About a Relationship, Not a Religion: An Apology for the Christian Tradition

I have heard many Pastors and lay-Christians say this phrase “It’s not about a religion, it’s about a relationship.” Boy, doesn’t that feel cozy. See, I used to love this phrase. This morning, however, I couldn’t get this phrase out of my head (which is weird because I don’t think I’ve heard it in a while) and I started to realize how misleading this statement is to a Christian’s spiritual development (that is, discipleship).

So I started thinking and I came up with several reasons why it is more damaging than good for us to keep repeating this. I didn’t, however, feel like anyone would simply take my word for it, so I found some people who agree and I’ll introduce them as I come to them.

Premises

First, the phrase in question is very inaccurate. Oddly enough, most of the people I hear say this are, in some way or another, a Christian leader in a formal Christian context. What is odd about that is that this statement throws out the Christian religion in place of a Christian relationship but those repeating this statement would not have a platform or the authority to say this statement had it not been for the Christian religion. I’ll press further: they may have not ever heard about the Christian God if it hadn’t been for the Christian religion. This effectively renders the statement self-contradictory and, thus, self-condemning.

Now, don’t misunderstand me, I am well aware of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of the Christian church. I would hope that it is obviously not these that I am talking about. What I am talking about is the pliable Christian tradition that tells and re-tells the story of Christ and then offers us ways to be a part of that story.

Against dead church-ism

I think what the proliferators of this statement are trying to say is that going to church and performing the rituals without a heart for God behind it is null and void. I think that this is a noble thing point out (though I don’t necessarily agree with the way that people tend to use this intention to point fingers at liturgical traditions), but I think that as leaders it is our responsibility to be exact with our words. Religion, then, is not the enemy. It is the heart of whoever is practicing said religion that is at fault. Isaiah prophesied in Isaiah 29:13 “these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.” Jesus, actually quotes Isaiah in Mark 7:6 and goes on to put a finer point on it in verse 15: “It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart.” Obviously, Jesus and the great prophet Isaiah were against worshiping without having a heart for God behind one’s actions. Jesus makes this clear in John 4:23-24 when he says that true worship must be done in spirit and in truth. This means that our worship must come from our deepest being and be honest. So, when I’m having a cruddy day, I don’t have to slap on a smile to worship God. I simply need to be honest in my heart that I know who he is and I’m having a cruddy day.

The apostle Paul also wrote to the early church of the importance of having a heart for God. We see in his first letter to the Corinthian church:

“If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.”

Paul’s thoughts here coincide well with John’s letter in which he wrote “Dear friends, let us continue to love one another, for love comes from God. Anyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. But anyone who does not love does not know God for God is love” (1 John 4:7-8).

From these passages and good reason, we can assert that if we are to do anything, especially worship, it must be done from the depths of our spirit and in an honest way and, most importantly, from a heart that loves. Again, I don’t think any evangelical Christian would disagree that doing things void of love and with the wrong heart behind it is worthless, but the statement “it’s not about a religion, it’s about a relationship” throws the wrong bathwater out. Neither Jesus nor the apostles spoke out against religion and, in fact, both were pious in their practices of Judaism (Mark 7 and other places) and Christianity (see the letters to the early church in the New Testament). We mustn’t lose our religion in the misguided search for a fulfilling life in Christ.

Against over-spiritualization

There is something to be said against churches whose leadership has lost the value of a faith that is motivated from love and true spirituality. I, however, want to give a word of warning in letting the pendulum swing too far to the other side and result in a hyper-individualistic and super-spiritualization of one’s faith. The Christian tradition does not teach a spirituality that is wrapped up in some high-church theology or some guru-level spirituality. While some may cite scriptural passages such as the thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43) in order to justify the superfluousness of going to a formal worship gathering, this passage cannot be twisted to say that it is right for a Christian to abstain from the formal gathering. The conversation between Jesus and the dying criminal must be read within the context of the fact that they’re dying. For those living, Jesus says “come follow me”. That following, today, is most life-giving when we stay connected to the body of Christ in the formal church which is located, yes, inside the Christian religion.

Western, post-Christian, culture has left Americans (and other country’s citizens) with a do-it-yourself spirituality in which one can have a relationship to God apart from the body of Christ. This notion while in its most basic form is true, is not how Christ left us to live. Instead, he is constantly placing our relationship to him in conjunction with our relationships to each other (Matthew 28:19-20, Luke 24:49-53, Luke 22:25-27, John 13:34-35). This is why Jesus’ greatest commands are to love God and, secondly, to love people (Matthew 22:37-40). For us to let things become overly individual and overly spiritual detracts from how Jesus regarded humanity.

Finding balance

So here’s where we stand: somewhere between dead, rote-repetitious traditions and overly individualistic, overly spiritualization of reality. It is important that we acknowledge the necessity for a vivacious spiritual life as well as the need for a life that is connected with people in a real way. Our balance is important because, while we can come to an understanding of Christ and a relationship with him by ourselves, we are prone to folly. Theologian Ellen T. Charry writes in her book By the Renewing of Your Minds: the Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine:

“We started out by observing that insight and understanding are not the only way we are formed. We also come to understanding by doing: thinking is shaped by experience…It is not only the case that we must know God in order to love him. It is also the case that in loving we learn what loving is…The need to quiet the din of a busy life, however, should not be understood in opposition to Christian service (which can keep one very busy). The criticism that practicing doctrine has been severed from hands and feet is real. One can grasp what our theologians are inviting us to consider through silence. But being in Christ can remain theoretical unless one meets Christ by caring for children, the elderly, the poor, the sick and those in prison.”[1]

For us to actually be Christian, we must do so. By that, I mean, we must “do”. We cannot let our faith remain theoretical and we cannot divorce ourselves from the larger church. To do so is damaging to our spiritual lives and our understanding of who God is. For Christian leaders to guide people towards this folly is scary. “It” is about a relationship, but it is a relationship that is found within the context of a religion that has been abused and misrepresented. This does not mean that we should get rid of it, only that we should practice it more carefully.

There has been no thought more damaging to Christian spiritual formation than the anthropology that man is an eternal soul trapped inside a carnal body. No, the Christian understanding of humanity is that we are both spiritual and carnal; we are one unit. For us to assume otherwise results in all kinds of misconceptions of how we are to conduct ourselves; we see everything from rigid piety that is convinced that the physical world is the problem to a restricting empiricism that sees scientific discovery and physical observations as our only salvation. This is not what God shows us in his incarnation, life, death and resurrection. Man is 100% spiritual and 100% physical. Being a part of the Christian tradition allows us to exercise both in a way that grows us in our relationship with Christ.

Concluding thoughts

I had no intention at the outset of writing this blog to write over people’s heads or get some personal glory. I only long for the Church to in America to value herself again. To say that we don’t need our own religion is like me saying that I don’t need my bones in order to live. The church is our structure, our skeleton. While it can be difficult to describe at times due to its beautiful diversity, the church is the body and bride of Christ. AND the church practices a religion; it is a religion that fosters a relationship through maintaining other relationships.

If you are a Christian – especially a Christian leader – I implore you to abolish this cozy phrase from you library of Christian phrases. It feels good because it doesn’t require much out of us. For us to simply “be” in a relationship doesn’t necessarily require us to do much except “be”. Furthermore, there is no accountability here. If someone thinks I’m acting wrongly, I can simply say “my faith is between me and God” or “only God can judge me”, but this is no way to be a Christian in a community. Religion, on the other hand requires something of us. It demands we give our time and actions to being a Christian in more than theory. If I don’t show up to church for a month, the Christian tradition gives my brother and sister Christians a clear indicator that something may be wrong with me and then, in love, they can reach out to me.

Our religion is valuable. Let’s not get rid of it because some hearts are in the wrong place.

Pax,

The Dread

---

[1] Charry, E. T. (1999). Conclusion. By the renewing of your minds the pastoral function of Christian doctrine (pp. 240-241). New York: Oxford University Press.

A Book Review for you:

ok, it's been a while, but here is the latest bit of work from my Master's course: Spiritual Theology. enjoy!

In her book, By the Renewing of Your Minds: the Pastoral Function of Christian Doctrine, Ellen T. Charry endeavors to catalogue history for the purpose of demonstrating that theology should be about connecting people to God, not merely about philosophical method. She accomplishes this goal by highlighting some of the most influential characters that Christianity has in its family tree.

THEOLOGIANS:

In order to approach this large task, Charry begins with the foundations of the Christian religion by pointing out the apostle Paul and some of his major pastoral applications. First, she demonstrates that Paul is more interested in how God changes people, than how people can better themselves. Following from this interest, he imparts at least three life-applications as part of his implied theological framework. First, he attributes all Christian excellence to divine action; that is, no man can be righteous in his own power. Then, he shows that Christian self-esteem should be grounded in a new identity in Christ as our new ontological reality. This is more than a title change and is, thus, in contrast to those Christians who would ask “are you saved?” or “are you born again?” as if a change of category title is all that is required. Finally, Paul leaves us the idea that a holistic Christian life is social; thus, there are no “lone-ranger” Christians because the life that we live is to be in imitation of a God who is not solitary, but actually exists within the community of himself.

Moving on from Pauline theology, Charry takes a look at the gospel of Matthew and his transmission of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. The author points out that the righteousness that Matthew relates from Jesus’ teachings is grounded in the highest level of ethics. For him, righteousness is more than following a set of rules; instead it is shaping oneself into the mold of Christ so much so that one’s intentions are pure, not just one’s actions. This higher level of righteousness is proactive, not reactive by finding foundation in the practice of being others-focused. While Matthew could be accused of portraying Christ’s message in an overly individualistic way, what can be attributed to him is the success of taking a system that was focused on what a person was to do and reorienting it to the deeper purpose behind the rules; namely, what a person is supposed to be. The pastoral concept is that we are to be introspective enough to grow in the righteous standard of Christ.

Progressing through time, Charry examines Athanasius of Alexandria whose pastoral thrust was in the concept of Christ being our example and that he is constantly showing us how to direct our lives towards God. Athanasius taught that humanity was intended to have access to bodily resurrection from the get-go, but by self-degeneration via our own intellect, God revoked those privileges. Not content to watch humanity wallow in its own degeneracy, God implements a way back to himself by the example of Christ. Thus, salvation isn’t about completing an unfinished creation, but about restoring our correct identity and all that that identity entails including taking the model of the Father and the Son as exemplary for our own relationships.

Next to be examined is Basil of Caesarea who was very focused on catechizing his followers. He did so by treating his readers as high-minded seekers of knowledge of God. Basil appeals to the integrity and, perhaps, vanity of his parishioners by always lifting them up and concurrently providing guidance and instruction that they needed. Basil’s pastoral emphasis was for Christians to utilize the trinity as a model for Christian human relations. The mutual respect and cooperation between the members of the trinity is the blueprint for Christians and how they should grow together.

After Basil, we progress to taking a snap shot of the aretegenic leanings of Augustine of Hippo. Augustine’s pastoral goal, much like Athanasius’, was to help his readers learn to identify themselves in God. In contrast, however Augustine does this through shame and exposure of short-comings. Regrettably, the western obsession with the intricacies of salvation have largely obscured Augustine’s purpose of helping people see themselves as having the imago Dei. While Augustine could be accused of producing doctrine that are more or less unhelpful, it can be extrapolated from his writings that he would largely support the more practical means of coming to know God by way of associating oneself with Christ.

Charry progresses in her assessment by encountering Anselm of Canterbury next. Humble obedience is the staple for Anselm’s teachings and, under a penal substitution understanding of atonement, he points to Christ as the one who lowered himself so that we would learn how to lower ourselves. For Anselm, this means of growing in spiritual maturity is one that has echoed throughout history. The concept of becoming what one studies is obvious in other theologians such as the aforementioned Athanasius and Basil. The example of God as merciful master gives us a model for when we are in authority and the example of God as obedient servant gives us a model for when we are under authority.

Following Anselm, Charry goes on to assess St. Thomas and Dame Julian side by side. Thomas takes God’s actions on the cross to be more indicative of the synthesis between anger and love; specifically, that love should temper anger. He also takes a more legalistic approach to salvation theology in which salvation is more about righteousness than love. By contrast, Julian emphasizes the love of God and views the cross as an exercise in trust and love. She was so extreme in her position that she went as far as to challenge the classical understanding and state that God in fact has no anger at all. The pastoral application from these two understandings of Christ’s actions at the cross would be to find some amalgamation of the two views. Yes, the cross is about righteousness, but it is a righteousness born out of Gods loving nature.

Approaching the Protestant reformation, Charry ends her procession through Christian leaders with a look at reformed theologian and pastor, John Calvin. Calvin is notably aretegenic in all his writings. This is a difficult thing for modern readers to see at times because he does not shy away from using fear, guilt and shame as motivators toward righteousness. Most contemporary people understand these things to be primarily damaging, so the utilization of such human emotions has largely fallen out of practice. Calvin essentially makes the Christian life all about the individual and God, thus taking Augustine’s dependence on the Holy Spirit to an extreme level. He also approaches salvation as black and white: He sees everyone as either “in” or “out” of Christianity. Because of the unstable political and religious atmosphere, Calvin intended to show people why piety was still to be sought after. That is the bridge between what is arguably one of the staunchest set of doctrine in Christendom and the heart of a pastor.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS:

In the examination of these Christian builders, we see how pastoral function has played a foundational role to all doctrine. Early theologians were not theorizing about how to do theology, they were merely responding to the world around them as they saw appropriate. This is why we should not leave theology as merely rhetorical theory, but instead we should connect it to our lives; that, as demonstrated by the shakers and movers of Christianity, is the purpose of theology. Our actions should flow out of a changed instinct that is oriented towards righteousness; they should not simply be a rational reaction that is filtered through a set of doctrine.

Going forward in my Christian leadership, I think that this book has helped me to grasp a large scale take of things. Looking at the history of theology is like taking a panoramic picture of a landscape; while there are many nuances – colors, shapes, action and stillness – there are still more themes that can be taken. Charry takes that panoramic picture and points to a specific theme that all life-giving Christian leaders would do well to note: understanding that pastoral function and theoretical theology must go hand-in-hand. In fact, they have never flourished apart from each other. This is my biggest lesson from this book and I hope to impart this concept to all who look to me as a leader.

Pax,

The Dread

People of God

Enjoy!

            The people of God; this is a title that has been a part of the Christian religion since the beginning. In fact, it is inherited from the ancient Hebrews who founded modern Judaism. The term is not one that pious religious adherents take lightly as it is one of the most characterizing terms that is unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition; namely, that God is relational and (for whatever divine reason) chooses to have a people. Just as it has for Jews of all eras, the phrase “people of God” gives Christian believers a pattern to follow, a name to live up to and a future to pursue.

            The term “people of God” is found in Hebrew texts as early as the exodus of Moses and the Hebrews from the slavery of Egypt. When Moses and his brother, Aaron, approached the pharaoh about releasing the Hebrews, they said “This is what [Jehovah], the God of Israel, says: Let my people go…” (Exodus 5:1)[1] From this very early record of the historical Judeo-Christian tradition, we see YHWH, the God of the Hebrews, claiming the people of Israel as his special possession. We continue to see the Israelites called the people of God as time progresses. For example, we see that the temple worship performed by the Levite priests contained this notion strongly. In a blessing recorded in the priestly handbook, Leviticus, we read of YHWH speaking of Israel and saying “I will walk among you; I will be your God, and you will be my people.” (Leviticus 26:12)[2]. By Davidic times in Jewish history – approximately 1000 BC[3] – Israel was a well established world power and had really engrained the concept of being special to YHWH into their religion and culture. In the psalms, we read of God delivering his people, protecting his people and giving justice to his people (psalms 53:6, 94:14 and 135:14)[4]. No other passage of scripture sums up the Jewish understanding of how they related to YHWH better than the Deuteronomic text that reads “For you are a holy people, who belong to [Jehovah,] your God. Of all the people on earth, [Jehovah,] your God has chosen you to be his own special treasure.” (Deuteronomy 7:6)[5].

            I draw out the early sightings of this phrase only to demonstrate that as Christians, we must remember our roots. Often times, in western Christianity, we forget that our beginnings were much farther back in time than the incarnation of God. In order to gain a correct understanding of our own inclusion as the people of God, we must give credence to how the writers of the bible understood the term. Obviously, there is a real exclusiveness to the way the Jews understood their repute with God. This idea that they were better than every other people group drove many of their political and economical decisions. More than the way that they understood their relations with the world around them, the title “people of God” shaped their self-image. Piousness was prized due to the self-imposed standard of holiness. I don’t say this in a condemning way – indeed, it is good to strive for holiness – I only mean to demonstrate that this was their primary definition of self and from this definition they looked to the coming of the Messiah with the hopes that he would restore their former glory and power in the same way that they had seen David do as king. In short, the early Jew’s idea of being the people of God meant that they deserved to be in power according to earthly politics. Jesus turns this notion on its head.

            In keeping with the traditional understanding of what it meant to be the people of God, we read in the gospel of Luke, the prophecy of Zechariah (father of John the Baptist) in which he speaks of the impending incarnation and what it will mean. He says in verse 68 and 69 “Praise [Jehovah], the God of Israel, because he has visited and redeemed his people. He has sent us a mighty Savior from the royal line of his servant David…”[6] The actions of Christ on earth were far from what traditional Jews expected out of their Messiah. Effectually, what Jesus did was push the boundaries of the small circle that enclosed the people of God to the point where it could include the entire world population. After Christ’s ascension, we see the early church founders writing letters in an effort to guide new Christians in navigating this new definition of being the people of God. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul gives a decisive voice in the matter of the Jewish ceremony of circumcision. He says “It doesn’t matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation. May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God”[7] (Galatians 6:16; emphasis mine). Paul understood those who believed in the deity of Jesus and in the message he came to proclaim to be a part of God’s people via a metaphysical transformation of self.

In order for contemporary Christians to understand what it means to be the people of God, I would like to speak briefly on what it means to be a people. In America, we often forget what it means to be a people. This is largely in due to the fact that our nation is built of people from all nations speaking all tongues. Couple this demographic hurdle with the hyper-individualism of the twenty first century and it is easy to see why post-modern people tend to forget how to identify as a people group first and an individual secondarily. To be a people means that the corporate is greater than the individual. It is in this context that we encounter the phrase “people of God”; Israel, while obviously being made up of many individuals is regarded consistently as a single entity by God throughout the bible. Drawing from the New Testament scriptures, we must continue this understanding of personhood. We are the people of God because we are a part of the single entity that is the ecclesia. Our primary allegiance is to what is traditionally called the Kingdom of God and it is in this kingdom that we are freed from the kingdoms of this world.[8] We then identify with the story of redemption and intimate relationship with the creator which gives us a future of eternal association with the divine to look forward to.

Progressing into our daily lives, we should be like the early Israelites who utilized the title “people of God” as the life defining title over and against every other label they could possess. Understanding that we are God’s own private possession and object of affection is foundational to our own self regard. When we view ourselves in this manner, we find value in the mundane decisions that we encounter in life; this is how we determine our conduct and stewardship of our possessions. This is what makes us distinct from the world around us. We are the people of God; this is our definition of self.

 

Pax,

The Dread

---

[1] Townsend, Kenny. "Exodus." Life application study bible: new living translation, black, bonded leather, personal size.. S.l.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. 103. Print.

[2] Townsend, Kenny. "Leviticus." Life application study bible: new living translation, black, bonded leather, personal size.. S.l.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. 195. Print.

[3] Tullock, John H., and Mark Harold McEntire. "Israel's Time of Glory: David and Solomon." The Old Testament story. 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. 152. Print.

[4] Townsend, Kenny. "Psalms." Life application study bible: new living translation, black, bonded leather, personal size.. S.l.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. 900, 944, 985. Print.

[5] Townsend, Kenny. "Deuteronomy." Life application study bible: new living translation, black, bonded leather, personal size.. S.l.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. 275. Print.

[6] Townsend, Kenny. "Luke." Life application study bible: new living translation, black, bonded leather, personal size.. S.l.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. 1673. Print.

[7] Townsend, Kenny. "Galatians." Life application study bible: new living translation, black, bonded leather, personal size.. S.l.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005. 1996. Print.

[8] Wilson, Jonathan R.. "The Story of the Kingdom." God so loved the world: a christology for disciples. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001. 23-39. Print.

Understanding the church

Here's something to chew on B-)

One topic of theology that seems to be the most under discussed and yet is incredibly obvious is the understanding of the church. Often times Christians get so caught up in doing church and knowing the language of “christianese” that they end up not being able to see the proverbial trees for the forest standing in their way. Our fundamental understanding of whom and what the church is supposed to be is vital to our functioning in a practical Christian lifestyle. There are many definitions of the church that abound, so I will not be attempting to cover every definition; instead, I will attempt to bring out a diversity of opinions and then give my own thoughts on the topic.

            In a discussion of the Christian church, I think it’s fair to make some observations of a couple of perpetuations that have invaded traditional Christian theology and are character of what I like to refer to as “pop-Christianity”. The first is a term that I most definitely did not coin; it describes well the illness that has beset the church; it is called “the gospel of prosperity”. This is the teaching that God wants you healthy, attractive and wealthy. Then, the logic goes, God’s will is supreme and since God wants all those things for me, I guess I’ll just be ok with that. This belief is not only contradictory to the more ascetic foundations of Christianity in the desert fathers, martyrs and even Christ himself but, it excludes that majority of the world who is either ill, poor, ugly or some combination of the three. The gospel of Christ is one of open arms to the marginalized, not one that excludes them or treats them as secondary citizens or “not fully Christian” Christians.

            Unfortunately the gospel of prosperity is alive and well in charismatic or (as Simon Chan says in his book Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community) charismaniacal[1] circles. Preachers such as Joel Osteen even add to their statement of beliefs that “God intends for each of us to experience the abundant life he has in store for us”[2]. This is not only an inaccurate view of how God regards us, but it is exclusive to those who have not experienced the “abundant life”; are these people simply not included in God’s intentions for prosperity? This is a dangerous doctrine that chases people away from the church due to the narrowness and exclusivity of the gospel of prosperity

            Another major cripple to Christianity is what Author, Kendra Dean, calls Moralistic Therapeutic Deism in her book Almost Christian[3]. This belief is also alive and well in our churches and misconstrues the purpose of the Church. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism displaces the original story of believers who had struggles to remain holy with a story that simply says “do good, feel good and then maybe include Christ. The church is called to much more than feeling like good people, doing nice things and remember Jesus once a week.

            This is a problem of nurture over and against nature. We are directly responsible for showing a correct theology of the church to our children. In the west, we get so sidetracked to keep up with things that we forget the ever-present God who is truly in control of things. Being a Christian is more that simply being nice, doing good things and then sprinkling on a little Christ. We must be intentional now about the future generations and how they will worship.

            Moving on from some of the more frustrating issues that plague the church, we must look at a remedy. One solution to the cheap faith of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and the inaccurate proclamations of the gospel of prosperity is that of a liturgical theology. Chan does a fair job of demonstrating the importance of the worship of the Christian church. In fact, Chan defines the church as primarily a worshiping community rather than any kind of social functioning group that serves a purpose. Chan goes so far as to say “like play, the liturgy has no purpose, yet it is full of meaning”.[4] What he means is that it is unfathomably important to encounter God and yet there is no other agenda to be pursued. Truly, being a worshiping gathering of people is an end in itself.

            In order to demonstrate the balance that liturgy strives to maintain, I would like to defer to Theologian John Zizioulas. In his book Lectures in Christian Dogmatics he succinctly states that in relation to the world, “the Church should be offering itself to the world rather than imposing itself on it”[5]. While the church as a worshiping community should be focused on worshiping of God, we must not draw a strict dichotomy between the church and the world. While there are many arguments for being distinct from the world, there are few strong arguments to justify departing from it entirely and as Zizioulas says, we should be offering the world something. That something is a relationship with the creator and his church; this is something that is worth living for and (as many martyrs have demonstrated) worth dying for.

            I have already started to share some of my own ideas on what the church is supposed to be. I do like the way that Chan identifies the church as a collection of worshipers primarily. As a worship leader, I have found that it is incredibly important to maintain a worshipful lifestyle in all ways. Everything from eating and drinking to prayer and scripture reading can be forms of worship. Worship is any action that one executes in order to acknowledge God for what he is. As a community of worshipers, our focus becomes on God instead of on humanity and all of the ways that we are different or even similar for that matter. We often substitute traditional worship for feel-good songs that have little to no theological backing. How sad that the bride of Christ should forget the importance how to say “I love you” to her lover so soon after the church’s inception.

            In conjunction with seeing everything we do as worship and seeing ourselves as a worshiping community, I think it is almost as important for the church catholic to be as relevant as possible in any case; however, it is important for us to remember that the pragmatics of trying to be relevant necessitate moving outward and focusing our energies on the world who will persecute us. Following the example of Christ, we welcome this persecution for the payoff is much greater; the waking up of sleeping souls to the reality of the Kingdom of God. We as the church, the bride of Christ acknowledge our responsibility to preserve the ecclesia at every opportunity through the truth that our traditions import. This doesn’t mean the liturgy is the only answer – no, it is but one of many – but it does mean that the handing down of our faith is the only way that the church will survive; to this end, tradition is the answer.

Leave me a comment and lemme know your thoughts too!

Pax,
The Dread

---

[1] Chan, Simon. Liturgical theology: the church as worshiping community. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006. Print.

[2][2] "What We Believe Joel Osteen Ministries." Joel Osteen Ministries. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2012. <http://www.joelosteen.com/About/Pages/WhatWeBelieve

[3] Dean, Kenda Creasy. Almost Christian: what the faith of our teenagers is telling the American church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

[4] Chan, Simon. "The Worship of the Church." Liturgical theology: the church as worshiping community. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006. 54. Print.

[5] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. "The Church." Lectures in Christian dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 161. Print.

explaining the trinity

I'm now in the throws of my 3rd systematic theology class. Enjoy this, my first paper ;-)

Explaining the Trinity

Trinitarian theology is by far one of the densest subjects among all world religions so it is understandable that this particular doctrine can become an impassible hurdle to many Christians. Ironically, most paradoxically ignore it and assent to it by association with other doctrines they can handle. Still others choose to focus on either the unity of God or the “three-ness” of God. The church catholic maintains a belief in a Trinitarian monotheism with room to wonder. This is a difficult subject, but not as impenetrable as one might assume at first brush.

            To initiate the topic, I would first like to comment on the vast differences between the western church as manifest in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and the Eastern Orthodox traditions collectively. Coming from the western church, I can attest first hand to the minimalistic place that is given to Trinitarian theology in Protestantism; only by study have I made note of the extreme vitality of this doctrine and been able to incorporate it into my personal faith. In the west, the language of Augustine of Hippo has become benchmark to the discussion; in fact, “in a very real sense, Western Christianity is Augustinian Christianity.”[1] Veering from orthodox thought on the trinity, Augustine developed his pragmatic metaphor for the trinity. In his City of God, book XI, he draws a parallel between humanity and his ideas of the trinity: “for we are, and we know that we are, and we love to be and to know that we are. And in this trinity of being, knowledge and love there is not a shadow of illusion to disturb us.”[2] In Augustine’s assignment of functions to each member of the trinity, he displaces mystery and leaves a very wooden picture of what many early church fathers referred to as  “the divine…dance, a circling round of threefold life, as a coming and going among the Persons and graciously in relation to creation.”[3]

            Augustine’s explanation of the mysterious Godhead can be tempting to assent to as it is clear-cut and simple. Furthermore, it preserves a strong monotheism in only seeing the three persons of the Trinity in a very modalistic and matter-of-fact view where each member serves a function of the one God. To this end, western theology has been right in employing Augustine’s ideas; they are simply easier for the average person to accept. I fear, however that there is much richness that is lacking in such a simplified version of Trinitarian thought. Simply put, there is just too high a price to pay for a façade of certainty. I’m not advocating throwing out the bulk of western tradition, only that we as contemporary Disciples of Christ need to remember that mystery is a very intrinsic part of our faith. God has revealed himself in the Messianic person of Jesus; however, there are many parts of God we have not been clued-in to. This is no impoverishment to Christianity; only a vivification of a real relationship with a God who maintains a perpetual relationship with his creation.

One of the major differences between the eastern and western wings of the church is the approach with which each side grapples with the doctrine of the trinity. German reformed theologian, Jürgen Moltmann puts it succinctly in his book The Trinity and the Kingdom when he says that “the western tradition began with God’s unity and then went on to ask about the trinity. We [the Eastern Church] are beginning with the trinity of the persons and shall then go on to ask about the unity.”[4] It is this subtle difference in approaches that colors how theologians across the world have thought about the trinity. In the East, there is little fear of losing God’s unity as it is an assumed fact that has been so engrained through the monotheistic, Abraham traditions of Judaism and Islam. Because of this foundational assumption, the focus has largely been on the “three-ness” of God and not the unity for the trinity is what is unique among the other two major world religions.

This focus is advantageous in discipleship by boldly confronting the confounding paradox of God’s unity and tri-unity.  This is not a point that will be particularly attractive to non-believers nor will it draw any favor with new converts; in spite of this, the eastern approach effectively maintains the mystery of the Godhead by only revealing what we find as true from scripture. A major handicap to the west as compared to the east is that the unity-focused explanations of Augustine and his contemporaries come straight out of their apologetic debates and not from scriptural exegesis. At the end of the second century, Tertullian utilized a phrase that has stuck with orthodox theology: “God is ‘una substantia, tres personae’.[5]  By using this language, Tertullian decisively summed up what many voices were trying to get at: God is one “what” and three “whos”.   

As a Christian in a contemporary culture where we maintain a multi-verse of religious conversations, it is important to first identify that, in endeavoring to explain the trinity to anyone, we must approach the one engaged in dialogue at whatever theological level they might be. It is unfair and unproductive to talk over someone’s head because they are not versed in theologically technical terms. It is equally foolish to talk to someone who is theologically astute as if they knew little of the Christian faith. While this may seem like a given, I find it vital to the conversation. It is a human trait to try and out talk the other person while never really answering the questions at hand.

For a more theologically perceptive person, I would find it most productive to explain the trinity by way of defining personhood through relationships. The trinity is the perfect relationship and in that relationship is such a unity that the three distinct members are each one in will, substance and power; their diversity lies in their self-awareness and the implicit differences in their internal relationships such as Spirit to Father vs. Son to Father. This covers, in my opinion, the most accurate picture theologically speaking and preserves both the unity and tri-unity of God.

For the believer who not spent much time in thought over the complexities of the trinity, I would more than likely use the metaphor utilized by early church fathers that the trinity is like a divine dance that is ever evolving and becoming more beautiful turn by turn. For context sake, I would add that it is into this dance that we are invited as adopted children of the Father by way of our divine brother, Jesus through the power of God’s Spirit. The three dancing members are such that each compliments another and none are out of rhythm in any way; this also preserves the unity and tri-unity of God.

Finally, for a non-believer, I would probably explain the trinity as the ideal community in which each member considers themselves in servitude to the other two. By this explanation, one can understand that it is indeed love and nothing else that bonds the members; God is unified by way of the substance of love. This community is the ideal for humanity to imitate in all relationships. Jesus leaves the command to love others as he has loved us (John 13:34) as an invitation to learn to love the same way that God loves; in community and as a servant.

There are a great many things to be said about the trinity, most of which I have not the space to cover. What is important in communicating this foundational belief of ours is in the idea that, however complex, paradoxical and perplexing it may seem, God is indeed one God, always undivided and always good while at the same time maintaining the distinction of three individual persons who are different in many relational ways. It is God’s unity that we are loyal to and it is to the collective glory of all three members that we strive to further the kingdom.

Pax,
The Dread

---

[1] Hart, David Bentley. "The Age of the Fathers." The story of Christianity: an illustrated history of 2000 years of the Christian faith. London: Quercus, 2007. 75-76. Print.

[2] Baird, Forrest E.. "Augustine." From Plato to Derrida. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. 290. Print.

[3] Pinnock, Clark H.. "Spirit & Trinity." Flame of love: a theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996. 22. Print.

[4] Moltmann, Jürgen. "Trinitarian Theology Today." The Trinity and the kingdom: the doctrine of God. !st Fortress Press ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. 19. Print

[5] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. "The Doctrine of God." Lectures in Christian dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 49. Print.

A Critical Review on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation"

First fodder from my Systematic Theology II class. Enjoy! B-)

What does a Christian believe? This is a simple question, and still there have been thousands of years of debate recorded on the subject. It is to this timeless question that St. Athanasius of Egypt sets out to instruct his student, Macarius and it is his answer that we get the opportunity to listen in on. I myself am not completely unfamiliar with the writings of Athanasius, having read his “Life of Antony”, and once again, I am glad to encounter a passionate teacher of the faith communicating our basic Christian beliefs with eloquence and fervor. I intend in the following space to bring out a few of the most notable points of discussion in this classic work of Christian literature and give my humble impressions.

Athanasius skillfully sets up the story of the God/humanity relationship in a systematic way in order to give Macarius a framework of the circumstances that humanity found itself in from the beginning:

“This, then, was the plight of men. God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. Then, turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by counsel of the devil, they had become the cause of their own corruption in death; for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created.”[1]

We see here Athanasius beginning his letter with an explanation of the great human deficiency to get back to a level of purity that is acceptable to God.

Athanasius goes on to describe exactly what he believes happened during the incarnation; that is, that God was no less God because he was man and no less man because he was God. He doesn’t shy away from this paradox. He continues to illustrate the death of Christ and its significance as the only option for salvation for humanity due to our lacking aptitude to correct our relationship with God. Next, Athanasius goes on to explain why the resurrection was also the only feasible option in truly killing death. On Christ’s death, he elaborates in many ways including his comments on Christ’s physical health[2], why it had to be a public death,[3] and why he had to stay in the grave exactly three days[4].

I am definitely pleased with this little book and indeed agree with C.S. Lewis in his forward to the book that had all Athanasius ever done was write this small book, it would have been enough. His refutations in the last two chapters give some basic apologetic tools for new Christians and his presentation of what happened in the events of the incarnation are simplistic and biblical. While I find areas we disagree with, such as his belief in God’s complete impassibility[5], I find much more common grounds with Athanasius and have every intention of recommending this book to any who might need a starting point in digging deeper in their faith. I find it completely distressing that more churches in western culture avoid using Eastern Church literature such as this in order to disciple new converts. We can stand to learn much from those that lived closer to the events that we stake our faith in. It is our responsibility as modern Christians to continue this tradition with the basics of the faith that St. Athanasius so fluently relates in this book.

Thanks for takikng an interest :)

Pax,
The Dread

---

[1] St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria. On the incarnation: the treatise De incarnatione Verbi Dei. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1998. Print. Page 30.

[2] Page 51.

[3] Page 53.

[4]  Page 56.

[5] Page 93.

something from nothing

Forewarning: this is one of my papers for my Masters of Theological Studies class, so i'm assuming some things with my audience in this bit that i might not otherwise assume in a normal blog post. Enjoy! Also, there will be some unorthodox (not heretical) views expressed here. no apologies.

The Significance of ex nihilo

The doctrine of ex nihilo is one that I think the majority of Christendom just takes for granted; I know I did. When asked about creation or evolution, the common evangelical, western Christian just assumes that God would have had to create the world out of nothingness; to think otherwise would seem to take away from God’s omnipotence and indeed it does. In the past, I had never looked much past this obvious function of the doctrine. As I read Zizioulas, I discovered a much more rich application of the understanding that God created existence ex nihilo. Deeper than a supporting role to God’s omnipotence, I have found at least four very important applications of this doctrine that help to shape a believers understanding of our role in relation to God and existence.

I will present my own discoveries (though I am sure they have been thought of before) in a progressive order as this is the way I reasoned them out while reading through Zizioulas’ chapter on creation and salvation. First, the doctrine of ex nihilo gives us a particular anthropology to found our understanding of man on. In understanding all of creation, including humanity, as created from nothingness, it stands to reason that we as created things contain a “nature of nothingness” in some way. When we understand this as a fundamental part of what it means to be a human, we immediately clear up the issue of death in relation to humanity in particular, but also in the broad decay of nature and all non-human, created things. As finite beings, this doctrine gives an understanding to why there is death in the world at all. To be clear, let me put forth my own definition of the type of death that I am referring to here. I am speaking of a metaphysical death, beyond the physical. Some would frown on this as an annihilationist view of death, but I feel like it makes the most logical sense in light of scriptures. This metaphysical death, I believe, is what God was meaning when he warned man of the death that would result if he were to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 2:17. This form of death is not a punishment for the disobedience of man, but the very natural regression that creation is prone to by containing this “nil nature”; that is, we will eventually revert to nothingness if we separate ourselves from God. This is an understanding of our finitude. If it were not this way, God would have created demigods essentially in that, after being brought into existence, we would be eternal as he is on our own power or merit.

When our anthropology contains the understanding that apart from the creator’s sustenance we revert to our nature of nothingness, we can start to make sense of the fallen world we live in now. This is the second major application I took away from the reading. We can start to look at the fall by starting with the question “what did we fall away from?” In answer to this, I put forth that what we fell from was not “God’s good side or favor”, but instead, we fell from the position we were meant to occupy as the bridge that would connect finite, created things with the uncreated, infinite creator. Humanity, in its original state, was able to bear this role for all creation as we are the “only creature who both includes the material world and also exceeds it”[1] in the fact that we bear the imago Dei in that we have souls that reflect God. In choosing to disobey God, man essentially decided to deviate from God’s plan to bring creation into an eternal relationship with him. Unfortunately for man, this created a sort of metaphysical trap in which we revert to our “nil nature” after our physical death due to the lack of the eternal communion with the creator. This derailment, however, didn’t cause God to abandon the plan altogether, but only to come up with an alternative plan to connect creation with God. This view of the fall and the fallen world we live in not only explains why creation all around us is slowly reverting to nothingness (in the decay of nature and our own increasing immorality) but it also explains why the events of Golgotha were necessary.

The third major application of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is found in the doctrine of the salvation of man by Jesus Christ. The incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection were for salvation; this is affirmed by the greater Christian Tradition. In looking at this idea, I will again start with a question. “What does humanity, need saving from?” In answer to this, I want to say that there are two, interrelated main functions of Christ’s sacrifice. The first function is found in the incarnation of the Son of the Father. This function is in undoing what man did in choosing against God’s will for creation. In order for man to be able to do what he was initially intended to do, there had to be reconciliation between man and God in which a representative of humanity had to whole heartedly submit to God by their own volition just as Adam (being a representative of humanity) had said “no” to God by his own volition. Mary provides us with this in her free choice to say “yes” to God’s plan for the incarnation to occur through her. “Her consent was the free consent of humankind to the initiative of God.”[2] The second function of the incarnation was the crucifixion-resurrection event; this event was in a very basic way Jesus accomplishing what Adam had failed to in uniting creation to the creator in his own person by submitting to the will of the Father. In this act, we are saved from our natural obligation to revert to nothingness after our physical death as well as gaining the gift of sustained relationship with God after physical death.

This understanding of the crucifix events gives us the fourth major application of the doctrine of ex nihilo in the form of a personal eschatology. Following from the idea that we are saved from our own nature of nothingness, or our nature of becoming void of the existence that comes from fellowship with God, is a different understanding of what “heaven” and “hell” is. If we define “heaven” solely as eternal relationship with God as I believe we should, then heaven is not a reward for the righteous in the superficial sense, but instead it is the natural and logical end to maintaining a relationship with the creator; that is, after our physical death, we now, through Christ, have the luxury of ongoing existence through the continued relationship with God. Concurrently, “hell” defined as eternal separation from God is not a vicious punishment from an all loving God, but it is the natural and logical end to divorcing oneself from the creator in the physical existence after which, one would simply revert back to their “nothing nature” and be eternally – that is permanently – separated from God. This gives new light to the necessary decision that man is to make on an individual basis to join in and maintain relationship with God through the Spirit of the Son or choose otherwise. With the understanding that we come from nothingness and, apart from God, we will revert to nothingness; the choice to not have a relationship with God is literally metaphysical suicide regardless of how moral a person’s life may have been.

While the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is, in my opinion, one of the fewest talked about doctrine of the church, it packs a load of theological implications. A non-exhaustive list of those implications are (in summary) an understanding of who we are as humans in a created and fallen world as well as why Christ came and reconciled us to the Father and rescued us from our natural reversion to non-existence and, finally, why it is imperative for us to make the free will decision to commune ourselves with the creator of existence; namely, so we can continue existing.

Pax,

The Dread

---

[1] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. "Creation and Salvation." Lectures in Christian dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 88-91. Print.

[2] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. "Creation and Salvation." Lectures in Christian dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 104. Print.