chris, are not alone."
Richard L. Fifield
I've sent comments along to other ministers within our presbytery, asking them to talk with John or the COM or the EP. No response has been given.
I was always proud (in a good way) to be from Holston. Good work is going on there. The gospel is being faithfully proclaimed (in word and in deed) by presbyters, deacons, and "laity." But when it comes to exercising discipline (formal or otherwise) against "troubler(s) of Israel," I'm guessing this is going to go in pretty much one direction.
I imagine that my CPM will see this as further evidence that I'm too adversarial to lead a church. Maybe. I doubt that the "heretics" at the various congregations I've served would say so. I'll talk Spong and Borg with them, and gently express what criticisms (and true statements) I find therein. But they are church members. Sometimes they are officers - but none are ministers.
As I read Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus, the most pastoral approach to take with people that are unsteady in their doctrine is an educational one backed up by prayer for illumination and kindness. But this is not acceptable with those who would teach and lead. To turn a blind eye or deaf ear is not only unloving to the person who is stumbling in their doctrine, it's downright hateful to those who are under their teaching authority.
When I spoke with a friend in the Renewal network, I was asked if this was a hill I was willing to die on. The answer is "yes." I will risk my future in the PCUSA in order to clarify our denominational position towards those who mock the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus and decry God's merciful provision of salvation through Christ as mere exclusivist provincialism.
To that end, here are my public questions of complaint.
1. I'm not a polity guy, so there are things that aren't always clear to me. But my reading of the "shall" statements in our Directory for Worship (especially 2.2007, 3.3101(1), and 3.3401d) seem to necessitate that sermons be based upon the Scriptures. Would that mean that sermons based on the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary are acts contrary to our Constitution?
2. If doctrine doesn't matter, why would Timothy be instructed to watch both his life and his doctrine , because his (and his hearers') salvation was impacted by it?
3. Is preaching about the rotting body of Jesus an acceptable position within Holston Presbytery?
The problem isn't that Mr. Shuck reads and posts about these things. I'm all for that sort of freedom. The problem is that he believes them - so convinced is he of the truth that the Bible is not inspired (a belief he sees as sentimental at best, spurious, pernicious, and moot at worst), Jesus' body is still in the grave, and that there is no afterlife that he PREACHES these doctrines from a pulpit of Holston Presbytery. He veers dangerously close to (if not into) gnosticism, docetism, and unitarianism. If these doctrines - which are condemned by the Church catholic - are acceptable in a Minister of the Word and Sacrament in our denomination, then I need to know now before vows bind me any further.
As for me, there seems to be a veiled implication of my activity that is contrary to Scripture or our Constitution. I must admit that I have acted contrary to both. When I see the standards of righteousness and justice set before me in the pages of Holy Writ, I know that I not only fail to meet them but in many cases I willfully transgress. When I led a catechism class through the Westminster commentary on the Decalogue, I caught a renewed sense of my error (both in omission and commission). I was also driven even more forcefully to Christ as my only righteousness before the Godhead (and a foreign righteousness, at that).
That's why resurrection is such a big deal to me. I sin in my body and in my mind. And Paul declares that Jesus was raised for my justification ( Rom. 4:25). If Jesus is just a man, then he died for his own sins and not for mine - and that leaves me with a vain faith and no hope.
I have spoken with Mr. Shuck personally. I have communicated with him electronically. A number of ministers and elders from around the country have communicated with him and he still does not recant. I have no other option but to ask the church to intervene - for his sake and for the sake of his hearers. And if this action is considered unloving, mean-spirited, or arrogant then I need to go somewhere else, because I can almost guarantee that at some point in the future, I'll need a loving rebuke too.Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir! Amen.
2007-05-18
Like momma always said
Sin can be forgiven, but stupid is forever.
*p.s. - I shouldn't have said "stupid." That was wrong-headed and petty. It was also inaccurate. The reason I think he's responsible - in fact morally culpable - for the teaching of heresy is because at Princeton he would have been taught the history of them.
*p.s. - I shouldn't have said "stupid." That was wrong-headed and petty. It was also inaccurate. The reason I think he's responsible - in fact morally culpable - for the teaching of heresy is because at Princeton he would have been taught the history of them.
2007-05-09
Bibliolatry canard
When debating religious liberals (notice I'm not saying "liberal Christians"), you'll often have the claim of "bibliolatry" thrown up in your face if you provide Scriptural references for why you disagree with them.
I came across an interesting section of Deuteronomy that addresses the issue:
I came across an interesting section of Deuteronomy that addresses the issue:
“You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while flames from the mountain shot into the sky. The mountain was shrouded in black clouds and deep darkness. And the Lord spoke to you from the heart of the fire. You heard the sound of his words but didn’t see his form; there was only a voice. He proclaimed his covenant—the Ten Commandments—which he commanded you to keep, and which he wrote on two stone tablets. It was at that time that the Lord commanded me to teach you his decrees and regulations so you would obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy.
We believe that Jesus is the Word of God, the rationalizing principle of the universe. Words help us re-member Jesus. "Bibliolatry" is simply a way to construct ones own Jesus - a Jesus who is accountable to us (what we can "know" and "historically reconstruct") instead of the other way around.
2007-05-07
Come thou what?
I'll admit it...I long to be the Weird Al Yankovic of Church music but I'm just not talented enough. That's why I'm enlisting your aid. Help me be the melodical satirist I think I am. Here's a starter:
Come, thou Fount of every blessing
Give me what I want today.
Entertainment never ceasing
Paths of comfort line my way.
Not a song penned by some geezer;
Sung in days of hymn and chant;
But a sure-fire people pleaser,
That will make the elders rant.
I leave it to you talented musicians and lyricists to complete the hymn. When we're finished, I fully expect this to become the next great classic of the faith and be included in The Presbyterian Hymnal v. 2.1.
Come, thou Fount of every blessing
Give me what I want today.
Entertainment never ceasing
Paths of comfort line my way.
Not a song penned by some geezer;
Sung in days of hymn and chant;
But a sure-fire people pleaser,
That will make the elders rant.
I leave it to you talented musicians and lyricists to complete the hymn. When we're finished, I fully expect this to become the next great classic of the faith and be included in The Presbyterian Hymnal v. 2.1.
2007-05-03
Cheers to the Religion of Peace
Is anyone* really convinced that Islam is a religion of peace?
I'll tell you someone who isn't: Ismail Radwan, the spokesman for Hamas.
For a healthy dose of reality-laced satire, go here. (If the high-brow approach suits you, read this.)
By the way, does anyone else laugh at Eleanora Giddings-Ivory's suggestion that we remove religious language from political dialogue, saying that we should instead talk about peace and justice? After all, she spends most of her time telling us that we should make peace and justice our moral and religious priorities (and not those side issues like abortion and homosexual activis...I mean civil rights.).
*[I mean anybody outside of Iran and these thirteen "religious leaders" (yes! Thirteen - a landslide)]
I'll tell you someone who isn't: Ismail Radwan, the spokesman for Hamas.
For a healthy dose of reality-laced satire, go here. (If the high-brow approach suits you, read this.)
By the way, does anyone else laugh at Eleanora Giddings-Ivory's suggestion that we remove religious language from political dialogue, saying that we should instead talk about peace and justice? After all, she spends most of her time telling us that we should make peace and justice our moral and religious priorities (and not those side issues like abortion and homosexual activis...I mean civil rights.).
*[I mean anybody outside of Iran and these thirteen "religious leaders" (yes! Thirteen - a landslide)]
Avoiding Hell
Since our society is fond of top ten lists, what better way to introduce the subject of how people can avoid hell than in a top ten list format. Take a look at the list below & see if you have ever heard anyone use any of these reasons or ways to avoid & even deny hell.
Top Ten ways to avoid hell…
10. Claim hell was only a trash heap outside of
9. Claim hell was an invention of the Western Greek Hellenistic mindset
8. Claim hell was an invention of Pharisees to threaten people into obedience
7. Claim hell was an invention of Roman Catholicism to threaten people into obedience
6. Claim hell was an invention of Right-wing Fundamentalists to threaten people into obedience
5. Claim hell was an invention of fill in blank , with whatever group you hate.
4. Claim hell was an invention of Paul after he high jacked Jesus’ message of “love”
3. Claim hell is just a way for self-righteous people to feel like they are special
2. Claim hell is just a way for self-righteous people to condemn others
1. Claim hell doesn’t exist
Shamelessly ganked from thekingdomcome. It doesn't mention that Hell was really an invention of Zoroastrian dualism - just like Paradise.
Or you can just get one of these:
2007-04-18
Prayer for Illumination - Easter 3C
Inspired by the texts for the week:
Self-revealing God,I'll be preaching on Rev. 5:1-14 this Sunday. Orare pro mihi.
Because it has pleased you that
the same sun which melts the ice
also hardens the clay,
grant that our hearts may be made
more responsive to the light of Holy Scripture
as it witnesses to the Sun of Righteousness,
even Jesus Christ, the Light of the World,
who, along with you and the Holy Spirit,
are due all praise and glory, honor and power,
wisdom and strength, now and forever. Amen.
2007-04-12
Environmentalism in the inbox
Received this today from a friend and verified it at Snopes.com and several other blogs (including Canada's own Treehugger.com).
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas,and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1
(20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2
(model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."
Any guesses as to whether or not this will make a difference to the lefties?
Didn't think so....Something Truly Indifferent
Alright. Adiaphora are supposed to be truly indifferent, and I haven't blogged much on inessential things (or much of anything). To that end, I offer this post:
Where is the Red Dawn equivalent of the War on Terror? I mean, there have been a few movies that obliquely reference the Iraq War (normally posing as generic middle east conflict/conspiracy or - following the M*A*S*H route - are set in a different conflict or a parallel reality). But this is not high schoolers taking up arms against the enemy.
(This was prompted because I just found Red Dawn at Wal-Mart for $5.50! What a bargain!)
Where is the Red Dawn equivalent of the War on Terror? I mean, there have been a few movies that obliquely reference the Iraq War (normally posing as generic middle east conflict/conspiracy or - following the M*A*S*H route - are set in a different conflict or a parallel reality). But this is not high schoolers taking up arms against the enemy.
(This was prompted because I just found Red Dawn at Wal-Mart for $5.50! What a bargain!)
2007-04-11
Unmistakable Truths
Hmmm... dig up the corpse of Jesus and you get to claim that your faith is not beholden to fact because you can make it a metaphor or just dump the whole "realism" project. (Not to mention that everyone else who disagrees with your interpretation does so from intellectual dishonesty or, worse, moral bankruptcy.)
Dig up something an anthropologist claims is a human ancestor and you demand that everyone's faith claims have to change in accordance with that "fact."
Anyone else smell inconsistency? (Hint: it smells kind of lemony.)
Evolution and relativism = "unmistakable truth" over which only the mentally deficient can disagree.
orthodox Christianity = misogynistic powerplay for privileging a narrow "western" view.
A most fascinating hermeneutic....
Dig up something an anthropologist claims is a human ancestor and you demand that everyone's faith claims have to change in accordance with that "fact."
Anyone else smell inconsistency? (Hint: it smells kind of lemony.)
Evolution and relativism = "unmistakable truth" over which only the mentally deficient can disagree.
orthodox Christianity = misogynistic powerplay for privileging a narrow "western" view.
A most fascinating hermeneutic....
2007-04-10
The Baby and the Bathwater
At the dawn of the Middle Ages, Western Christendom began to teach that it was immoral to bathe. This has a long history in the ascetic branches of the church (and its predecessors in Judaism - cf. John the Baptizer). In fact, two of the Seven Ecumenical Councils actually wrote Canons (laws) against public baths (Laodicea and Trullo). In practice, it was far from uniform. One bishop is remembered for two things: his wit and the fact that he bathed twice daily (Sisinius, the first sissy?). Meanwhile, St. Augustine was asked if it was okay to use baths that had cultic connections (cf. 1 Cor. 8).
The real reason, as Clement of Alexandria (2nd c. AD) demonstrates, was a condemnation of licentiousness. Baths were seen as lusty both to the senses and to the sex. They were indulgent, and thus to be avoided (even though some room was left for acknowledging their benefits). Avoiding baths became rather extreme (such that in the Arabian Nights, a Muslim suggested that once Christians were doused with baptismal water they felt entitled to avoid bathing for the rest of their lives).
What we need is an encyclical or ecumenical council or something that says it's pious to bathe. That way, the French can claim they don't wash because they like staying secular.
The real reason, as Clement of Alexandria (2nd c. AD) demonstrates, was a condemnation of licentiousness. Baths were seen as lusty both to the senses and to the sex. They were indulgent, and thus to be avoided (even though some room was left for acknowledging their benefits). Avoiding baths became rather extreme (such that in the Arabian Nights, a Muslim suggested that once Christians were doused with baptismal water they felt entitled to avoid bathing for the rest of their lives).
What we need is an encyclical or ecumenical council or something that says it's pious to bathe. That way, the French can claim they don't wash because they like staying secular.
2007-04-05
Online Evangelism
Below is a transcript of a conversation I had this morning. A 13 year old boy (TW) raised by Wiccans has apparently had a friend telling him about Jesus. He turned to me for some answers. Please pray that God uses the planted seed to the salvation of this young man.
Keep going out into those information highways and byways, folks!
"May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!"
TW: Hi
TW: my name is Xxxx
Me: Hi, Xxxx.
TW: I found your profile on the yahoo members page, and I think it said you were a minister......or at least a christian
Me: Yes.
TW: ok
Me: The least of Christians, perhaps.
TW: really?
Me: Probably not - I’m a big guy. What can I do for you?
TW: I had a few questions if thats ok
Me: Sure
TW: ok
TW: What do you worship as a christian?
TW: one God.......instead of a God and Goddess right?
Me: One God, that’s correct.
TW: ok
Me: It’s not exactly accurate to say God has a gender, though God has revealed as a Father.
TW: ok
TW: So is Jesus another name for God?
TW: or someone seperate
Me: Ah...it looks like you are asking for some clarification on the greatest mystery of the faith.
Me: The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, correct?
TW: im not sure what that is
Me: Fair enough.
Me: There is only one “thing” that can be called “god”
TW: im 13, and my family is wiccan, so I know nothing about christianity
TW: but i am curious and maybe one day I want to become christian
Me: It’s okay - I was actually Wiccan during college.
TW: wow
TW: and your a minister?
TW: for a christian church
Me: One of the greatest heroes of our faith, a man named Paul of Tarsus, was a persecutor of the early church (in the decades following Jesus’ death).
Me: Nevertheless, God used Paul to write nearly half of the New Testament (the portion of the Bible that deals explicitly with Jesus).
TW: ok
TW: Ive read some of John in the new testiment
Me: God uses all kinds of people, and his greatest delight is in making his enemies his friends.
Me: John is a great place to begin.
Me: It not only tells the story, but it also talks about the importance of those events.
TW: thats what I was told
TW: are you parents christian
Me: Yes.
TW: ok
Me: I was raised a Christian and believed in “god” but didn’t want to accept Jesus as the focus of God’s work in the world.
TW: ok
Me: To go to your original question, you were asking what Christians believe about the nature of God.
TW: right
Me: We believe that there is only one God - one entity, if you will - that is God. And that God is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all holy, all GOOD, etc.
Me: However, God is also three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
TW: ok
TW: I think I understand
Me: To be honest, we can say more about what we know God is not rather than what/who God is.
TW: ok
TW: what is God not
Me: To illustrate: There are not three Gods, but only one God. God is not “made up” of three persons; rather God is three persons.
Me: God doesn’t “switch hats”: now acting like the Father, then acting like the Son, and sometimes acting like the Holy Spirit.
Me: Rather, each of those persons is fully God.
Me: One of the most ancient - and beautiful - explorations of God is called the Athanasian Creed.
TW: ok
Me: Another place to look for why Christians believe this doctrine is found here.
TW: ok
TW: thanks
Me: No problem.
Me: Here is a helpful analogy, comparing the Trinity to a book. For example, a book has length, width, and thickness. The length is not the book’s width, the width is not the book’s thickness. These three dimensions can be described separately, yet they are connected together. If you remove one dimension, you are no longer describing a book. In the same way, the Godhead has three separate members that are connected together, and if you try to remove one you no longer have the Godhead.
TW: ok
Me: Does that make sense?
TW: i think so
Me: Don’t worry if you find this perplexing.
Me: Any honest Christian will say the same thing.
TW: ok
Me: God is so much greater than we are - it’s impossible for us (trapped in bodies, experiencing time in a linear fashion, of limited mental/spiritual capacity) to truly understand a God who is infinite.
TW: ok
Me: The important thing to know is that God loves us, and we see that love in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Me: Have you ever felt guilty?
TW: maybe
Me: I have. That’s because we know that there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong.
Me: Even the Wrede teaches that to harm another is to bring harm to yourself and the world (three-fold harm)!
TW: right
Me: Yet we say nasty things to each other, and sometimes do nasty things to each other.
Me: And we heap the same abuse upon ourselves.
TW: ok
Me: The things that we do to hurt others and our world is called “sin.”
Me: Sin breaks our relationships with other people, with ourselves, with our world, and - most importantly - with God.
TW: ok
Me: God does not want us to miss out on who he is - all of his goodness.
Me: So Jesus - who is God the Son in human flesh - came to earth.
TW: ok
Me: He taught us how to live, he healed the sick, he fought the powers of darkness, and then - at the appointed time - he died on a cross.
Me: The Bible says that the wages of sin is death.
Me: That means that when we sin, we’ve earned death.
Me: But the gift of God is eternal life. God the Son takes our punishment for us.
Me: The debt for sin - which is death - is paid for in his death on the cross.
Me: God proved to us that the sin-debt was canceled by raising Jesus from the dead.
TW: ok
Me: Because of Jesus Christ, we can have peace with God.
TW: awsome
Me: When we have peace with God, we begin to change from the inside out.
Me: God restores all those relationships that we messed up with our sin.
Me: He makes us able to love him and know him, for the first time.
Me: He makes us able to really love other people - for who they are, rather than what they can do for us.
Me: Peace with God means we can have peace in ourselves, too.
TW: what makes you think I cant already love people for who they are?
Me: I didn’t say you couldn’t.
Me: Genesis - the first book of the Bible - tells about how God made the world.
Me: When God made humankind, the Bible says that he made us “in his image.”
Me: That is - there is something inside of us that resembles God.
TW: ok
Me: And when we are able to love God, we can love other people in a deeper sense because we understand that they carry the image of God in themselves.
TW: ok
Me: You’ll understand - hopefully - one day when you have children.
Me: I have four children, and when I look at them I see something of myself reflected back at me - yet with their own distinctiveness.
Me: And I love what I see - myself and my wife in them, as well as the unique person they are.
TW: sooo
TW: whats your name dude jw
Me: My name is Chris.
Me: Christopher, actually. It means: “Bearer of Christ” or someone who carries the message of Christ into the world.
Me: My mother named me well.
Me: Brent, let me just say that it is a real privilege for me to get to speak with you.
TW: thanks
TW: but why
Me: Why? Have you got your Bible?
Me: Or the Gospel of John?
TW: i know of an online bible
Me: Read this: http://tinyurl.com/32ll8t
Me: It’s a privilege for me to share with you what little I know about how much God loves us in Jesus Christ.
TW: ok
Me: That link was to Jesus’ words.
Me: The sin in our lives keeps us from even being interested in learning about God.
Me: So when someone has these...stirrings...it can only be because God is already at work in their lives.
Me: God brings us to himself, draws us into his embrace.
Me: And it’s a real privilege for me to see how God is already calling out to you.
TW: i gotta go
Me: God bless you!
TW: later
Me: Keep reading that gospel of John
Keep going out into those information highways and byways, folks!
"May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!"
2007-04-04
Esoteric Presbyterianism
A certain minister in good standing with my presbytery has a church member who actively promulgates (in writing, lectures, etc.) the following doctrines:
I understand the fascination with mystical and esoteric thought. In fact, I did an independent study in Jewish Mysticism while an undergrad, and further work on Merkabah Mysticism in a class on Apocalyptic Literature in seminary. But to broadcast approvingly with no guidance as to where it crosses the line and steps outside of Biblical Christianity - especially on a blog that's part of one's teaching ministry - seems rather...incomplete.
Don't get me wrong. I like John as a person. We have a tremendous amount of stuff in common. He's a damn-decent human being. But that doesn't stop me from being critical of heresy - and this one is full of it.
- The infinite and eternal Godhead manifests through a cascading hierarchy of divine entities, energies, and laws. The divine entities include the Solar and Planetary Logoi, Sanat Kumara, the archangels and angels, the Hierarchy of Masters, and ourselves. A cosmic entity of even greater power and consciousness than the Solar Logos is associated with the star groups: Ursa Major, Sirius, and the Pleides (sic; Pleiades, ed.).
- At every level the divine force is expressed first through a triplicity and then a septenary. The triplicity is referred to in Christianity as the Trinity. The septenary consists of the seven rays. Together, the triplicity and septenary can be compared with the ten sephiroth of the Kaballah.
- The Christ--the World Teacher--is the head of the Hierarchy of Masters and the embodiment of divine love on Earth. Two thousand years ago the Christ overshadowed the Master Jesus to create the "historic Christ."
- The Hierarchy of Masters owes its origin to an impulse from the star Sirius, which forms the heart center of the cosmic entity mentioned above.
- The great dramas of human history, such as the life of the Historical Christ, are part of a larger story that also includes the world's myths and legends.
I understand the fascination with mystical and esoteric thought. In fact, I did an independent study in Jewish Mysticism while an undergrad, and further work on Merkabah Mysticism in a class on Apocalyptic Literature in seminary. But to broadcast approvingly with no guidance as to where it crosses the line and steps outside of Biblical Christianity - especially on a blog that's part of one's teaching ministry - seems rather...incomplete.
Don't get me wrong. I like John as a person. We have a tremendous amount of stuff in common. He's a damn-decent human being. But that doesn't stop me from being critical of heresy - and this one is full of it.
2007-03-30
What makes Jesus so unique?
James Tabor's article makes the same mistake that all heretical movements make: Jesus is the messenger, but not the Messiah.
The message he carried wasn't vastly different from the message that other rabbis preached. It wasn't really different from that found in the prophets or in the Torah.
What makes Jesus unique is the claim he makes about himself as the particular summation of God's saving acts in the world. Jesus' claim to be the Savior - to be God in the flesh - is what was distasteful to his contemporaries. His "I AM" statements, his exclusive claims to access to the Father, his ability to send the Spirit - all of these make him unique (not his teaching or his healing ministry). It is Jesus' ontology rather than his deontology (who he is rather than his moral teaching) that makes him the Savior of humankind.
Liberalism's problem (well, one among many) is that it sets up a mindset that distinguishes Jesus based on differentiating him from his contemporaries in such a way that little can be found in common. It was precisely this mindset that led to German scholarship being so derisive and dismissive of the Israelites (thinking of their religion as Primitive whereas Christianity is an enlightened opening of that Urreligion). It sets the Jews up as scapegoats - rejecting the religion of enlightened peoples and thus worthy of contempt. (sho'ah, anyone?)
I'm not saying this doesn't happen within "conservative" circles. Certainly, dispensationalists are quite dismissive of the faith of the Hebrews (despite Hebrews 11-12!). But the Reformed (i.e., Biblical) Christians take a different view: Adam was equally a member of the same Church as Paul.
Why? Because their faith was centered in The Coming One, the Serpent-trodder (Gen. 3:15), their Savior who was displayed to them in types and shadows until the time was fulfilled.
The message was there in the Torah all along. They weren't waiting on the message or even a new messenger - they were waiting on a messiah - the Mediator of the everlasting covenant.
Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!
The message he carried wasn't vastly different from the message that other rabbis preached. It wasn't really different from that found in the prophets or in the Torah.
What makes Jesus unique is the claim he makes about himself as the particular summation of God's saving acts in the world. Jesus' claim to be the Savior - to be God in the flesh - is what was distasteful to his contemporaries. His "I AM" statements, his exclusive claims to access to the Father, his ability to send the Spirit - all of these make him unique (not his teaching or his healing ministry). It is Jesus' ontology rather than his deontology (who he is rather than his moral teaching) that makes him the Savior of humankind.
Liberalism's problem (well, one among many) is that it sets up a mindset that distinguishes Jesus based on differentiating him from his contemporaries in such a way that little can be found in common. It was precisely this mindset that led to German scholarship being so derisive and dismissive of the Israelites (thinking of their religion as Primitive whereas Christianity is an enlightened opening of that Urreligion). It sets the Jews up as scapegoats - rejecting the religion of enlightened peoples and thus worthy of contempt. (sho'ah, anyone?)
I'm not saying this doesn't happen within "conservative" circles. Certainly, dispensationalists are quite dismissive of the faith of the Hebrews (despite Hebrews 11-12!). But the Reformed (i.e., Biblical) Christians take a different view: Adam was equally a member of the same Church as Paul.
Why? Because their faith was centered in The Coming One, the Serpent-trodder (Gen. 3:15), their Savior who was displayed to them in types and shadows until the time was fulfilled.
The message was there in the Torah all along. They weren't waiting on the message or even a new messenger - they were waiting on a messiah - the Mediator of the everlasting covenant.
Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!
2007-03-27
Lamentations 2:14
"Your prophets have seen for you
false and deceptive visions;
they have not exposed your iniquity
to restore your fortunes,
but have seen for you oracles
that are false and misleading." (esv)
Silence about sin is not a good thing. Exposing sin allows people to turn from it. Exposing sin allows it to be recognized for what it is, so that we can walk in obedience. Reading through Lamentations, I get the sense that the narrator who bewails Jerusalem's razing would like nothing better than a chance to recognize sin in time to do something about it.
That's part of why I stay in the PC(USA). I believe that it is an imperative for those who minister to sound the warning. But it's equally important for me to hear denunciations of my own sin. There are times when I let sins that society endorses (pride, greed, etc) sneak up on me - heck, sometimes I even relish them. And it's at that moment that I need somebody with a different perspective to point me to a broader reading of the Scriptures with a chance to repent.
May God continue to send instruments of his hand - sharpening irons - in my path. Amen.
false and deceptive visions;
they have not exposed your iniquity
to restore your fortunes,
but have seen for you oracles
that are false and misleading." (esv)
Silence about sin is not a good thing. Exposing sin allows people to turn from it. Exposing sin allows it to be recognized for what it is, so that we can walk in obedience. Reading through Lamentations, I get the sense that the narrator who bewails Jerusalem's razing would like nothing better than a chance to recognize sin in time to do something about it.
That's part of why I stay in the PC(USA). I believe that it is an imperative for those who minister to sound the warning. But it's equally important for me to hear denunciations of my own sin. There are times when I let sins that society endorses (pride, greed, etc) sneak up on me - heck, sometimes I even relish them. And it's at that moment that I need somebody with a different perspective to point me to a broader reading of the Scriptures with a chance to repent.
May God continue to send instruments of his hand - sharpening irons - in my path. Amen.
2007-03-26
Trendy Bracelet Slogan for PoMos
I was ruminating the other night about all the zany alternatives we came up with for WWJD at several Presbyterian youth/college meetings back in the mid 1990s. It started me thinking about what kind of slogan I'd have to use now that I'm cemetary edumicated. Here's my stab at it:
What Do You Think Jesus Might Have Done In a Given Situation, Recognizing Our Limited Knowledge as Finite Human Beings and Our Distance from the Historical Context?
Of course, how you get WDYTJMHDIGSROLKFHB&ODHC on bracelet (or even a belt) might require more power than even the God of Open (pan)Theism wields!
What Do You Think Jesus Might Have Done In a Given Situation, Recognizing Our Limited Knowledge as Finite Human Beings and Our Distance from the Historical Context?
Of course, how you get WDYTJMHDIGSROLKFHB&ODHC on bracelet (or even a belt) might require more power than even the God of Open (pan)Theism wields!
2007-03-09
Discovering Divine DNA
Okay...they've tested the DNA of the Talbiot tomb and found that the woman named Mariamene and the man they claim is named Joshua (the name is scratchy and hard to make out) are not related on their mother's side. Big whoop.
If the skeptics want me to believe that it's really Jesus of Nazareth, they're going to have to show one convincing bit of evidence: haploidy. Of course, if he's really virgin-born would we even be seriously considering that his bones would be on earth?
If the skeptics want me to believe that it's really Jesus of Nazareth, they're going to have to show one convincing bit of evidence: haploidy. Of course, if he's really virgin-born would we even be seriously considering that his bones would be on earth?
10 Things the Process/Open Theism God might say
(Why I Am Not An Open Theist)
1) Oops!
2) I think this will work.
3) Wow – I won’t do that again.
4) Uh-oh.
5) Huh?
6) There’s always plan B, C, D, E, ....
7) Let me get back to you on that...
8) Whoa! I didn’t think you’d do that.
9) C’mon, c’mon, c’mon – YES! I love it when a plan finally comes together.
10) Dude – no way! (exclamation of incredulity upon learning something new and unexpected)
2007-03-08
Holston Heretics
John Shuck, a Nicodemite MoWaS in my presbytery of care, has made the bold claim that fundamentalism (of the "Jesus got up bodily from the dead" type) is a heresy and that orthodoxy has never made the claim of a carnal resurrection.
Thus, I've asked him to take me to court and let us see who the church deems heretical. Here's my response:
Fundamentalism is a heresy? Orthodox faith never claimed a bodily resurrection?
Do you say this out of ignorance or resistance?
It'll be great! (You did enjoy Gawain and the Greene Knight, didn't you?)
Thus, I've asked him to take me to court and let us see who the church deems heretical. Here's my response:
Fundamentalism is a heresy? Orthodox faith never claimed a bodily resurrection?
Do you say this out of ignorance or resistance?
- John underscores Jesus' resurrection in a body with physical form in two post passion narratives;
- a panoply of confessions from the Bible;
- Irenaeus confesses a bodily resurrection and ascension in the 160s;
- the Apostles Creed places Jesus' passion and resurrection in history by lumping it with Pilate's reign - then insisting on a resurrection of the body / flesh / carnis / sarkos
- Calvin, in the Consensus Tigurinus says that the ascended body of Christ is physical and thus locally removed from the sacramental elements
- the Scots Confession puts it as strongly as it can by sayin he was resurrected and ascended in "the selfsame body which was born of the virgin, was crucified, dead, and buried, and which did rise again (which is what the rest claim or assume, but is here set forth explicitly).
It'll be great! (You did enjoy Gawain and the Greene Knight, didn't you?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
