I thought I would change up how I link to other blogs and articles at the end of the week - I read so many that to link to all that I found interesting would just be too many. Instead, I have decided to give you my five favorite of the week.
As always, just because I link to a blog (or retweet) does not mean I necessarily agree with it - just that I found it interesting. So, in no particular order -
1. "Who Are You Sleeping With? (Sex at Evangelical Colleges)" from the Save OBU (Oklahoma Baptist University) blog. Jacob Lupfer writes about the sexual pressures of being a Christian, young adult - including a aspect of that topic that I am very interested in, when Evangelicals get married very young in order to have church approved sexual relationships.
2. Rachel Held Evans wrote "Why Progressive Christians Should Care About Abortion." For so many on both sides of the debate it is a black and white issue. Held Evans does a good job, as usual, of combing her personal experience and well-sourced arguments to encourage the reader to fully consider what their position means.
3. One of the main problems I have with Evangelical Christianity is that believers of this brand of faith often believe things with little to no understanding of why they believe them. Often, either a sermon or teaching has a certain emotional appeal that they buy into, or enough repetition and the teaching is implanted. This is not unique to Evangelicalism, but certainly one of its pitfalls. Since most people do not have the vocabulary to have a "theological" discussion in the academic sense, a post like, "You Don't Have a One-Track Mind; Why Would God?" by blogger "MMCKINNISS," does a good job of challenging a belief of how God perceives time. By foregoing the bulky language of academic theology in favor of an analogy, "MMCKINNIS" makes his ideas accessible to all.
4. It is no surprise that I really like Zack Hunt's "The American Jesus" blog. One post this week addresses how to treat people who don't profess a Christian faith, but has all of the characteristics of what a Christian person is expected to have. "What Do We Do With Non-Christians Who Act Like Christians?" is a little longer but worth the read.
5. I'll end this week's Five Favorites with a lighter post from Tony Jones at Theoblogy. He posted a picture of a fourth grade science exam from a Christian school in South Carolina and used it to start a discussion about how to talk to children about science and faith. Plus, if you saw last week, I have an affinity for pictures of Jesus with dinosaurs and he ends his post with one.
Did I miss a blog or article that you found particularly interesting? Leave it in the comments.
Showing posts with label Evangelical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelical. Show all posts
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Consequences of Believing in the Rapture
In Case You Missed It: History of The Rapture
Belief in the rapture may seem like an innocuous eschatological world view to some, to others the consequences are readily apparent in "Christian" nations' foreign policy doctrines and attitudes towards Israel and the Middle East. In the first decade of the 21st century, many accused then-president George W. Bush of trying to spur on the coming of the rapture by changing U.S. policy regarding Israel and Gaza. Environmentalists accuse rapture-believing Christians of supporting policies that do not protect the environment based on a "we-are-close-to-the-end-so-it-doesn't-matter-anyway" belief. Both of these issues are of concern, but perhaps of even more concern is how it shapes the practices of the Church, and what mission Christians have in the world.
Wars and Rumors of War, Famines and Earthquakes (Matthew 24)
In the last few weeks the world has seen increasing tensions with North Korea, an increasingly violent, Syrian civil war, a terrorist attack in Boston and earthquakes around the world. Proponents of the rapture look at the news services and confirm their suspicion that these are indeed the "birth pangs" of the end times. Now, unlike any time before, we have instant access to information. Alarmists, conspiracy theorists and doomsday preachers have a potentially global audience through social media and the internet.
What is perhaps worse, is that some seem to encourage these military conflicts as necessary events before Jesus returns. This especially includes the rebuilding of the Temple on Mt. Moriah in Israel - a site that currently is home to two mosques. The return of this site to Israeli control would certainly either require military fighting, or a treaty that would lead to fighting.
This isn't a new phenomenon though, just a continuation of how misguided thoughts about the end of the world lead to violence. In The Rapture Trap, Paul Thigpen says, "Irresponsible rhetoric about an impending end of the world could and did provoke tragic results," (156).
He goes on to describe various Christian leaders and sects who used end times concerns to rally people to their causes - almost always ending in violence and death. We are not without modern examples of sectarian views regarding the end times resulting in death. It was only 20 years ago that the federal government of the United States led a siege against a fringe sect of Seventh Day Adventists that ended in the deaths of 86 people. Many who have written on the subject have pointed at the Branch Davidians belief in a fiery apocalypse as one of the contributing factors to their violent resistance and eventual deaths.
It seems reasonable to look at the correlation between distrust of governments and world institutions with apocalyptic worldviews. It is quite likely that "rugged individualism," so deeply entrenched in the Protestant ethic and American mindset, increases the tendency for this distrust. It can initiate a self-feeding where the distrust builds up apocalyptic mindsets, leading to more distrust, etc..
Apocalyptic worldviews leading to violence are not unique to Christianity, though. It has been suggested that the rise in jihadism and terrorist activities around the world by Islamic extremists is due to the belief in an Islamic prophecy regarding an imam returning. It is interesting to me that Americans, in their Islamophobia, are so quick to point to this as a source of violence, without acknowledging their own contributions to the violence by their own views.
It is not only fringe sects whose beliefs are dangerous. "Of course, end times speculation does not always lead to the violence of Thomas Muentzer or a Jan Bockelson. Nor would we suggest that contemporary believers in the rapture are likely to raise a revolutionary army. The point to be made is that even it its milder forms, eccentric apocalyptic doctrine can lead to harmful delusions," writes Thigpen (160).
The Focus of the Church
Thigpen's point is that even without violence, these worldviews lead to a faulty view of the Church. "Dispensationalists see the Church more as a collection of individuals with a correct belief, a voluntary association of those who are already 'saved,' each waiting his turn to escape a corrupt world and enter the safety of heaven," (163). In the following pages Thigpen goes on to explain that this view, "Devalu[es ...] the Church's purpose in the world," and that it, "warns Christians not to dirty their hands with attempts to improve the conditions of the world," (165-166).
Often times this is true. There seems to be an arrest in the development into a mature faith in Christians who focus on the rapture. Conversion and evangelism becomes the sole focus instead of deepening one's personal faith - moving from the milk to the meat. This conversion experience is preached as becoming a "new creation," certainly words from the Bible, but neglects the effort required to have a fuller expression of faith - what Paul calls continuing to work out our faith with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). The continuing work of personal faith ought to be the apex of the Church's mission. Thigpen calls it a "repeated, lifelong giving of the self to God," (167).
That is not to say that evangelism deserves to be demoted, but must be combined with this continuing pursuit of faith and it must work hand-in-hand with Jesus' words about dealing with the "least." It has gotten better in recent years in regards to social issues, various ideas from the emergent, emerging, post-evangelical (etc..) Church have had increased the importance of the missions of social justice, eliminating poverty, slavery and other worthwhile pursuits. Too often, though, this third aspect of developing faith is given lip-service or dressed up in pseudo-psychology and self-help.
So then, while some actively work in pushing the world towards Armageddon, others let this ideology passively affect how they operate as Christians in the world. Altar calls and the sinners' prayer have replaced orphanages and soup kitchens. Conversion has replaced Catechism as the mode for developing faith.
Final Thoughts
Using Thigpen and a reference to the Catechism is not an implicit endorsement of all things Catholic. No institution or individual is without failures and shortcomings. Instead, it is to highlight that on this particular issue, the rapture, Evangelical thinking has perhaps gotten it wrong - and in doing so have undermined the true mission of the Church which is spreading the Good News of Jesus to all people and further developing personal faith into a more meaningful relationship with God. Further, this developed faith leads to a desire to be an agent of change in a way consistent with Jesus' message - changing how we treat the those with the least.
Tomorrow I will write about how belief in the rapture has affected me personally.
Go here for a rundown of the posts from "Rapture! Week"
Belief in the rapture may seem like an innocuous eschatological world view to some, to others the consequences are readily apparent in "Christian" nations' foreign policy doctrines and attitudes towards Israel and the Middle East. In the first decade of the 21st century, many accused then-president George W. Bush of trying to spur on the coming of the rapture by changing U.S. policy regarding Israel and Gaza. Environmentalists accuse rapture-believing Christians of supporting policies that do not protect the environment based on a "we-are-close-to-the-end-so-it-doesn't-matter-anyway" belief. Both of these issues are of concern, but perhaps of even more concern is how it shapes the practices of the Church, and what mission Christians have in the world.
Wars and Rumors of War, Famines and Earthquakes (Matthew 24)
In the last few weeks the world has seen increasing tensions with North Korea, an increasingly violent, Syrian civil war, a terrorist attack in Boston and earthquakes around the world. Proponents of the rapture look at the news services and confirm their suspicion that these are indeed the "birth pangs" of the end times. Now, unlike any time before, we have instant access to information. Alarmists, conspiracy theorists and doomsday preachers have a potentially global audience through social media and the internet.
What is perhaps worse, is that some seem to encourage these military conflicts as necessary events before Jesus returns. This especially includes the rebuilding of the Temple on Mt. Moriah in Israel - a site that currently is home to two mosques. The return of this site to Israeli control would certainly either require military fighting, or a treaty that would lead to fighting.
This isn't a new phenomenon though, just a continuation of how misguided thoughts about the end of the world lead to violence. In The Rapture Trap, Paul Thigpen says, "Irresponsible rhetoric about an impending end of the world could and did provoke tragic results," (156).
He goes on to describe various Christian leaders and sects who used end times concerns to rally people to their causes - almost always ending in violence and death. We are not without modern examples of sectarian views regarding the end times resulting in death. It was only 20 years ago that the federal government of the United States led a siege against a fringe sect of Seventh Day Adventists that ended in the deaths of 86 people. Many who have written on the subject have pointed at the Branch Davidians belief in a fiery apocalypse as one of the contributing factors to their violent resistance and eventual deaths.
It seems reasonable to look at the correlation between distrust of governments and world institutions with apocalyptic worldviews. It is quite likely that "rugged individualism," so deeply entrenched in the Protestant ethic and American mindset, increases the tendency for this distrust. It can initiate a self-feeding where the distrust builds up apocalyptic mindsets, leading to more distrust, etc..
Apocalyptic worldviews leading to violence are not unique to Christianity, though. It has been suggested that the rise in jihadism and terrorist activities around the world by Islamic extremists is due to the belief in an Islamic prophecy regarding an imam returning. It is interesting to me that Americans, in their Islamophobia, are so quick to point to this as a source of violence, without acknowledging their own contributions to the violence by their own views.
It is not only fringe sects whose beliefs are dangerous. "Of course, end times speculation does not always lead to the violence of Thomas Muentzer or a Jan Bockelson. Nor would we suggest that contemporary believers in the rapture are likely to raise a revolutionary army. The point to be made is that even it its milder forms, eccentric apocalyptic doctrine can lead to harmful delusions," writes Thigpen (160).
The Focus of the Church
Thigpen's point is that even without violence, these worldviews lead to a faulty view of the Church. "Dispensationalists see the Church more as a collection of individuals with a correct belief, a voluntary association of those who are already 'saved,' each waiting his turn to escape a corrupt world and enter the safety of heaven," (163). In the following pages Thigpen goes on to explain that this view, "Devalu[es ...] the Church's purpose in the world," and that it, "warns Christians not to dirty their hands with attempts to improve the conditions of the world," (165-166).
Often times this is true. There seems to be an arrest in the development into a mature faith in Christians who focus on the rapture. Conversion and evangelism becomes the sole focus instead of deepening one's personal faith - moving from the milk to the meat. This conversion experience is preached as becoming a "new creation," certainly words from the Bible, but neglects the effort required to have a fuller expression of faith - what Paul calls continuing to work out our faith with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). The continuing work of personal faith ought to be the apex of the Church's mission. Thigpen calls it a "repeated, lifelong giving of the self to God," (167).
That is not to say that evangelism deserves to be demoted, but must be combined with this continuing pursuit of faith and it must work hand-in-hand with Jesus' words about dealing with the "least." It has gotten better in recent years in regards to social issues, various ideas from the emergent, emerging, post-evangelical (etc..) Church have had increased the importance of the missions of social justice, eliminating poverty, slavery and other worthwhile pursuits. Too often, though, this third aspect of developing faith is given lip-service or dressed up in pseudo-psychology and self-help.
So then, while some actively work in pushing the world towards Armageddon, others let this ideology passively affect how they operate as Christians in the world. Altar calls and the sinners' prayer have replaced orphanages and soup kitchens. Conversion has replaced Catechism as the mode for developing faith.
Final Thoughts
Using Thigpen and a reference to the Catechism is not an implicit endorsement of all things Catholic. No institution or individual is without failures and shortcomings. Instead, it is to highlight that on this particular issue, the rapture, Evangelical thinking has perhaps gotten it wrong - and in doing so have undermined the true mission of the Church which is spreading the Good News of Jesus to all people and further developing personal faith into a more meaningful relationship with God. Further, this developed faith leads to a desire to be an agent of change in a way consistent with Jesus' message - changing how we treat the those with the least.
Tomorrow I will write about how belief in the rapture has affected me personally.
Go here for a rundown of the posts from "Rapture! Week"
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
The Hiddenness of God
Post by Monte:
The question was: if God wants a relationship with us, then why does He hide Himself? This was my response:
2. Yet there is a part of this question that is unanswerable. In that same book Orual also remarks, ‘what answer could you give, you yourself are the answer.’ That seems to me to be the lesson of the Book of Job. God had made a ‘bet’ with Satan that we as the reader are aware of, but Job is not. Job complains for chapters that he is in the right and God is in the wrong and he wishes there was a judge between them. When God shows up, He doesn’t explain to Job why all his misfortunes befell him. Instead God simply just shows Job who he is. Job’s response is ‘I am undone.’ Job, for whatever reason, could not or did not get the explanation that we got, the explanation we would expect him to get. Instead God’s nature was the only answer he got. The reason being, I think, is that God’s ways are to a large degree incomprehensible. And we should expect this! If we understood God completely, if He was always there at our beck and call, that would be a pretty good indication that He was a function of our psyche. Or to put it another way: for God to be completely knowable by us He would have to be on our level, but God being on our level would be solid evidence that He was our creation rather than we His.
3. I think that the hiddenness of God is always a problem, but it is particularly a problem for us as Evangelicals because of the way we ‘package’ God. God is both transcendent and imminent—He is both present and hidden. Many past ages and traditions within the Christian faith have emphasized His transcendence. My impression, when I read these writers, is that because they begin with the presumption of God’s power, majesty, incompressibility, etc. His hiddenness is less of an issue. For when you assume God’s hiddenness as a default position and moments of intimacy or revelation as unmerited (and uncommon) gifts of God’s grace, you are less likely to expect Him to be with you in tangible ways during times of crisis and you are therefore not as likely to get frustrated, feel abandoned, etc. when He is not. This understanding on God’s transcendence, to some degree, negates the problem. However, in our tradition we tend to emphasize the immanence of God. We tell new or potential converts that God is ‘closer than a brother,’ ‘loves us like a Father,’ etc., which is all true. However, without an understanding and expectation of His hiddenness, these analogies can cause confusion and magnify the problem of God’s hiddenness. For example, one could think: when I text my friends, they get back to me within the hour. Yet I pray to God and He doesn’t respond even after years of prayer. How can God be closer than a friend when He is more distant (or rude) than my friends? Or: I am a good and loving Dad, so if my daughter needed me I would be with her in a time of difficulty and I would let her know that I was with her. Yet I have had times of difficulty in which I’ve asked God for help and He hasn’t been there (at least not in tangible ways). If God says He is a loving father, why doesn’t He act like it? He must either (A) not exist, (B) not care and therefore not be loving, or (C) lack power to act and therefore not be ‘God.’ These conclusions are false, but given the premises with which we often promote our faith, they are logical. And I think that is one of the main reasons people turn away from Christianity in times of trial—they have nothing in their theology for the hiddenness of God because we’ve overemphasized His immanence. Yes we should talk about how God is like a friend, husband, father, etc.—but we also need to show how God is not like any of these relationships because He is so far above and beyond us. A good understanding of God’s transcendence will not answer the problem this question presents, for again, it is to some degree unanswerable, but it will minimize it.
The question was: if God wants a relationship with us, then why does He hide Himself? This was my response:
This is a fundamental question, perhaps THE great question we have to answer. This question especially comes to the forefront when we experience a period of pain and suffering. I don’t think I have a good answer, but I have a few thoughts.
1. It is true that it is often we that hide ourselves from God, not God that hides Himself from us. In C.S. Lewis’s Till We Have Faces the main character, Orual, comes to this very conclusion. ‘How can we see you face to face,’ she asks, ‘till we have faces?’ In her pride, anger, and self-justification she veils herself from God. It is ultimately only God’s grace that can reveal the falsehood under which she has been living and free her from it.
2. Yet there is a part of this question that is unanswerable. In that same book Orual also remarks, ‘what answer could you give, you yourself are the answer.’ That seems to me to be the lesson of the Book of Job. God had made a ‘bet’ with Satan that we as the reader are aware of, but Job is not. Job complains for chapters that he is in the right and God is in the wrong and he wishes there was a judge between them. When God shows up, He doesn’t explain to Job why all his misfortunes befell him. Instead God simply just shows Job who he is. Job’s response is ‘I am undone.’ Job, for whatever reason, could not or did not get the explanation that we got, the explanation we would expect him to get. Instead God’s nature was the only answer he got. The reason being, I think, is that God’s ways are to a large degree incomprehensible. And we should expect this! If we understood God completely, if He was always there at our beck and call, that would be a pretty good indication that He was a function of our psyche. Or to put it another way: for God to be completely knowable by us He would have to be on our level, but God being on our level would be solid evidence that He was our creation rather than we His.
3. I think that the hiddenness of God is always a problem, but it is particularly a problem for us as Evangelicals because of the way we ‘package’ God. God is both transcendent and imminent—He is both present and hidden. Many past ages and traditions within the Christian faith have emphasized His transcendence. My impression, when I read these writers, is that because they begin with the presumption of God’s power, majesty, incompressibility, etc. His hiddenness is less of an issue. For when you assume God’s hiddenness as a default position and moments of intimacy or revelation as unmerited (and uncommon) gifts of God’s grace, you are less likely to expect Him to be with you in tangible ways during times of crisis and you are therefore not as likely to get frustrated, feel abandoned, etc. when He is not. This understanding on God’s transcendence, to some degree, negates the problem. However, in our tradition we tend to emphasize the immanence of God. We tell new or potential converts that God is ‘closer than a brother,’ ‘loves us like a Father,’ etc., which is all true. However, without an understanding and expectation of His hiddenness, these analogies can cause confusion and magnify the problem of God’s hiddenness. For example, one could think: when I text my friends, they get back to me within the hour. Yet I pray to God and He doesn’t respond even after years of prayer. How can God be closer than a friend when He is more distant (or rude) than my friends? Or: I am a good and loving Dad, so if my daughter needed me I would be with her in a time of difficulty and I would let her know that I was with her. Yet I have had times of difficulty in which I’ve asked God for help and He hasn’t been there (at least not in tangible ways). If God says He is a loving father, why doesn’t He act like it? He must either (A) not exist, (B) not care and therefore not be loving, or (C) lack power to act and therefore not be ‘God.’ These conclusions are false, but given the premises with which we often promote our faith, they are logical. And I think that is one of the main reasons people turn away from Christianity in times of trial—they have nothing in their theology for the hiddenness of God because we’ve overemphasized His immanence. Yes we should talk about how God is like a friend, husband, father, etc.—but we also need to show how God is not like any of these relationships because He is so far above and beyond us. A good understanding of God’s transcendence will not answer the problem this question presents, for again, it is to some degree unanswerable, but it will minimize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
