The "Offense of the Gospel" and Christian Involvement in Politics

A thought that occurred to me earlier:

The early church was heavily persecuted by both Jews and Romans because of strongly political implications to its message. To the Jews, the concept of the messiah had long been a political concept about freedom from their oppressors and an exaltation of their nation as the "people of God." Christianity strongly countered that message by preaching about a spiritual Kingdom of God that included both Jews and Gentiles. Paul's taking the gospel to the Gentiles made this essentially anti-nationalist message (not anti-Jewish, but opposed to the sentiment in Judaism that held their people in a particularly high esteem as the only people of God) much more vocal. Essentially, the Jewish reaction against Christianity was largely motivated by Jewish nationalist sentiments, a very political motive.

Likewise, the Romans had a very political reason for opposing Christianity. The Roman empire was held together by a common bond of loyalty to Caesar as King/God. Early Christians refused to submit to this loyalty because they held Jesus to be the only King/God. This must have been greatly insulting to the Roman political order- not only were they refusing submission and loyalty to Rome, the Christians were claiming that someone who had been crucified by Rome was greater than the Emperor. So Roman political pride was also offended by Christianity, and they too had largely political reasons for opposing the church.

So what can this teach us? It seems to hold a political implication- loyalty to a state can never rise above loyalty to Christ in Christian thinking. Protestants are quick to jump on this in criticism of Catholics. Indeed, the medieval Papacy probably did usurp the loyalty it should have given to God. However, I have heard a good number of Evangelicals in this country preach on behalf of a past President and rally support for the Iraq War. I wonder if this is any less a case of loyalty being passed on to the wrong party?

In a free society such as we enjoy in the West, it is perhaps more difficult to find direct analogies. Certainly we can be loyal citizens of our country without compromising (for the most part) our loyalties to God. However, when I hear conservative leaders making sweeping statements about America being the greatest nation on earth and conservative Christians nodding their heads in agreement I wonder if our national loyalty has become a bit too deeply entrenched.

Need For A Different Kind of Apologetic

Saw this article today on the BBC. Very interesting. One criticism I have is that there is an assumption that on planets where the conditions would allow complex, intelligent life to develop, such life-forms would appear. I don't think this is necessarily the case, though I'm not denying that it could be. However, put in more moderate terms, this article suggests that there are at least 361 other planets in our galaxy alone that could possibly support an intelligent life-form such as ours.

I am still trying to think about the theological ramifications of this possibility. I don't think there is necessarily a direct challenge to Christianity here, but I do think that this dramatically alters how Christians often do apologetics.

One of the major arguments presented in defense of Christianity (or more generally, of Theism) is called the "Fine-Tuning" Argument. Basically, it says that the conditions necessary for life, and specifically intelligent life, to form are very specific and that the universe could not possibly have produced such conditions randomly. Very frequently, this is done in terms of describing the conditions that allow our planet specifically to support such life. The assumption seems to be that we are unique. This research completely shatters that assumption.

This can't be pushed to far. There are still some more universal conditions that would have to be very specific. For instance, gravity must exist in a specific way to allow the universe to continue to expand. However, the number of factors for which we have to explain the "fine-tuning" has been dramatically reduced. All the factors relating the specific nature of a planet that would support life have been shown to occur frequently. Intelligent "fine-tuning" now seems a much less likely hypothesis for most of these factors. So it seems a different kind of apologetic argument is going to be necessary for Christianity.

I have been fairly skeptical of "classical" arguments for Christianity for a while because they are subject to problems like being refuted or rendered irrelevant by new scientific findings like this. I think a much more beneficial strategy is to start by highlighting several major philosophical problems for naturalism. To me, the most pertinent seem to be that naturalism leads to an incoherent absurdity (namely, that we know absolutely nothing and that all our thoughts, beliefs, and communication is an illusion that is utterly meaningless). These absurdities seem to leave us with the conclusion that the "natural" world is not all that reality consists of. Similar philosophical problems can be raised for pantheism, which seems to leave us with a theistic world-view. From there, I think the evidences for the resurrection of Christ can fairly clearly establish Christianity as the most convincing form of theism.

Deep Thinking In Practical Terms

This post is a little more academic, but I think these are important things to think about.

There are two questions that I have wrestled a lot with lately(lately meaning the last four years in the case of the first question) that I am trying to examine in slightly different lights.

The first question has to do with the nature of "salvation" or the nature of the "gospel." Are these the same things? What are we saved from? Is salvation merely a "pardon" or giving of forgiveness as it seems in many Baptist circles especially. Or is salvation a constant process of taking sacraments and doing good works to become justified in the sight of God, as Catholics seem to think. Is the point of the gospel to get us into heaven or is it to take part in something that is happening here on earth?

These questions are difficult to think through, but I'm trying to put this in a slightly different light. Instead of thinking about these questions in a strictly theoretical and theological perspective where we might debate the merits of each view and its sources of authority, I'm trying to understand the implications of these questions practically. While certainly there is a theoretical aspect to theology and to Christian belief, it seems like Christianity is also intended to be an belief system that is accompanied by a lot of action. So the question I am posing now is "what are the implications for different views on the nature of the gospel/salvation for what we do as Christians?" This is especially pertinent in terms of how we view evangelism. If the gospel is entirely a spiritual message- your sins will be forgiven and you will go live with God in heaven when you die on earth- then our evangelism will be focused on "conversion" and be much more spiritualized. This seems to fit the contemporary Baptist model especially. However, if we view the gospel as a call to participation in God's kingdom on earth (NT Wright is major advocate of this view, for example), then our evangelism will be more focused on calling people to believe in and participate in the work of the church (which will be much more humanitarian and less "spiritual"). So I've really been examining the practical side of this issue more lately and trying to understand how the practical and theoretical influence one-another.

Another related question is an examination of history and how the gospel fits into different historical contexts. For instance, the early church was in a very Jewish context that had at its center the concept of a Messiah. Christianity latched onto that by proclaiming Jesus to be this Messiah. Later, as Christianity expanded into a more Greco-Roman world, it began to adopt the philosophical context of this community by appealing to Perfect-Being Theology especially to explain the nature of God. Most of what we consider the classical theological views of God are taken from Greek philosophy and supported by scripture, rather than the other way around (contrary to the claims of many evangelicals and fundamentalists). As time progressed and the Roman empire fell a more pessimistic and "legal" framework of thinking developed and from that came the theology of Augustine that proclaimed that Christ had paid a certain penalty for our sins, one demanded to "justify" us in the sight of God. And a new view of salvation developed, one in which Christ's work is seen as taking our place and paying our penalty in order to make us perfect in the sight of a God who cannot tolerate imperfection (and yet talks to Moses as a friend, just to give us a hint of where this view, like most, does not completely represent the Biblical data). In other words, Christianity seems to adapt to address different philosophical contexts. In each of these the "tradition" has changed. The question is how does this historical development affect our views today? Should we also adapt to a new philosophical context or do we cling to tradition (a call which ironically seems most strong from fundamentalists who also reject Catholicism's canonization of tradition).

This issue become especially interesting in examining the progression of Protestant thought in the last few hundred years. Protestantism developed as a rejection of a view that had developed in the medieval church to say that by taking the sacraments we somehow obligate God to extend grace to us. I believe the protestants were probably correct in rejecting this theological development in church practice, but Protestants stayed in the same framework of thinking as the medieval church, most adopting views very close to Augustine. However, right on the heals of the Reformation came the Enlightenment, and suddenly the philosophical context of the world changed to being much more optimistic and based around the progress of man's knowledge toward triumph over the forces of the world. In this context, the stories of Christianity seemed outdated and incapable of measuring up to the rigors of academic study. From this context developed Liberalism, which attempted to accommodate Enlightenment thought and in doing so rejected the overwhelming majority of the Christian tradition and formed something radically different from any prior form of Christianity (and for this reason, it seems questionable to consider the more radical forms of Liberalism to be part of Christianity). In response to the extreme measures of Liberalism, Fundamentalism formed which made the opposite error- instead of throwing out tradition they added to it things that had never been essential aspects of the Christian tradition and made them "necessary" to being part of Christianity. Neither view seemed to really address the modernistic social context, and as a result Christianity lost a lot of credibility. Post-modernism seems to pose a similar challenge, but at the same time some very interesting opportunities for Christianity to re-engage the culture meaningfully and address the new context. The question is how this will happen and who will participate? Will more "conservative" Christians shy away for fear of change? Will more liberal Christians throw away theology altogether? Is there some-sort of balance that can be formed to address the culture and still remain essentially Christian?

Toward a Meaning of Depth

I often hear the term "deep" thrown around to describe various things, i.e., "deep conversation" or "deep discussions" or "deep friendships." Typically, the term is used in a very positive way, it is a characteristic that we desire things to have. I agree that I want depth in a lot of things, but I have realized that there is a lack of clarity, to me at least, as to what a we mean when we say "deep."

Very often, I think that we usually take "deep" to mean either "serious" or "abstract." When we have a very serious conversation we describe it as deep. When someone throws out an abstract idea in a discussion we call them a deep thinker. But I don't think that is necessarily the best way to look at this. To illustrate, lets first explore what we mean when we describe something as "shallow" as opposed to "deep."

Shallow is usually synonymous with "trite." A trite conversation is one that is has no real importance or significance. Talking about your hair color has no real effect on anyone else beyond some superficial opinion judgment. So that seems a very insignificant thing. I think we can justifiably declare "deep" to be the opposite of "shallow." So it would seem that depth implies that what is being discussed actually has some significance. It has an important impact on someone, it is meaningful. In that sense, depth is not merely serious or abstract. In fact, something serious or abstract may actually be shallow if it is meaningless or insignificant.

So how does this apply to various things? First, we need to realize that depth is probably a relative thing, and by relative, I mean based on the situation. So for instance, a conversation would be deep if the things said had a significant or meaningful impact on their audience. If someone is dealing with a situation, depth would involve giving them good advice as opposed to changing the subject to something that has little impact on their situation. So a deep person would be one who is able to discern what is important in a situation or conversation and able to express things meaningfully and positively affect others. A deep relationship would be one where this occurs mutually, each individual positively affecting the other, whether that be by encouragement, advice, constructive criticism, or some other means.

This being said, depth probably doesn't look the same in every case. I think you can be very light-hearted and funny and have a lot of depth if what you're saying has some sort of meaningful impact. Likewise, I don't think that a "deep conversation" has to be serious in tone or academic in nature provided the things that come out have some significance. The measure of that significance may even be different to different individuals in different circumstances. Basically, depth to me seems to be a combination of discernment (or maybe sensitivity to the situation at hand) and the confidence to apply that discernment to the given situation.

Trying to Process and Respond

From another blog, in response to events at Southeastern Bible College:

The news we got this week is still pretty hard to believe. How could someone (or two individuals) we held so dearly and looked up to so much fall so far? How do we make sense of someone trading paradise for a bite of fruit? Is it any easier when that person is someone we revere, someone we considered a role model, the epitome of what it meant to be a Godly individual?

How do we respond in this kind of a situation? One initial response is shock. Another is anger. Yet both of these seem somewhat misguided. None of us can say this could never happen to me. We all let ourselves be carried away by sin at times. We all find ourselves on the edge of disaster, faced with choices that are hard to make. Sometimes we all fail. So what right do we have to be angry? While we can rightly say what was done is wrong, we can make that judgment, are we really in a position to look at them condemningly? Can any of us throw the first stone? And how can we be shocked that this has happened, we see the roots of the same things in ourselves. The fact that two individuals whom we all thought so highly of have been caught in this should be proof that none of us are immune.

So how should we respond? How do we look at this? At least for me, what seems the most appropriate and overwhelming reaction is sorrow. These two have destroyed themselves to a great extent. They have lost a lot of what they stood for, what defined them. Dreams and goals are now completely abandoned. Can the friendships they had ever continue on the same level? Can they in any way justify what they are doing with what they believe and have taught so many others? Looking at what these two have now become, what they have left of themselves and their lives, all I can really feel is sorrowful for them.

I think the impact this has may be beneficial to many. There is a certain healthy suspicion that comes when some disaster like this occurs. Not necessarily of others- how can I judge what I do not know?- but of ourselves. We all know that we have this same potential to fall. We should see in this a reminder of that. A reminder that we should be ever-mindful of our own intentions and actions so that we do not put ourselves in the same situations, falling into the same mistakes. This is not to say that we can with absolute assuredness avoid this kind of thing ourselves. But I know for me that it is going to be hard to get this out of mind. Every time I pick up certain books I will think of it. Every time I encounter certain people I will think of these others whom we have for all practical purposes lost. The constant reminder of the nuclear shell that they set off with their actions will I think act as a deterrent in large part to me ever even starting down the same paths. I cannot say that I can maintain perfection, but I can say that this has a huge impact on me moving forward. To at least some extent I hope it does the same for many others.

I hope and pray that these two are able, in some way, to remove themselves from the mess into which they have landed. They certainly cannot turn back the clocks. They cannot fix what they have done, the consequences will follow them for years to come still, no matter what they do now. Looking at this raises so many questions about a host of issues moral, theological, and personal. I don't want to even begin to try and unravel those here. What I want more than anything is for them to sort through this situation themselves, to find a solution, to seek reconciliation and forgiveness with God and with those they have affected. I want for us to be able to move beyond this, but to still remember their mistake so we can avoid the same.