Saturday, October 9, 2010

New Being


  In Galatians 6:15 Paul writes, "For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." Paul appears to be speaking directly into the social, political, religious, and secular constructs of his day. The message is clear, none of it matters, but only a new creation. Paul suggests that we should not concern ourselves over Christian religion, the state of our churches, about membership and doctrines, institutions and ministers, sermons and sacraments. All of it is circumcision; and everything else in this world is uncircumcision. Paul says that both are nothing, of no importance, if the ultimate question is asked, the question of a new creation. 
   Paul Tillich suggests, "The New Being is not something that simply takes the place of the Old Being. But it is a renewal of the Old which has been corrupted, distorted, split and almost destroyed. But not wholly destroyed. Salvation does not destroy creation; but it transforms the Old Creation into a new one" (The New Being p20). Reconciliation is the process of the old becoming new. Are we participating in it? The message of Christianity is not Christianity, but a new creation. We are the privileged sons and daughters of Christ who have been invited into this life. Accept it, enter into it, let it grasp you. 
 



Wednesday, October 6, 2010

A Pilgrim Motif


A “pilgrim” is a person who is on a spiritual journey toward enlightenment, discovery, and the pursuit of God. When one thinks of a journey we think of someone who is on the move. Movement, however, does not always mean that we are making progress or actually getting somewhere. We can walk on a treadmill for thirty minutes and still be in the same place where we started. We can do laps on a track and just be going around in circles. 
The “pilgrim” does not wander aimless about, but travels with purpose and destination in mind. In The Pilgrim’s Progress, Till We Have Faces, and Pilgrim at Tinker Creek the main characters are on a journey, a journey that leads them to self-discovery and transformation.
The Pilgrim’s Progress demonstrates that knowledge is gained through travel by portraying Christian and his companions learning from their mistakes on their journey to the Celestial City. Pilgrimage depends on travel, and so a pilgrim must be a voyager prepared to go the distance to discover what they seek. Yet in Bunyan’s book, the voyage in-and-of-itself does not make a traveler a pilgrim. The pilgrim must advance spiritually as he or she advances geographically. The key factor is knowledge, which must increase as the pilgrim proceeds forward. Christian never makes the same mistake twice or meets the same foe twice, because he learns from his experiences. Once he experiences the Slough of Despond, he never needs to be despondent again. Other pilgrims on the journey who lack similar understanding may advance a considerable distance, like Heedless and Too-bold, who almost get to the Celestial City; however, they do not understand what they undergo and fall short in reaching the desired destination.
In Till We Have Faces, C.S. Lewis tells the story of Orual and her journey of unveiling herself to discover her true identity. Orual’s pilgrimage takes her into self-revelatory actions, and the long process of the taking and then the divinely stimulated removing of her veil. When Orual makes her complaints against the gods, the only thing the judge says to her is, “Are you answered?” “Yes,” she replies (293). Her answer was in no answer at all. What Orual discovers through this process is that her case is refuted not by reason, but by the very nature of the divine. In the unveiling of this nature Orual comes to grips with her own cruelty and selfish love. It is not until Orual accepts herself, until she has a face, that the mystery of the gods is revealed. “How can they meet us face to face till we have faces” (294).
 The narrator, in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, discovers God’s grace in its purest form as she explores the creek in her backyard. She says, “So many things have been shown me on these banks, so much light has illumined me by reflection here where the water comes down . . .” (69). With these words, Annie Dillard makes it very clear how valuable Tinker Creek is to her. It serves as the setting for her journal, her environment for observation, her living, breathing, interactive fish bowl, or Mason jar, if you will. Dillard assigns a strong symbolic role to the stream. It is down at the creek that she becomes a seeker, a “stalker” after moments of vision, possession and yielding. Dillard envisions God not as “out there,” but rather as perceived among us through the proper angle of vision. Seeing from such an angle opens a person to suffering, de-centering and feeling lost and dispossessed. In Dillard’s pilgrimage one can see the awful inner tension between wanting to control and wanting to let go.
Clearly from these examples one can see that a pilgrim’s journey always involves some form of self-discovery and transformation as God’s true character is revealed. When we discover the divine, whether it is through nature, our own identity, or in some knowledge gained on the pilgrimage, it will ruin us in a sense as it literally transforms us into the people we are designed to be. And that’s what it means to be a pilgrim.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Embracing true self through the denial of the falsity of self-preservation


   Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” In this passage, taken from Mark 8:34, self-denial appears to be a prerequisite for following Jesus. But do those proponents of such a position actually realize what Jesus meant when he made this proposition to his followers? Is it possible that passages like this one have been misinterpreted for centuries? Is the transformation of self actually possible without first embracing the whole of who we really are?
   My whole life I’ve been taught by my religion to deny, deny, deny. The overwhelming message of this theological approach to holiness is often very self-defeating. Instead of embracing self and the actualization of our full potential in Christ, we deny self and work hard to become something we were never intended to be. Did Jesus really want his followers to give up on themselves? Or did Jesus invite his followers to discover their true potential in community with the Father. I would argue the latter, and suggest that this is only possible when we embrace self rather than deny our true nature. Self-denial under such a premise does not mean becoming a different sort of person altogether, but rather it means embracing our true self in the midst of the transformation of our character. Resurrection then becomes God’s raising of one’s belief in self in the face of powerful messages to the contrary. To claim self we take responsibility for our actions, resulting in the examination of who we really are. When we subvert this process by denying it we hide behind a banner of false freedom of not having to be self. Owning who we really are is what it means to be free in Christ. Jesus gave people their lives back. What society, pain, disease, aliments, depression, words, etc. had taken away in the form of the pursuit of a false identity (i.e. rejection of self), Jesus gave back transformed and new. That, to me, is what it means to be whole or holy.
   A great example of this comes from the film "Good Will Hunting." Will’s (Matt Damon) transformation begins when he stops denying self and embraces it. The climatic point in the film comes at the end when Sean (Robin Williams) tells Will, “It’s not your fault; it’s not your fault.” All of Will’s pain, stemming from his fathers abuse, created this abrasive, self-egotistic individual that Will denies being. When this self is exposed and embraced Will is free and able to pursue his true potential.
   What if the message Jesus was suggesting in Mark 8:34 resembled this type of transformation of self, that is, embracing true self through the denial of the falsity of self-preservation. What if the denial of self was actually counter productive to the transformational call of discipleship? What if Jesus actually believed his followers had within themselves the potential to be everything he was and more? When we embrace self we allow the transformational process of our character to take place without manipulating it. Accepting self without denying the difficulties involved in the process of self-discovery and transformation is what it means to be a follower of Jesus and a disciple. 

Monday, September 13, 2010

Eschatological View of Environmental Stewardship



Among many environmentalists religious beliefs are often viewed as irrelevant for addressing environmental issues. This is especially the case with Christianity, which is criticized as being the leading culprit in creating the global environmental crisis. The two main excuses given by the Christian community for a lack of environmental stewardship are:
1) God is going to destroy the earth, so it would be a waste of time and effort to care for the environment.
2) Environmental stewardship is a “secondary” issue. Our “primary” task is to evangelize a lost world.
Whether or not the above opinions are formed from an improper view of an eschatological position is beside the point. More importantly is how eschatology shapes one’s care of the environment. Though one’s eschatological convictions might be considered a third order matter of doctrine, such convictions do affect one’s opinion of biblical hermeneutics and environmental stewardship. Theologically speaking, a concern for ecology is rooted in the recognition of God as creator who calls humans to care for the earth and its resources in responsible and just ways. Christian eschatology has a responsibility to be an ecological eschatology.
The real issue ecologically is not what “will happen” (or better put theologically, the shape of the “not yet” for creation that corresponds to the “already” of Jesus Christ), but the human relationship to creation in the present. We can think about creation as a usable resource even while we hope for its eventual replenishing. Our willingness to undermine the integrity of all the planet’s ecosystems and consume the ground out from underneath our own feet betrays a flippant conception of the world in the present.
Evangelical Christianity is concerned first and foremost with salvation and how that salvation is relevant for the rest of humankind. But for most, the concern stops there without any regard for the restoration of the planet. Soteriology and eschatology is about a grand, massive reconciliation of all things to the creator. Jesus spoke of the “renewal of all things” (Mt 19:28); Paul wrote about the “reconciliation of all things” (Col 1:20); and Peter talked about the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21).
One of the things that Rob Bell touches on in "Velvet Elvis" is eschatology. He does a great job of explaining the new heavens/new earth concept, countering the popular misconception that the afterlife involves being sucked off to a disembodied heaven. Bell claims, “one of the most tragic things to ever happen to the gospel was the emergence of the message that Jesus takes us somewhere else if we believe in him. The Bible ends with God coming here. God, in the midst of people who can imagine nothing better, celebrating the life that we all share” (p. 171).
Rob Bell believes that heaven will be on earth, that all created things will be reconciled to God. The heaven-coming-to-earth view of the Bible affirms our bodies, our sexuality, and our material selves. This is a clear rejection of latent Platonism, which has gradually made its way into much of the Christian faith. Plato taught that our bodies are prisons for the soul; souls yearn to be free of material and escape into the realm of spirit. According to Platonism the afterlife is bodiless, immaterial, and not subject to the pains and difficulties of physicality. Traditional Christianity holds to Plato’s view of eschatology, that is, that eternity is about another life. Christians are longing to escape this life in order to receive a better life. This theological position has led to a real disconnect between people and the planet. It is from this position of disregard that the earth now needs saving. The Church has contributed to that disconnection by communicating messages about being left behind and that this place is going to be destroyed through some apocalyptic event. These messages go against the teachings of Scripture, which state that we are connected to God, the earth, and each other. Salvation is not about escaping the realities of this life to be with God, it’s about the restoration of all created things so that God can take up residence here.
In "Surprised by Hope," Wright argues emphatically that the word parousia, used by Paul to describe the ‘coming’ or ‘appearance’ of Christ, would have suggested to the minds of Paul’s readers the custom of escorting a visiting ruler back into the city. When the emperor came to visit a colony or province, the people would go out to meet him at some distance from the city. It would be disrespectful to have him arrive at the gates as though they couldn’t be bothered to meet him properly. When they met him, they wouldn’t then stay out in the open country, instead they would escort him royally into the city itself. When Paul speaks of “meeting” the Lord “in the air”, the point is precisely not, as in the popular rapture theology that the saved believers would then stay up in the air somewhere, away from earth. The point is that, having gone out to meet their returning Lord, they will escort him royally into his domain, that is, back to the place they have come from.
If Wright’s eschatology were correct it would mean that Christians have an obligation and a role to play in the building of God’s kingdom here on earth. God intends for us to have a certain level of care taking for the earth. This is a responsibility that we, as a community of believers, seldom consider. When we do participate in environmental stewardship it is not regarded as our God given duty, but rather as a societal responsibility. Few Christians would dare argue that it is acceptable to intentionally destroy the earth, yet there is a disjunction between thought and action, and our thoughts do not reach far enough. Responding correctly to global concerns requires a different kind of thinking about the Christian calling. As believers, we acknowledge that we’re supposed to spread the Gospel, serve others and live lives of faith, hope and love. But, we tend to stop short of applying these God-given guidelines to our thinking about consuming more than we need of a product, disposing of our unwanted waste or doing other things that ultimately harm our fellow inhabitants of planet earth. Each time believers face a choice to be environmentally conscious, no matter how large or small, it is an opportunity for obedience, an opportunity for us to act as we should toward God’s creation. Caring for the earth is important, because the earth is God’s handiwork, it reflects who He is, and it matters to Him. 


Saturday, September 11, 2010

God & Evil


Does God actually exist? Is God actually good? If God is good, why does he let us suffer? How can a good God tolerate evil? If God exists and is good, why doesn’t he make the pain and darkness go away? These are questions that people have pondered for ages. Regardless of how you frame the questions surrounding the so-called “problem of evil,” ultimately, the debate comes down to why a good God would allow his creatures, and even his children to suffer?
When addressing the so-called “problem of evil” it is important to distinguish between two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from the actions of free creatures (e.g. murder, rape, and theft), while natural evil results from natural processes such as earthquakes and floods. Of course, sometimes the two are intermingled, like when an earthquake results in the loss of human life due to poor planning or shoddy construction of buildings.
For the skeptic, it is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and a good and powerful God exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy the evil that exists in our world. Their logical challenge is usually posed in the form of a statement such as this:
A good God would stop evil
An all-powerful God could destroy evil
Evil exists
Therefore, there cannot be a good and powerful God
The key to a resolution of this apparent conflict is to recognize that when we say God is all-powerful, we do not imply that he is capable of doing anything imaginable. True, Scripture states, “with God all things are possible” (Mt 19:26), but Scripture also states that there are some things God cannot do. For instance, God cannot lie (Tit 1:2). Neither can he be tempted to sin, nor can he tempt others to sin (James 1:13). In other words, he cannot do anything that is “out of character” for a righteous God. Neither can he do anything that is out of character for a rational being in a rational world. Certainly even God cannot “undo the past,” or create a circular triangle, or make what is false true. He cannot do what is irrational or absurd.
Therefore, it is rational to conclude that God could not eliminate evil without at the same time rendering it impossible to accomplish other goals that are important to him. Certainly, for God to create beings in his own image, who are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with him, they must be beings who are capable of freely loving him and following his will without coercion. Love or obedience on any other basis would not be love or obedience at all, but mere compliance. But creatures that are free to love God must also be free to do the opposite. Creatures who are free to follow his will are also free to reject it. And when people act in ways outside the will of God, evil and suffering is the ultimate result. This line of thinking is known as the “free will defense” concerning the problem of evil (e.g. Alvin Plantinga, Robert Adams).
What about natural evil, evil resulting from natural processes such as earthquakes, floods and diseases? Here it is important first to recognize that we live in a fallen world, and that we are subject to natural disasters that would not have occurred had man not chosen to rebel against God. Even so, it is difficult to imagine how we could function as free creatures in a world much different than our own, a world in which consistent natural processes allow us to predict with some certainty the consequences of our choices and actions. Take the law of gravity, for instance. This is a natural process without which we could not possibly function as human beings, yet under some circumstances it is also capable of resulting in great harm.
Certainly, God is capable of destroying evil, but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function. Both William Hasker and Douglas Hall agree that this line of reasoning is a significant explanation to the challenge of the logical problem of evil. Hasker claims, “a libertarian view of free will is essential for any adequate solution of the problem of moral evil” (The Triumph of God Over Evil, p.152). This, of course, entails a clear picture of moral responsibility (which is rather weak in determinism), but is also left open to positive value in the notion of free will. His most basic premise is that freedom must entail moral risk.  He states, “God simply cannot create free creatures and allow them to choose freely between moral right and wrong, and at the same time guarantee that they will never choose to do evil” (ibid p.62).
Hasker is an Open Theist, and he feels that this is the only position that can offer a credible argument for the existence of evil and God as all-powerful, etc. Hasker believes God is open, that is, God is affected by and responsive to the world that he has made and especially to free and rational creatures. God is more deeply affected by what occurs in his creation than we can ever imagine. God is also open to the future that is itself open, indeterminate and waiting to be determined both by God and by human beings. Open theism insists that God, far from being impassible, is profoundly affected by events in the lives of his creatures; he suffers with us when we are afflicted and rejoices when we find true happiness.
To his credit, Hasker does a good job at accurately presenting the evidence for his position. Hasker argues that God willingly set aside and restricted himself in order to allow for a more genuine relationship between his creatures. He writes, “God has not chosen to do this [unilaterally control everything] but has instead bestowed upon his human creatures a genuine power to make decisions of their own, including decision as to whether or not to cooperate with God’s loving purposes toward them.” He goes on to say, “This creates a real possibility of tragedy in the world, as our actual history illustrates all to vividly . . .” (ibid. 28). If God does not govern all events in the sense that he offers control and stability to existence, and man is ultimately free in the libertarian aspect, then of course evil can co-exist with a good, all-powerful God. 

Friday, September 10, 2010

An Estranged Existence


"In Shutter Island we confront the idea that we are unable to stare into the face of our trauma. To avoid such a confrontation with our own darkness we create fictions that insulate us from the truth of our deepest scars" (Peter Rollins). The fictions we create are then taken as the truth of who we are. Paul Tillich refers to this quandary as the existential estrangement of humanity. Tillich summarizes the central conviction of his anthropology stating, “Man as he exists is not what he essentially is and ought to be. He is estranged from his true being” (Systematic Theology II, p.45). Tillich refers to this estrangement as the human predicament. Our very existence is estrangement.
Like DiCaprio’s character in Shutter Island, who in an effort to avoid his true essence embraces a fictitious reality, we live in estrangement to self to try and avoid our own darkness or those things about our character that we simply refuse to accept. In other words, we hide or suppress the reality of who we really are. We are convinced that our conscious self is a true reflection of our identity, but it is not. The truth of who we really are is in the totality of our existence. Tillich suggests that while we may think we are evading our true self it is really impossible to be completely separated from the reality of our true being. “Man,” Tillich claims, “is not a stranger to his true being, for he belongs to it. He is judged by it but cannot be completely separated, even if he is hostile to it” (Ibid. p. 45).
For Tillich the duality in being, expressed through its distinction between essence and existence, is exemplified in Christian theology by the implications of the fall. This split of created goodness now “fallen away” has direct significance on the philosophical distinction between essence and existence. The fall did not mark the beginning of this duality, but simply revealed the predicament of humanities real nature. According to Tillich, human history as a whole did not pass, and individuals as such do not pass, at a specifiable moment into existential distortion. This split between essence and actual existence is already given; it is a byproduct of human freedom. For Tillich the fall is a symbol that expresses the real situation of humanity. The power to contradict self and essential nature is what makes possible the transition from essence to existence. Tillich claims, “Whenever the ideal is held against the real, truth against error, good against evil, a distortion of essential being is presupposed and is judged by essential being” (Systematic Theology I, p.202). What we must accept is the predicament we find our self in. Which translated means, we must be willing to embrace the whole of who we really are, not just those parts of our essence that we want to unveil. This is why in an AA meeting the first thing a person seeking help must do is identify with their problem and accept that this is the person they have become. When we deny the truth of our existence a false reality results.