In post #21 Witherington on Sovereignty I mentioned that I would be looking into the relationship between prayer and sovereignty in future posts. This is due to the fact that the two don’t seem to jive in my mind. See post #21 for more detail on what I mean. To start, I wanted to go ahead and list out some ideas I had for how I would conduct this study, like a plan of attack. If I don’t write them down, I’ll forget.
Research Biblical references:
All references to prayer
When they pray, what do they pray for?
Do they pray with a sense of inevitability?
Or a sense that things can change?
Does God ever change his mind or plan?
Is this a mere illusion in the cases where he seems to?
Examples of how a phrase such as “not my will but thine” can have a meaning only applicable to that particular situation and not as a universal principle governing the ideas of prayer and sovereignty.
References to causation whether by God or something else
Any applicable references to sovereignty
How does the word predestination relate to the word by the Biblical definition?
If predestined, does predestination apply to our final destination only or every move we make?
Be careful with words like sovereignty and predestination because of numerous and varied definitions.
When using these words, use them in the sense the person or text you’re interacting with uses them.
Determine which events are attributed to God.
Determine which events are attributed to something else.
Determine then whether these attributions are the opinion of the writer/characters in the story or God’s opinion.
How does sovereignty relate?
Sovereignty may be related when using the normal definition of sovereignty.
However, there is a distinct possibility that it is not related once we were to discover the Biblical definition of sovereignty.
Technorati Tags: Prayer, Sovereignty, Predestination
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Saturday, March 25, 2006
#30 Wright's Shakespeare Example
In part two of N.T. Wright’s book The New Testament and the People of God, he explains his methodology for doing history and theology. Though he says a lot of really great stuff that is food for thought, in these posts I’d like to highlight only those items that I know to be disagreeable in the church as I know it. The reason for highlighting only the most disagreeable statements of Wright is because when any person reads a statement that is only slightly disagreeable to them, their mind can go through a process whereby it waters down the message that is being given in order to fit it within its worldview framework. This watering down is actually a reinterpretation of what the author (Wright in this case) is actually trying to say into something more agreeable to the mind. At that point the reader says, “oh, give me a break, I’ve heard that crap before, everybody agrees with that, this guy brings nothing new to the table.” Well I think, as does anybody who studies Jesus for a living, that Wright brings a lot to the table and I want to do his writing justice by highlighting those areas that give us a stark contrast to what we’ve heard before from other writers. Naturally, since I’ve grown up conservative, what he says is in starker contrast to my mind than what I’ve heard from others.
Wright uses the example of a Shakespeare play to describe the story of God’s interaction with humanity. Quoting directly from Wright, here is how the example works:
“Suppose there is a Shakespeare play, most of whose fifth act has been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a remarkable wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, that it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate to actually write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.” (p. 140)
Now there’s no controversy in that. I went to Covenant College where we had the sequence of 1. Creation, 2. Fall, 3. Redemption drilled into our heads. I’ve heard this a million times. But this is a little bit of what I am trying to say above in my opening paragraph. What he is saying sounds agreeable until now. His sequence goes like this: Act 1 – Creation, Act 2 – Fall, Act 3 – Israel, Act 4 – Jesus. He says this,
“Though Bultmann was wrong in thinking he could truncate Act 4, and, for that matter, a good deal of acts 1-3 as well, he was right in discerning a difference between Act 4 (Jesus) and the beginning of Act 5 (the New Testament) – even though his drawing of the distinction actually distorted both. It matters that the story of Jesus, i.e. the story of Act 4, was written by the early church as part of its appropriate task in Act 5.” (p. 142)
This may seem like a subtle disagreeable statement but I have exclamation points all over the margins of my book at this point. You see, in the church today, we typically include the part of the fifth act that wasn’t lost, i.e. the New Testament writings, as part of Act 4. Wright is here calling the New Testament Act 5. This, I think, is a huge distinction. To the church today, Jesus is the Word of God, the Bible is the Word of God. It seems that Wright here is echoing Barth in saying that there is only one Word of God and that is Jesus himself. The story about him was written in the early part of Act 5 and continues throughout Act 5.
Wright frames this example in a discussion regarding authority, presumably the authority of “scripture”. To me, to not draw a sharp line of distinction between Act 4 and Act 5 is to confuse the message with the messenger, the creation with the creator. Wright calls it an oversimplification of the notion of authority.
Wright uses the example of a Shakespeare play to describe the story of God’s interaction with humanity. Quoting directly from Wright, here is how the example works:
“Suppose there is a Shakespeare play, most of whose fifth act has been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a remarkable wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, that it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate to actually write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.” (p. 140)
Now there’s no controversy in that. I went to Covenant College where we had the sequence of 1. Creation, 2. Fall, 3. Redemption drilled into our heads. I’ve heard this a million times. But this is a little bit of what I am trying to say above in my opening paragraph. What he is saying sounds agreeable until now. His sequence goes like this: Act 1 – Creation, Act 2 – Fall, Act 3 – Israel, Act 4 – Jesus. He says this,
“Though Bultmann was wrong in thinking he could truncate Act 4, and, for that matter, a good deal of acts 1-3 as well, he was right in discerning a difference between Act 4 (Jesus) and the beginning of Act 5 (the New Testament) – even though his drawing of the distinction actually distorted both. It matters that the story of Jesus, i.e. the story of Act 4, was written by the early church as part of its appropriate task in Act 5.” (p. 142)
This may seem like a subtle disagreeable statement but I have exclamation points all over the margins of my book at this point. You see, in the church today, we typically include the part of the fifth act that wasn’t lost, i.e. the New Testament writings, as part of Act 4. Wright is here calling the New Testament Act 5. This, I think, is a huge distinction. To the church today, Jesus is the Word of God, the Bible is the Word of God. It seems that Wright here is echoing Barth in saying that there is only one Word of God and that is Jesus himself. The story about him was written in the early part of Act 5 and continues throughout Act 5.
Wright frames this example in a discussion regarding authority, presumably the authority of “scripture”. To me, to not draw a sharp line of distinction between Act 4 and Act 5 is to confuse the message with the messenger, the creation with the creator. Wright calls it an oversimplification of the notion of authority.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
#29 Letter from Brian McClaren to Chuck Colson
Here is a letter I found from Brian McClaren, one of the figureheads of the so-called emerging church movement, to Chuck Colson, of Watergate fame and now president of Prison Fellowship Ministries. In the letter, McClaren, whatever you may think of him, speaks for our generation (the MTV generation) as he calls out Colson’s simplistic view of post-modernism as the straw-man that previous generations of Christians have set up. I have grown up (as has anybody who grew up in a Christian school, church, etc.) watching our leaders set up and knock down this domino set as if that settled things. As I’ve grown and interacted with the world outside I’ve come to realize that for the most part, this was an imaginary domino set, truly a man made of straw as McClaren points out. But McClaren provides a fuller picture, a better picture, and one that will enable us to communicate with our own generation. This article is definitely worth a careful slow reading. In this letter, I think McClaren definitely has the pulse of what our generation is feeling and specifically the frustration of the Christian portion of the MTV generation. Here is the article: Click Here.
I echo McClaren’s sentiments when he says of Colson and others like him, “Thank God he’s over 55. He can afford to think the postmodern culture can be opposed. He can afford to stick with the status quo apologetic.” When engaging postmodern culture, evolution, ecumenism, homosexuality, and others I prefer to go against the status quo apologetic of opposition. I prefer a deeper than surface level understanding of the this generation than our Colson’s generation displays. To use a favorite N.T. Wright term, I think subversion as opposed to frontal assault is the best way to go about things.
I echo McClaren’s sentiments when he says of Colson and others like him, “Thank God he’s over 55. He can afford to think the postmodern culture can be opposed. He can afford to stick with the status quo apologetic.” When engaging postmodern culture, evolution, ecumenism, homosexuality, and others I prefer to go against the status quo apologetic of opposition. I prefer a deeper than surface level understanding of the this generation than our Colson’s generation displays. To use a favorite N.T. Wright term, I think subversion as opposed to frontal assault is the best way to go about things.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
#28 The Death Tax: The Greatest Tax of All
Would you rather someone steal your wallet now or when you’re dead? You’d probably say that neither is a good option, but I think most people, given the choice, would prefer to have it stolen after they have no use for it anymore. I think the so-called “death tax,” officially called the estate tax, presents us with a similar choice. In an article written by the man with the most at stake in this discussion out of anyone in the entire world, Bill Gates estimates that in the ten years after the death tax is phased out, the government stands to lose over $850 Billion in revenue. That’s right; the richest man in the entire world is in favor of the death tax.
Now before you say, “So what if we lose $850 Billion in revenue over ten years, we will just have to cut spending,” think about the government and who manages it. Need a hint? Politicians do not like to cut spending, and where they do, it is not to the tune of $850 Billion over ten years. So I think we are safe to rule out that option. Therefore, assuming we repeal the death tax, that money will have to come from somewhere. If we do not get it from the estate tax, it is going to have to come from other sources such as the income tax. Reduce the death tax and you thereby increase the income tax. Thus, the idea behind my wallet analogy. Do you want your wallet taken now, through an income tax, or after you’re dead, with an estate tax? The death tax is only collected after rich folks are finished with their estates and let’s them enjoy it during their life. Essentially, we are shifting the tax burden from the dead to the living. Read that last sentence again. Is that a sensible policy? No. Let the dead pay our taxes. I’m sure they won’t mind.
An alternate to increasing the income tax after a repeal of the estate tax is to pay for our spending with debt. I think this also is a poor option because by repealing the death tax in favor of debt financing, we are in effect enacting a birth tax upon our children. This debt must be paid off by subsequent generations with interest. To add to this problem there are increased interest rates associated with increased levels of government debt, which in turn puts inflationary pressure on the economy. How will the government of our children’s generation pay off this increased national debt? By increasing taxes upon its citizens. We would simply be shifting the very problem we are trying so hard to avoid to them.
To me, it is a decision as to whether we want our hard earned income taxed or our unearned income taxed. Taxing earned income is a regressive policy which discourages work as a means to wealth. Taxing unearned, inherited income, is a policy which encourages the proper route to achieve wealth and success. In this way, repealing the death tax does not fit with our value system.
Furthermore, no citizen should be handed millions of dollars for the extraordinary accomplishment of being born into a rich family. It is a fundamental concept to people of many different value systems that if one were given the power to create a society from scratch, one would design it so that reward is based on work and work alone, not the fact that you came, through no merit of your own, out of the vagina of rich man’s wife as opposed to a poor man’s. Fucking congratulations. Here’s a million dollars. The death tax teaches society, especially those who stand to inherit large sums, work ethic and personal responsibility. The death tax reduces unearned income in society. The birth tax reduces earned income.
A quote from the Bill Gates article says it well,
“too much concentrated wealth and power was putting our democracy at risk. We had fought a revolution to reject hereditary political and economic power--and the dizzying inequalities of the Gilded Age violated a fundamental American ideal of equality of opportunity. We are now in a second Gilded Age. Instead of taking steps that would strengthen our democracy, we're heading backward to the wealth inequalities of a century ago. We need to preserve the estate tax in states and at the federal level for exactly the reason it is under assault. In a democracy, we should be offended when the power of concentrated wealth brazenly attempts to shape the terms of policy debate and dictate the rules of our society.”
One other fact that needs mentioning: Less than 2% of estates (not people) pay the estate tax, the tax paid on unearned income that they never would have had in the first place had someone not died and that person not had wealth. Everyone will pay the birth tax as I have described it and they will pay it on their hard earned income. As mentioned above, our children will pay it not only in the form of taxes, but also in the form of higher interest rates and increased inflation.
Here are a couple of articles that I referred to when writing this one. The first is against the death tax and can be found at this link. Click Here. The second, by Bill Gates, is for the death tax and can be found here. Click Here.
Now before you say, “So what if we lose $850 Billion in revenue over ten years, we will just have to cut spending,” think about the government and who manages it. Need a hint? Politicians do not like to cut spending, and where they do, it is not to the tune of $850 Billion over ten years. So I think we are safe to rule out that option. Therefore, assuming we repeal the death tax, that money will have to come from somewhere. If we do not get it from the estate tax, it is going to have to come from other sources such as the income tax. Reduce the death tax and you thereby increase the income tax. Thus, the idea behind my wallet analogy. Do you want your wallet taken now, through an income tax, or after you’re dead, with an estate tax? The death tax is only collected after rich folks are finished with their estates and let’s them enjoy it during their life. Essentially, we are shifting the tax burden from the dead to the living. Read that last sentence again. Is that a sensible policy? No. Let the dead pay our taxes. I’m sure they won’t mind.
An alternate to increasing the income tax after a repeal of the estate tax is to pay for our spending with debt. I think this also is a poor option because by repealing the death tax in favor of debt financing, we are in effect enacting a birth tax upon our children. This debt must be paid off by subsequent generations with interest. To add to this problem there are increased interest rates associated with increased levels of government debt, which in turn puts inflationary pressure on the economy. How will the government of our children’s generation pay off this increased national debt? By increasing taxes upon its citizens. We would simply be shifting the very problem we are trying so hard to avoid to them.
To me, it is a decision as to whether we want our hard earned income taxed or our unearned income taxed. Taxing earned income is a regressive policy which discourages work as a means to wealth. Taxing unearned, inherited income, is a policy which encourages the proper route to achieve wealth and success. In this way, repealing the death tax does not fit with our value system.
Furthermore, no citizen should be handed millions of dollars for the extraordinary accomplishment of being born into a rich family. It is a fundamental concept to people of many different value systems that if one were given the power to create a society from scratch, one would design it so that reward is based on work and work alone, not the fact that you came, through no merit of your own, out of the vagina of rich man’s wife as opposed to a poor man’s. Fucking congratulations. Here’s a million dollars. The death tax teaches society, especially those who stand to inherit large sums, work ethic and personal responsibility. The death tax reduces unearned income in society. The birth tax reduces earned income.
A quote from the Bill Gates article says it well,
“too much concentrated wealth and power was putting our democracy at risk. We had fought a revolution to reject hereditary political and economic power--and the dizzying inequalities of the Gilded Age violated a fundamental American ideal of equality of opportunity. We are now in a second Gilded Age. Instead of taking steps that would strengthen our democracy, we're heading backward to the wealth inequalities of a century ago. We need to preserve the estate tax in states and at the federal level for exactly the reason it is under assault. In a democracy, we should be offended when the power of concentrated wealth brazenly attempts to shape the terms of policy debate and dictate the rules of our society.”
One other fact that needs mentioning: Less than 2% of estates (not people) pay the estate tax, the tax paid on unearned income that they never would have had in the first place had someone not died and that person not had wealth. Everyone will pay the birth tax as I have described it and they will pay it on their hard earned income. As mentioned above, our children will pay it not only in the form of taxes, but also in the form of higher interest rates and increased inflation.
Here are a couple of articles that I referred to when writing this one. The first is against the death tax and can be found at this link. Click Here. The second, by Bill Gates, is for the death tax and can be found here. Click Here.
Monday, March 13, 2006
#27 Relevant Magazine and Living with Tares
A friend at work recommended a great magazine to me today which his niece actually works for. It is called RELEVANT. It started out as an internet magazine and has been in print for three years now. I guess I would describe it as an emergent Christian magazine about culture. From what I’ve read it is half articles about faith which are “relevant” to the 18 to 30 demographic and half articles on music, mostly focusing on Indie music. They do A LOT of music reviews. I think I might subscribe. Check their website out at the following link. Click Here.
Also there was a great article at Christianity Today entitled Living with Tares: Why I Stay in a Church That Has Seriously Strayed from Biblical Teaching. Here is the link to the article. Click Here This is coincidentally or not a subject I have been thinking a lot about lately as I have been searching for a church home for the past 2 years. I have been seriously considering attending a more, let’s just say, theologically diverse church for a while now and it’s interesting to hear of someone who has put the idea into practice. I think it’s a good idea, I just wasn’t aware of anyone actually doing it until now.
The heart of the issue is, I think, touched on in the following excerpt:
“Bishop Steenson then points out that Augustine cited two parables of Jesus—the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30) and the net (Matt. 13:47-50)—as a reminder that it is not our vocation to stand in the Lord's place as the sifter at the harvest or the sorter at the close of the age. ‘Let the separation be waited for until the end of time, faithfully, patiently, bravely,’ said Augustine.”
The first thing that pops into my head is from the movie Independence Day, where the alien “fan club” is on top of the skyscraper partying where they have set up a space ship landing pad and are celebrating the fact that the aliens are coming to take them away. They are on top of a building as if to say, “Here we are, we are your fans, we have loved you and welcomed you while the others are plotting to kill you.” As they stand there gazing up, a bright light emanates from the spaceship and seconds later, they are destroyed as a laser blows up the entire building, obliterating them.
Like I’ve said before, I think the Pharisees did the same thing when they drew boundary lines around the people of God as if to signal to God who to save and who to destroy. You might call this drawing of a boundary line, justifying themselves. I think we do the same thing in the church today and I think this article speaks to that. When we see a wrong doctrine we draw a line right through the middle of the church or even the world and say, “Here we are God, we’re the ones you want to take.” Check out the article.
Also there was a great article at Christianity Today entitled Living with Tares: Why I Stay in a Church That Has Seriously Strayed from Biblical Teaching. Here is the link to the article. Click Here This is coincidentally or not a subject I have been thinking a lot about lately as I have been searching for a church home for the past 2 years. I have been seriously considering attending a more, let’s just say, theologically diverse church for a while now and it’s interesting to hear of someone who has put the idea into practice. I think it’s a good idea, I just wasn’t aware of anyone actually doing it until now.
The heart of the issue is, I think, touched on in the following excerpt:
“Bishop Steenson then points out that Augustine cited two parables of Jesus—the wheat and the tares (Matt. 13:24-30) and the net (Matt. 13:47-50)—as a reminder that it is not our vocation to stand in the Lord's place as the sifter at the harvest or the sorter at the close of the age. ‘Let the separation be waited for until the end of time, faithfully, patiently, bravely,’ said Augustine.”
The first thing that pops into my head is from the movie Independence Day, where the alien “fan club” is on top of the skyscraper partying where they have set up a space ship landing pad and are celebrating the fact that the aliens are coming to take them away. They are on top of a building as if to say, “Here we are, we are your fans, we have loved you and welcomed you while the others are plotting to kill you.” As they stand there gazing up, a bright light emanates from the spaceship and seconds later, they are destroyed as a laser blows up the entire building, obliterating them.
Like I’ve said before, I think the Pharisees did the same thing when they drew boundary lines around the people of God as if to signal to God who to save and who to destroy. You might call this drawing of a boundary line, justifying themselves. I think we do the same thing in the church today and I think this article speaks to that. When we see a wrong doctrine we draw a line right through the middle of the church or even the world and say, “Here we are God, we’re the ones you want to take.” Check out the article.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
#26 Liking Homosexuals
So I was just watching America’s Next Top Model. Actually, my wife was watching it and I just happened to be in the room. :) There was a girl on there who openly admitted in one of the on camera soliloquy-type interviews that she didn’t like gay people. Later, in front of the panel of judges, she was questioned about that statement. One of her statements in reply: “I have a moral obligation to my church.”
At first glance, you might say that this girl is an idiot. And by every standard available you would be right, she is. However, her statement tells me more about the church than it does about her. This girl didn’t come up with these ideas on her own. The church’s teaching has led her to believe that the dislike of gays is the proper mindset for a member to have. Though not directly stated this way in any church I’ve been involved with, this is the mindset that we in the church are raised to have.
The church has become so concerned that its youth will be influenced by bad ideas and fall away that it has taught them to draw the boundary lines of God’s people with certain types of sinners on the outside. Yet their children (and they themselves) have gone further than just draw a line in the sand, they have actually been suspicious of, disliked, and wanted to separate themselves from those on the other side of the line.
So I’m putting out the wake up call to Christian leaders everywhere. The bulk of the church has hijacked our religion. Not only must we take it back but we must directly confront those who perpetrate this kind of distorted worldview. This girl and this generation, me included, have been developed to believe that we are in a battle with other humans for the culture of America, not to mention the world, and that those who sin openly and willingly are the enemy.
No, there is a true enemy that holds these other humans wounded and hostage and we cannot rescue them without stepping onto the battlefield ourselves as fellow humans to raise them up and fight with and for them in the war against this true enemy. For this girl, and for many like her, a good start would be to actually like and love those we should be taking bullets for, homosexuals included.
At first glance, you might say that this girl is an idiot. And by every standard available you would be right, she is. However, her statement tells me more about the church than it does about her. This girl didn’t come up with these ideas on her own. The church’s teaching has led her to believe that the dislike of gays is the proper mindset for a member to have. Though not directly stated this way in any church I’ve been involved with, this is the mindset that we in the church are raised to have.
The church has become so concerned that its youth will be influenced by bad ideas and fall away that it has taught them to draw the boundary lines of God’s people with certain types of sinners on the outside. Yet their children (and they themselves) have gone further than just draw a line in the sand, they have actually been suspicious of, disliked, and wanted to separate themselves from those on the other side of the line.
So I’m putting out the wake up call to Christian leaders everywhere. The bulk of the church has hijacked our religion. Not only must we take it back but we must directly confront those who perpetrate this kind of distorted worldview. This girl and this generation, me included, have been developed to believe that we are in a battle with other humans for the culture of America, not to mention the world, and that those who sin openly and willingly are the enemy.
No, there is a true enemy that holds these other humans wounded and hostage and we cannot rescue them without stepping onto the battlefield ourselves as fellow humans to raise them up and fight with and for them in the war against this true enemy. For this girl, and for many like her, a good start would be to actually like and love those we should be taking bullets for, homosexuals included.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)