with the election of the new Pope, Benedict XVI, we've heard of the jubilation of some (he will continue the theological direction of John Paul II), and we've heard disappointment (he's too conservative - the Church needs to get in line with the world). it's really interesting to me how many people, how many Christians, don't understand the importance of doctrine, and just dismiss it as if it were the source of all the Church's (and the world's) problems. surely some of the world's problems can be traced back to doctrine, or is it really a misunderstanding of, or manipulation of true doctrine?
I would submit to you that doctrine is not only necessary, but it's critical to the life of the Christian faith. Doctrine forms for us the very core of what it means to be a Christian, and believe the Christian faith is true. Unconvinced?
The following are just a few core doctrines that are what we can call within orthodoxy. Belief in One God. Belief that our One God is mysteriously made up of Three persons (we know God as the Trinity). Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father, not made. Belief that the Holy Spirit is the love that connects the Father and the Son, who dwells in us, transforming us for the purposes, the glory of God. Belief that one day Jesus will return, and there will be a day of judgment. Belief in the resurrection of the body. Belief in the forgiveness of sins for all who recognize their own sinfullness, and call out for the grace of God in Christ Jesus. Belief that Jesus ordained the Church, and that on some mysterious level, we are one body of believers, both locally and worldwide, and that, again mysteriously, our salvation is a communal act and process as much as a personal one.
For a better, shorter, and more articulate understanding of core Christian beliefs (or doctrines), just check out the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds. They are the earliest, best known statements of faith concerning Christianity on the part of thoughtful Christians from the earlier years of the Church's existence.
But here's the proverbial rub, in and of itself, even the best doctrine is useless if it's not lived out. Hence we have much of the Church's problems at different times over its history. It's fair to say that many of the complaints that are leveled at the Church by various people have at least some merit. As humans, even Christians struggle with their own humanity, their own sinful nature. And, as Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30) tells us, there are men and women in the Church who are not believers. From that parable, and certainly from various points in Church history, one can conclude that there have been men and women who attained positions of authority, who were neither called nor qualified, but who were able to use their office for their own personal gain, or worse, to reign at the expense of the people whom they should have been serving. We certainly know that the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants during the 16th century turned the hearts and minds of many people away from the Church to the point of where the Enlightenment sought to get away from thoughtful doctrine, and produced the idol of the 'clock-maker God' and natural theology.
But all of that's to say, throwing the baby out with the bath water is never a good solution. In point of fact, we struggle today against the secularist mindset that is the natural progression of that original Enlightenment mindset. Again, however, too many Christians fall into the trap of playing on a field that our faith isn't necessarily called to be, so we get caught up in arguments science, when we should be living the faith we so earnestly talk about.
When "used" properly, doctrine is the schematic for Christians. It gives us depth beyond the old Sunday School answer. It shows us to be thinking people. Doctrine can give us confidence to live what we believe. It equips us to be the people God created us to be. But when we treat it as mere Bible trivia, or worse, we put ourselves in an indefensible position, turning into uneducated fundamentalists whose mantra is 'the Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.'
Let's joyfully embrace the orthodox doctrines of our faith, living out what we think and say, so that all people can see, whether they want to agree with our doctrine or not, they cannot find fault with who they find us to be in Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
when are problems with education a justice issue?
what does a blog on theology have to do with problems in education, and what do they have to do with issues of justice? a lot, I think. here's my dilemma... I've been serving on this committee at a local public middle school for the last three years to help re-envision how the middle school delivers education to its constituents. this last year I've been serving on a sub-committee to do with special education. this sub-committee, made up of myself, another parent, at least two regular ed teachers, a reading specialist, and three special ed teachers has worked their butts off over this last school year. our responsibility came down to presenting a report, as part of the greater committee, to the school board a couple of weeks ago. before I get into that, I want to say that I have no background or experience in special education, but I do have a passion for middle school students. what I learned as part of this sub-committee has blown me away - that is, this middle school's delivery of special education, and its ability to help kids who are just on the cusp of falling behind is so bassackwards it's scary. for the record, when our report was made, the school board agreed with our assessment that there was a problem, but there was no money to make any changes. UGH.
my question to you is, do you think that if this school board and the administration of this middle school know that their special education department is swamped and short-handed, and that there are several dozen students who are falling through the cracks because of the disorganization of the school, that this is a justice issue? are these students being treated in a truly unjust manner? are they victims of somebody else's political issues, whether on the school board or in the administration? what does God have to say to this situation? while this may not be a "spiritual" issue, is it not in the best interests of the christians to stand up for what's important, necessary, or just darn good for the students who are in need? is it okay to push a kid through secondary education knowing that by the time he or she graduates they'll be qualified to flip burgers or pump gas? yes, the world needs ditch diggers, but are we guilty of narrowing the options for these kids if we knowingly allow them to go through a school that is preventing them from having the same options for life as the student who is getting straight 'A's?
what do you think?
my question to you is, do you think that if this school board and the administration of this middle school know that their special education department is swamped and short-handed, and that there are several dozen students who are falling through the cracks because of the disorganization of the school, that this is a justice issue? are these students being treated in a truly unjust manner? are they victims of somebody else's political issues, whether on the school board or in the administration? what does God have to say to this situation? while this may not be a "spiritual" issue, is it not in the best interests of the christians to stand up for what's important, necessary, or just darn good for the students who are in need? is it okay to push a kid through secondary education knowing that by the time he or she graduates they'll be qualified to flip burgers or pump gas? yes, the world needs ditch diggers, but are we guilty of narrowing the options for these kids if we knowingly allow them to go through a school that is preventing them from having the same options for life as the student who is getting straight 'A's?
what do you think?
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
the Pope
has it been oversaid? this pope was a great guy. I liked him so much, I could have almost become roman catholic. But all of that aside, he was a wonderful Christian. He truly sought to live out his faith with great joy and obedience to Christ. He understood the seamless life between right thinking about your faith, and right living of your faith out in all areas. He was against facism, communism, poverty, but loved everyone, regardless of which side of the "issue" they fell on. I wish more Christians were like him. I would like my faith to influence me as deeply as his led him onward to Christ Jesus. Can you imagine what the Church would be like if everyone, protestant, pentecostal, and catholic, actually sought to live as faithful a life as John Paul II did? Hmmmmmm...
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
my heart - my Savior
try hard
try
trying and trying harder
my heart
a waste land left to itself
Your love, my Savior
no need to try
just need to be
but I resist
try is all I know
but what is it?
what do I need to prove?
Your grace
reaching deep down deep
transforming
changing
me
yet I want to try
Your grace
reaching deeper down deeper still
deeper
don't recognize myself that deep
Your grace
reaches me
loving me
the unfathomable love
my Savior
I AM
You say
Your call
to me
not to try
not to do
I AM
echoes, echoes
my heart recognizing
my mind screaming joy
not to try
not to do
just be
I AM
just be
now I just am
try
trying and trying harder
my heart
a waste land left to itself
Your love, my Savior
no need to try
just need to be
but I resist
try is all I know
but what is it?
what do I need to prove?
Your grace
reaching deep down deep
transforming
changing
me
yet I want to try
Your grace
reaching deeper down deeper still
deeper
don't recognize myself that deep
Your grace
reaches me
loving me
the unfathomable love
my Savior
I AM
You say
Your call
to me
not to try
not to do
I AM
echoes, echoes
my heart recognizing
my mind screaming joy
not to try
not to do
just be
I AM
just be
now I just am
Monday, April 04, 2005
getting beyond the "liberal" and "conservative" labels
Okay, this is a long entry, but I think it's worth it...
I'm in the best place and the worst place for a guy who follows Christ to be. What's that place? Well, I describe it like this... I'm constantly thinking about and through what I believe, trying [with God's help] to bring all that I am into conformity to the biblical witness. That is, I want my faith to be consistent with Scripture. Here's the rub. It's hard.
One of the most ironic dynamics to come out of the Church [and culture, for that matter] in the modern age was taking the use of labels to a new high. The modern age didn't invent labels. They're probably as old as prostitution. But it seemingly perfected them. I mean, in fact, the use of such terms as "liberal" and "conservative". I believe it was men such as Hobbes and Locke who really got them going in the political jingo of their times. "Liberal" was good - represented a thinking person who was not going to be kept under the boot of the "conservative" - bad, and often representative of either the status quo, if not monarchy outright. Today, in the good ole U.S. of A., the terms have both narrowed and broadened. They have become derisive and polemical. Ironically, each side is proud to wear the label each owns, and is equally proud not be of the other, all of this inspite of the polemics involved.
Unfortunately, somewhere in the 19th century, it seems these labels started making their way into the Church, at least the Protestant wing. "Liberal" meant anyone who sought to examine the depths of the biblical witness to the point of what was popularly known as demythologizing the Bible, so as to find the so-called "historical Jesus." "Conservative" on the other hand came to be known as the defender of the authoratative witness of Scripture. Early on in the 20th century, as "liberals" began to dominate the old, main line denominations, "conservatives" reacted and responded in various ways, much of which might be described as the "fundamentalist" movement, which came up with a spiritual litmus test of sorts to determine who was a Christian and who was a liberal. Answering yes to a variety of questions such as believing in the virgin birth of Jesus, and believing that Scripture is inerrant and inspired meant that you were a true believer. Answering no meant that you were one of them, a liberal, and of questionable spirituality. Sadly, "liberals" because of their fear of bible as myth, they reduced Christianity to what came to be known as the social gospel - Jesus as the good, moral example who reached out and helped people. Even more sadly, "conservatives/fundamentalists" reacted by seeing the social gospel as suspect, a watering down of the Truth, and merely concentrated their interpretation of the bible as mere assent to the propositions of truth and a number of external behaviors toward a unified conformity. Ironically, both sides were rooted in the modernist problem of thinking that as people, we could understand the mysteries of the universe [and of God], and that which we could not understand, or scientifically explain, was just myth. True Christianity was reduced to either social outreach or propositional truth. You either agreed with it, or you rejected it. There was no room in the middle for the tension of mystery.
Today, the Church still bandies such labels around. Here's my problem. I'm tired of the labels, "liberal" and "conservative". I think they are misleading and lead us away from the point of our faith engaging the world. I wish we would just do away with them. But here's the otherside of my problem. I still believe in labels, of sorts. My labels have to do with inside the Church. You're either a "believer" or a "follower" of Christ, or you're a "heretic." I want to get away from labels. But I can't. I think moving to this new set of labels is at least more honest. I know a lot of "conservatives" who think "liberals" are really just "heretics."
What I don't understand is why we just don't come out and say what we think. I mean really. There are people in the Church who struggle to believe all of the stuff about miracles. Does that put them outside of Christian fellowship? I guess if they can't accept the ultimate miracle, that Jesus was the God incarnate, and was crucified, died, buried, and raised from the dead by the power of God, there's a rub. If any church is teaching that you can be a "Christian" and not believe in that, well, shame on you. But can we not teach that God is bigger than our doubts or our confusion for that matter? We have to get over the hang ups of forcing people to not wrestle with their confusion or get over their doubts and just believe. Jesus didn't beat Thomas upside the head and call him, "liberal" because Thomas said he wouldn't believe Jesus had really been resurrected unless he saw the wounds for himself and touched them with his own hands. Jesus just showed up and called him on it. Okay, you say, Jesus isn't just going to materialize in our churches on Sundays and challenge the unbelieving among us to raise their hands and reach out and touch Him. But maybe, for those of us who are "believers" and "followers", we should concentrate on being the body, carrying those wounds on ourselves, showing to everyone within and outside of the Church that Christ did die, and was raised to new life through the power of God.
I guess the labels are helpful. They certainly help us demarcate politics and religion. They help us assign positions to people. They help us know who's "in" and who's "out." I'm being sarcastic, at least about their ultimately being helpful. In the end, labels take our focus off God, as the center of our faith, and as the center of our life. Labels, whether they be "liberal" or "conservative" end up putting us in an untenable position where we're stuck in the game of comparisons with others. Jesus clearly said this is foolish and ridiculous [see the parable of the tax collector and the pharisee - Luke 18:9-14]. I can always find others who are far more "liberal" than I; by the same token, there's most assuredly someone out there who is more "conservative" that I am, and who could (and proudly would) point the finger at me and decry me as "liberal"!
Reality is, I don't know what I am any more, except to say, I am a "believer" and "follower" of Jesus Christ, as best I can, and with God's help. These are the labels I am most comfortable with wearing; at least trying to fit into.
How about you???
I'm in the best place and the worst place for a guy who follows Christ to be. What's that place? Well, I describe it like this... I'm constantly thinking about and through what I believe, trying [with God's help] to bring all that I am into conformity to the biblical witness. That is, I want my faith to be consistent with Scripture. Here's the rub. It's hard.
One of the most ironic dynamics to come out of the Church [and culture, for that matter] in the modern age was taking the use of labels to a new high. The modern age didn't invent labels. They're probably as old as prostitution. But it seemingly perfected them. I mean, in fact, the use of such terms as "liberal" and "conservative". I believe it was men such as Hobbes and Locke who really got them going in the political jingo of their times. "Liberal" was good - represented a thinking person who was not going to be kept under the boot of the "conservative" - bad, and often representative of either the status quo, if not monarchy outright. Today, in the good ole U.S. of A., the terms have both narrowed and broadened. They have become derisive and polemical. Ironically, each side is proud to wear the label each owns, and is equally proud not be of the other, all of this inspite of the polemics involved.
Unfortunately, somewhere in the 19th century, it seems these labels started making their way into the Church, at least the Protestant wing. "Liberal" meant anyone who sought to examine the depths of the biblical witness to the point of what was popularly known as demythologizing the Bible, so as to find the so-called "historical Jesus." "Conservative" on the other hand came to be known as the defender of the authoratative witness of Scripture. Early on in the 20th century, as "liberals" began to dominate the old, main line denominations, "conservatives" reacted and responded in various ways, much of which might be described as the "fundamentalist" movement, which came up with a spiritual litmus test of sorts to determine who was a Christian and who was a liberal. Answering yes to a variety of questions such as believing in the virgin birth of Jesus, and believing that Scripture is inerrant and inspired meant that you were a true believer. Answering no meant that you were one of them, a liberal, and of questionable spirituality. Sadly, "liberals" because of their fear of bible as myth, they reduced Christianity to what came to be known as the social gospel - Jesus as the good, moral example who reached out and helped people. Even more sadly, "conservatives/fundamentalists" reacted by seeing the social gospel as suspect, a watering down of the Truth, and merely concentrated their interpretation of the bible as mere assent to the propositions of truth and a number of external behaviors toward a unified conformity. Ironically, both sides were rooted in the modernist problem of thinking that as people, we could understand the mysteries of the universe [and of God], and that which we could not understand, or scientifically explain, was just myth. True Christianity was reduced to either social outreach or propositional truth. You either agreed with it, or you rejected it. There was no room in the middle for the tension of mystery.
Today, the Church still bandies such labels around. Here's my problem. I'm tired of the labels, "liberal" and "conservative". I think they are misleading and lead us away from the point of our faith engaging the world. I wish we would just do away with them. But here's the otherside of my problem. I still believe in labels, of sorts. My labels have to do with inside the Church. You're either a "believer" or a "follower" of Christ, or you're a "heretic." I want to get away from labels. But I can't. I think moving to this new set of labels is at least more honest. I know a lot of "conservatives" who think "liberals" are really just "heretics."
What I don't understand is why we just don't come out and say what we think. I mean really. There are people in the Church who struggle to believe all of the stuff about miracles. Does that put them outside of Christian fellowship? I guess if they can't accept the ultimate miracle, that Jesus was the God incarnate, and was crucified, died, buried, and raised from the dead by the power of God, there's a rub. If any church is teaching that you can be a "Christian" and not believe in that, well, shame on you. But can we not teach that God is bigger than our doubts or our confusion for that matter? We have to get over the hang ups of forcing people to not wrestle with their confusion or get over their doubts and just believe. Jesus didn't beat Thomas upside the head and call him, "liberal" because Thomas said he wouldn't believe Jesus had really been resurrected unless he saw the wounds for himself and touched them with his own hands. Jesus just showed up and called him on it. Okay, you say, Jesus isn't just going to materialize in our churches on Sundays and challenge the unbelieving among us to raise their hands and reach out and touch Him. But maybe, for those of us who are "believers" and "followers", we should concentrate on being the body, carrying those wounds on ourselves, showing to everyone within and outside of the Church that Christ did die, and was raised to new life through the power of God.
I guess the labels are helpful. They certainly help us demarcate politics and religion. They help us assign positions to people. They help us know who's "in" and who's "out." I'm being sarcastic, at least about their ultimately being helpful. In the end, labels take our focus off God, as the center of our faith, and as the center of our life. Labels, whether they be "liberal" or "conservative" end up putting us in an untenable position where we're stuck in the game of comparisons with others. Jesus clearly said this is foolish and ridiculous [see the parable of the tax collector and the pharisee - Luke 18:9-14]. I can always find others who are far more "liberal" than I; by the same token, there's most assuredly someone out there who is more "conservative" that I am, and who could (and proudly would) point the finger at me and decry me as "liberal"!
Reality is, I don't know what I am any more, except to say, I am a "believer" and "follower" of Jesus Christ, as best I can, and with God's help. These are the labels I am most comfortable with wearing; at least trying to fit into.
How about you???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
