Religious Legalism and the Army Chaplaincy
I was sitting in class, only about two hours after my last post, when a guest speaker told a story that was the exact opposite of my last post’s topic. I just have to share it with you all.
The guest speaker was a Battalion Command Sergeant Major (CSM). He has won multiple combat medals and honors, and has achieved the highest enlisted rank short of Sergeant Major of the Army (which can only be held by one person at a time). He was explaining the senior enlisted perspective on Chaplain support for units. It was greatly encouraging and more than a little entertaining. At one point he told a very personal story to emphasize just how much a Chaplain can affect the soldiers in their unit.
(Paraphrasing)
“About ten years ago, I got notified for a deployment and figured that I’d better get right for God. So I went to my childhood parish and went to confessional. They just started doing this thing where you could go in one door and you wouldn’t see the priest, or you could go in on the other side and talk face-to-face. Well, I really like to know who I’m talking to, so I went to the side facing him. It turned out to be the priest I grew up with and he knew me pretty well. So I started going down the list of my sins, starting with the top 10 – I really just wanted to do my 100 Hail Mary’s and wipe that slate CLEAN, ya know? After I went down the list, there was a pretty long silence. I was starting to get worried… it must be worse than I thought!
“Finally he said, ‘I want you to picture a seagull on a beach. That seagull picks up a single grain of sand, flies all the way around the world and places that grain of sand back in the exact same spot. It would take less time for that seagull to do that with every single grain of sand in the world than for your sins to be forgiven.’
“I have not been to church since then.”
The room was dead silent when he finished his story. Could this be any more opposite from my last post, from God’s grace? Legalism comes in many forms. This example was in the Catholic Church, but many other Protestant Christian denominations and other faiths like Islam and Buddhism are legalistic as well.
I wanted to tell the CSM that Jesus has Himself already carried each of those grains of sand many times over I wanted to tell him that there was NOTHING left to be done. I wanted to tell him that Jesus’ atoning sacrifice forgave every single one of his sins: past, present, and future. And as if that weren’t enough, as if the absence of sin were not a big enough gift of grace, we were given the righteousness of Christ. Not only was our debt canceled, but we were made wealthy beyond our wildest dreams.
But why? For no other reason that God’s love for us. If we were ever able to lose grace, it would, by definition, not be grace. This is the very essence of the gospel.
Christ + anything = Nothing
Christ + nothing = Everything
67 Responses
to “Religious Legalism and the Army Chaplaincy”
1 Trackback(s)
- Jul 24, 2008: The Great Grace Eraser « Losing My Religion
wow.. hard story to read. as a future pastor i’m appalled at that priest. but you’re right, there seems to be a legalistic streak running through all religions this side of the vale. not one is immune to legalism.
it’s because legalism is easy. there’s a big out group and a small in group and a list of things to do to be in the “right/saved” group.
it’s hard to fathom how God constantly forgives and gives us grace. it’s nigh impossible as there are times i don’t much like myself, so why should God? But God does. The cross is a reminder just as much as the very grains on the sand. for our sake, the world was created. let us rejoice and be glad in it!
“it’s because legalism is easy. there’s a big out group and a small in group and a list of things to do to be in the “right/saved” group.”
Amen. It’s easier for sure, and the only two conclusions to legalism are arrogance (if you think you’ve succeeded) or despair (realizing that you can’t). Thanks Luke!
“I wanted to tell the CSM that Jesus has Himself already carried each of those grains of sand many times over I wanted to tell him that there was NOTHING left to be done” (Shane)
This is where we get to the meat of a debate that we have been having on here for some time – war, forgiveness, and faith – and them meshed together.
(a) The priest could have been more gracious – of that I am fairly sure. He did not leave much room for the path of forgiveness and responsibility – and that whole process and did not seem to make many suggestions in the dilemma.
(b) The person confessing could have been more open…he wanted this to be an easy process – like forgiveness and making things right again is really as easy as confession. There needed to be more balance than thinking God has his back and no matter what he does is like water off a duck’s back.
This is where the crux of this debate gets deep and difficult to tred.
The person is headed to war, which requires killing people on the other side of that line – which the army would consider ‘enemies’. Well, this person in the army has to break anything even remotely connected with Jesus’ teachings on ‘loving your neighbor/enemy’ and might have to order their ‘death’ (in battle obviously).
Does Jesus forgive sins he knows are being done intentionally for the sake of empire and in the face of his own teachings? How can someone that enters these battles turn to God and say they are not breaking with God’s teachings – and if they can – why should we hold anyone in any church to any standard at all? Is grace some catch all term where no matter what you do – it’s water under the bridge with God with no consequences cause Jesus took those too?
For me, I see some real problems in this idea of God and war. Although I do admire what you are doing Brad – I cannot help but have these questions because what I do see is a faith that seems very wide open when you discuss this issue (war and faith) – but adds more limits when discussing issues in society not in war (people not on the verge of possible death).
Societyvs,
Great questions, you are touching on the very heart of grace and atonement.
“Does Jesus forgive sins he knows are being done intentionally for the sake of empire and in the face of his own teachings?”
Jesus forgives ALL sins of those who place their faith in Him alone. Grace would not be grace if God ever took it away.
“How can someone that enters these battles turn to God and say they are not breaking with God’s teachings…”
Do you not ever violate any of God’s teachings? Do you love your wife exactly as you should when a problem comes up? Do you perfectly love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength and your neighbor as yourself? I doubt that it is even possible. If God forgives those sins, why not those of the soldier who does their best to love God and their neighbor, yet may not do “as good” of a job? What could that standard possibly be, and how could we ever know if we met it or not?
“… and if they can – why should we hold anyone in any church to any standard at all?”"
Because the Law is not a standard by which we are saved, it is a description of what redeemed community looks like with God and with each other. We are called to live out (morality, loving your neighbor) what we know to be true (redemption through Christ). It is living in the identity given to us by God (grace).
“Is grace some catch all term where no matter what you do – it’s water under the bridge with God with no consequences cause Jesus took those too?”
I wouldn’t say there are no consequences. God still uses discipline to guide and instruct his children. We will still have consequences, but there are no eternal consequences for those who put their faith in Christ. Again, grace would not be grace if we had to earn it (positive/earning salvation). In the same way, grace would not be grace if we could lose it (negative/losing salvation). Ethics, Morality, and the Law are all expressions, descriptions, and fruit of living in that grace.
SVS brings up an interesting point here.. war for the sake of empire… ummm.. when i read the gospels i can’t help but read through the lens of empire as Jesus was captive by THE empire of the times, the Romans. My NT prof talks a lot about this, even is in a new anthology coming out: http://ntgeeks.blogspot.com/2008/05/fall-book-alert-in-shadow-of-empire.html
we here in the US are THE Empire now… we are in the declining stages of an empire however, whereas India and China are in the classic early stages of empire (establishment of infrastructure and development of middle (merchant) class). so are we acting as a Christian empire or are we double-dipping and trying to serve two masters? I would answer that we are double-dipping. so that puts you in a rough position Brad… how can you serve an empire or God? how can you remind your troops who they are actually serving?
First of all, let’s make sure our theology is informing our worldview and not the other way around. The US may be LIKE the 1st century Roman Empire in many ways, but it’s differences far outnumber them. Contextually, we cannot compare them so simply.
Can you explain “double dipping” a bit more?
For now, I would say that I’m GLAD we aren’t a “Christian Empire,” we saw how well that worked for Medieval Europe. Scripturally, I would respond with Romans 13:1-7, where Paul exhorts the believers in Rome to submit themselves to the governing authorities. Surely that is even easier in our day, where freedom and liberty are of our highest values, and unethical international policy is for more effectively prevented than any other time in wolrd history.
When Jesus is approached by the Centurion’s servant, he does not rebuke him for serving as a soldier in the empire that would later crucify him, he actually says “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.” Jesus said this of a gentile soldier! The centurion was able to love his God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself while serving as a soldier. He was a warrior and a believer, and the Lord expressed no problem with that.
There is absolutely no scriptural evidence that serving in the military is automatically mutually exclusive with serving God. Indeed, it is the Biblical ethic that informs the US Military’s Just War Doctrine. Now, if the military does something incongruous with our Christian faith, then we do have a problem. We Chaplains are charged to advise our commander in ethical and moral issues, and counsel soldiers to follow those orders that are ethical and moral. If they have a potential problem with those orders, or it seems to conflict with their faith, it is our job to help them wrestle through that struggle. If anything, our role as a staff officer is to be the front-line ethical watchdog in times of war.
Now. This is of course assuming we have a Just War ethic, and not a pacifist ethic. If you are working on a pacifist ethic, then we must go below the surface of this discussion and debate the foundation for it. We cannot evaluate the legitimacy of military service if we are operating on two different paradigms.
excellent reply Brad! esp. impressed with the different paradigm possibility. great stuff.
“Can you explain “double dipping” a bit more? ”
sure! double dipping is when our military machine works against itself. for example, when we tried to supress the slaughter in El Salvador in the 1980s. we had our troops on the ground there to combat the guerillas yet we wouldn’t stop selling weapons to them. double dipping is where we’re working against ourselves for the sake of profit. sometimes it’s the government doing this (Iran-Contra Scandal and Afganistan via Charlie Wilson) and sometimes it’s the private sector (El Salvador and Korea currently with Lockheed Martin).
Which the Just War Doctrine prohibits, but we seem to be really screw’n ourselves with double dipping. Just watch Ironman for a good example of this (fictionalized of course ;-))
thanks for the great response, hope i made sense on the double dipping aspect. good stuff and RAWK out!
Luke,
Gotcha, and I couldn’t agree more on double dipping. Unfortunately, doctrine can be supported or circumvented. Thus is the dilemma of democracy. It is not a fun problem. BTW, Ironman was amazing. And if anything, his change of heart proves my point that we cannot stand idly by while that double dipping (or evil in general) is allowed to propogate. What is the quote in Boondock Saints? “The only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”
And thanks for the comment on paradigms. So many of us (myself included sometimes) forget to remember that various interpretations (faith assumptions) greatly influence how we interact (belief statements). If we don’t recognize that we are analyzing the same problem from very different worldviews, we will only succeed in beating our heads against the same brick wall.
Neither Just War doctrine, nor Pacifism are the only ways to interpret (especially NT) scripture. It is my contention that Just War is far more likely and justifiable (pun intended), but there is always overlap, and both traditions can benefit from the other.
Rawk out, yourself.
“Jesus forgives ALL sins of those who place their faith in Him alone. Grace would not be grace if God ever took it away.” (Brad)
Grace would also be quite useless if it forgave intentional sins of the magnitude we are discussing.
For example, let’s say a kid goes to war and has to kill others – no problem – he’s trained to do that. Then they capture some stronghold and start raping women – just because some of that old ‘isolation mentality’ kicks in. Then they torture the crap out of someone to get them to speak – like an Abu Gharib scenario.
At which point in that scenario does one’s faith become absolutely useless?
Grace is good – but if grace is used as a cover for responsibility – then one is no longer serving God but serving their own appetites – which to me makes one’s faith utterly a point of non-value anyways.
Now I am not saying this is what the army does – but there have been documented cases of it in the past. I think one needs to remember who they are going to war for – it is not for God but for country (against another country – and for them – grace is thrown out the window apparently – we have a judgment of them - unless we are sending our bullets with prayers on them).
And that is the crux of the debate for me – one side is justified in war and the other side is the enemy. I would contend God can be on neither side by the very basics of this open grace doctrine you claim. If grace is all you claim it is – then both the enemy and the friendlies must have equal access with no strings attached. Or do you serve a God that picks sides? God is quite clear in Matthew – He makes it rain and shine and on the just and the unjust – there is no partiality with God. In war, country is served not God.
“If God forgives those sins, why not those of the soldier who does their best to love God and their neighbor, yet may not do “as good” of a job? What could that standard possibly be, and how could we ever know if we met it or not?” (Brad)
There is a difference by degree’s first and foremost. If I don’t love my wife the best I can – it is not something we cannot work out together. In the case of the soldier, if they do not love their enemy their best – their probably isn’t an enemy left to talk that out with (country has drawn those lines long prior to that kid showing up). I think Jesus teaches us to have no enemies – thus the example of Jesus be-friending a Gentile Roman soldier (a classic case of enemy if I ever saw one).
I would say a good Christian standard would be the most basic one ‘treat others how you want to be treated’. So in the case of my wife, I will love her to the best of my ability and maybe I fall short – but we live to work that out. In the case of the soldier, they have to shoot someone else so they accept the fact they might also die that way. But let this be noted, they are accepting a Gov’t teaching and not a Christian one…there is no way that kid would rather be dead than alive in any normal circumstance.
“Again, grace would not be grace if we had to earn it (positive/earning salvation). In the same way, grace would not be grace if we could lose it (negative/losing salvation). Ethics, Morality, and the Law are all expressions, descriptions, and fruit of living in that grace” (Brad)
So basically grace is a term used to say – we have something from God we cannot earn but we can also not lose. That’s – in essence – universal salvation. If this is so, then I tend to agree – since this is fair to all in the war (on both sides). Whereas ethics, morality, and the teachings mean nothing – they are secondary to something we had no role in (salvation). What we do have a role in means very little – it is tied to nothing in this theology…which in the end means we can do anything we so want because nothing we do makes a lick of difference in God’s eyes…I am not sure I can believe that.
Although I did like your point about the Roman soldier – it was well thought out but I am not sure that was the intent of that passage (since the Roman soldier also acted as the law/police).
“Grace would also be quite useless if it forgave intentional sins of the magnitude we are discussing.”
You mean like Saul/Paul’s persecution of the church before his conversion?
Or maybe David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband?
What about Jacob/Israel’s repeated betrayal and deception in stealing his brother’s birthright?
Once confronted and made aware of their sin, all of them repented and turned towards God.
“Grace is good – but if grace is used as a cover for responsibility – then one is no longer serving God but serving their own appetites – which to me makes one’s faith utterly a point of non-value anyways.”
I very much agree. Grace is never meant to be taken advantage of (Rom 6:1-2). If it is, then there is a critical lack in understanding what grace is. As James says, “Faith without works is dead.” If God’s unconditional love and forgiveness (based on the merits of Jesus) does not motivate you towards righteousness and right-living, then there is a problem. If someone actively takes advantage of God’s grace, they are not worshiping or loving God, they are worshiping and loving themselves and their (perceived) freedom. Thus, they are not “saved through faith in Christ” but damned through faith in themselves.
Now, it is important to state that this judgment/call is made by God alone, not by man. We are not to judge another’s salvation, only to hold those who claim to be believers accountable (Paul’s occasion for writing to the Corinthians). We are to do so in a spirit of Truth (honesty) with Love (respect and compassion).
On war… war is a result of sin and this jacked-up world we live in. God hates sin, and definitely hates war. I hate war. I’d rather we not fight at all, but not everyone in the world agrees with God and I. Until that time, God has shown in both the OT and NT that war is a tool that he sometimes uses (OT - Pentateuch; NT - Revelations 19:11). To say that war is diametrically opposed by God is… just not QUITE accurate…
“God is quite clear in Matthew – He makes it rain and shine and on the just and the unjust – there is no partiality with God. In war, country is served not God.”
You are absolutely correct, war does not serve God. However, God can be served in the midst of war, and God can use war to serve His purposes. If he could not, then he would be a very impotent God.
And be careful with that passage in Matthew… There is a huge distinction between Common Grace and Justifying Grace. He is not talking about universal salvation, but that God will bless all people in this life (talent, happiness, success, wealth, etc.), regardless of their faith in Him. While that blessing often leads to faith in Him, it is not automatically so.
“In the case of the soldier, they have to shoot someone else so they accept the fact they might also die that way. But let this be noted, they are accepting a Gov’t teaching and not a Christian one…there is no way that kid would rather be dead than alive in any normal circumstance.”
OK… for the purposes of discussion, let us use two options. Let’s say you are approached on the street by a man with a gun. You are walking with your friend. The man with the gun says that he will kill your friend but let you live (for whatever reason). You must make a choice to either a.) kill the man with the gun, preventing your friend’s death, or b.) allow your friend to be killed, preventing the gunman’s death.
In either choice you make (action or inaction), you will be responsible for a death. Soldiers face the same decision every day (except their “friends” are innocent Iraqis, Afghans, and their fellow soldiers), and can legitimately approach it through Christian teaching.
SVS, I love your heart and appreciate where you are coming from, but we cannot discuss this constructively on such a simplistic level. It is not as if Christian soldiers do not wrestle with this, they do! They do not enjoy taking life! They do not “intentionally” kill anyone, they only do their duty to serve their country (again, Rom 13) and love their God and neighbor to the best of their ability. I know several soldiers who will probably spend the rest of their lives repenting for the things they’ve done, but they would also make many of the same decisions agian because there is often no “right answer” in war. Such is the sin-stained world we live in.
“So basically grace is a term used to say – we have something from God we cannot earn but we can also not lose. That’s – in essence – universal salvation.”
No no no no…. not at all. I am talking about those who are already Christians. They neither earned their grace, nor can they lose it. Grace is given by God to many, but not all (Matt 7:13). For those of us who are given it despite our sin, my statement applies.
“Whereas ethics, morality, and the teachings mean nothing – they are secondary to something we had no role in (salvation).”
I… kinda agree. I’d say that they are definitely linked, as salvation empowers and strengthens morality. As a result of God’s saving Grace (salvation), morality changes from something we should do to something we want to do.
“What we do have a role in means very little – it is tied to nothing in this theology…which in the end means we can do anything we so want because nothing we do makes a lick of difference in God’s eyes…I am not sure I can believe that.”
And that’s not what I believe either. Stay with me here…
In regards to salvation: We are clean, pure, and spotless. Nothing we do can change that.
In regards to living our lives: God can and will discipline us to bring us towards repentence, and thus a fuller relationship with Him. He does this out of love.
If we forsake all of the above and pursue hedonism or try to take advantage of grace, then by definition we are not saved in the first place; in which case all of the above is null and void. Morality, righteousness, holiness, whatever… they are a result and a product of grace. We cannot take advantage of God’s grace because if we try, we are showing that we never had it in the first place.
“Although I did like your point about the Roman soldier – it was well thought out but I am not sure that was the intent of that passage (since the Roman soldier also acted as the law/police).”
Thanks! But is Just War not law enforcement on a global level? And the Centurion’s primary duty was always warfare. The role of policing was only to fill the vaccuum in it’s absence and create enough stability to pursue conquest in other areas.
Ok Brad and SVS.
Explain Grace to me
Is it by my Faith? Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16
Is it by my works? James 2:17,20,26
Is it by my confessing and repenting, l john 1:9, Acts2:38, 3:19
Hmmmm seems pretty confusing wouldnt you say.
And as far as Universal Salvation, I think thats exactly what Jesus had in Mind, rather than being an exclusivist he wanted inclusion.
John 12:32
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”
God doesnt need us to fight his battles, he needs us to get along. The reason we fight is for our Egos. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves. Oh and by the way, most days Im delusional too.
“Once confronted and made aware of their sin, all of them repented and turned towards God.” (Brad)
True, I cannot speak for the Tanakh literature (that would be dishonest of me) – but as for Saul – he converted and still faced the consequences of his actions. I speak of the idea no one can die for intentional sins – this is in Hebrews also.
Heb 9:7 & Heb 10:26 – which is an allusion to an idea from Numbers 15:25
The idea there is that sins committed in ignorance can be atoned for – but the sins committed in willful disobedience there was no atonement for. It is not to say they were screwed – but that they had to go and deal with their sin both in judgment and with trying to make situations ‘right’ again (ie: charity or repentance)
To be honest, the Jewish system that we take this atonement idea from is a lot more responsible when dealing with issues of atonement than our own. This is my personal opinion – but from my basic studies on the issue – I would say they have a way more well rounded system (which I tend to believe is taught by Jesus).
“Grace is never meant to be taken advantage of (Rom 6:1-2). If it is, then there is a critical lack in understanding what grace is” (Brad)
Or maybe even worse, there is a critical lack of understanding by mainstream theology on what the role of grace really is (its limits and strengths). Grace is good – I agree – but to me it seems to function as God’s mercy in the way it is used. Maybe grace is not just mercy – but an idea that Gentiles were added into the community if God. The identification with that community is on the individual to make. I figure someone can as easily lose salvation as they can gain it.
“I know several soldiers who will probably spend the rest of their lives repenting for the things they’ve done, but they would also make many of the same decisions again because there is often no “right answer” in war. Such is the sin-stained world we live in.” (Brad)
I agree here…but then we must also make these same concessions for those in our local churches – cause such is the sin stained world we live in. I have no problem with this idea we function from the mentality of flaws – I know we do – we are very limited in our scope of seeing all of everything. But as much as a concession as you can make for those soldiers in a ‘sinful world’ then so be it with all other you meet outside the frames of war. From the gay person to the prisoner – we see a sin stained world everyday.
“I’d say that they are definitely linked, as salvation empowers and strengthens morality. As a result of God’s saving Grace (salvation), morality changes from something we should do to something we want to do” (Brad)
Thus the reason I point to the idea Christian responsibility has weak moral foundations. Following the teachings – and I mean everything Jesus taught – is simply – a choice. It has no links to nothing in terms of one’s salvation (which is something outside them altogether). Nothing they do will mean anything – since it only matters what Christ did for them. That is the type of responsibility no parent would dare teach their child. It means your actions mean very little in the large scope of life – they are taken care of ahead of time (and are not important because of someone else’s righteousness being added to you). If we started teaching children this level of responsibility – this world would go to hell in a handbasket.
It is not enough to rely on choice or ‘want’ in this matter – this is a matter of correct standards being taught to everyone so they can rightly take their place in the kingdom of God. We teach people a ‘cop-out’ – well you call this a ‘sin stained world’ – it will only get worse.
John,
It is by faith. Works and repentance are a result of faith (although repentance does have some overlap). Tim Keller describes it as such: “I am accepted - therefore I obey.”
Universal salvation is not what Jesus had in mind at all. It is absolutely antithetical to passages like Matthew 7:13, Luke 13:28, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 5-6… the list goes on. Universal salvation is a well-intended result of wrestling with suffering and affliction, but requires a very narrow and non-contextual reading of scripture.
“God doesnt need us to fight his battles, he needs us to get along. The reason we fight is for our Egos.”
1 Timothy 6:12
2 Timothy 4:7
You should first define “fight,” otherwise I have a bone to pick with you.
“but as for Saul – he converted and still faced the consequences of his actions”
Oh absolutely! I’m talking about eternal consequences. We absolutely must face those we deserve in this life. No doubt.
“I speak of the idea no one can die for intentional sins – this is in Hebrews also.”
I would consider “intentional sins” as those that “intentionally take advantage of grace.” Also keep in mind Romans 7:12-22. There is a struggle, and the lines are not quite so finely drawn as “intentional” and “unintentional.” The function of the law changed with Christ (Romans 7:6), and we are freed. Hebrews uses the word “intentional” to connect that change in the law with his Jewish audience, but it is not exactly the same. I’d have to do some more in depth study to be more specific…
“The identification with that community is on the individual to make. I figure someone can as easily lose salvation as they can gain it.”
For someone who truly values the Jewishness of Jesus, that is a very un-Jewish statement! The community was vitally important, and while the individual is valued, they are expected to submit to their faith community.
“But as much as a concession as you can make for those soldiers in a ‘sinful world’ then so be it with all other you meet outside the frames of war. From the gay person to the prisoner – we see a sin stained world everyday.”
Amen! Amen! Amen! That is the essence of grace! If their identity is found in God, if they are convicted and struggle over their sins, and if they repent of their sins as an expression of that faith, it matters not what their sin is –> Romans 7:15-17
I want to make the rest of your response into a new post, because it is so key, and I JUST read something that addresses it perfectly… don’t touch that dial…
Brad
Want to read a good book about Universal Salvation. Its called “The Inescapble Love of God” by Thomas Talbott. Very interesting for sure.
Brad
Do you honestly think the war in Iraq is about a righteous fight?
wow.. go away for a few days and look at what happens! sorry Brad, i’m a universalist and you’ll have to do better than those passages to try to refute… plus there are just as many passages to show that Jesus INTENDED universal salvation for ALL! Plus it’s not JUST in the NT, it’s also in the OT with the book of Jonah for one… http://toothface.blogspot.com/2008/06/eeyore-goes-to-tehran.html
Maybe it’s not an either/or… maybe we’re supposed to live in the tension of exclusive vs. universal…?
it’s also interesting to note that the 10 commandments only bars MURDER not killing. Murder (in the hebrew concept) is intentional killing of an innocent. Killing is what the army does, priests do to animals to keep kosher, and executioners do to capital offenders (like eating shrimp and wearing mixed cloths). We lose this meaning in english… so what the army does is completely legit scripturally SVS.. but when the go out of their way and commit vile acts like raping and destorying villages (like in El Salvador in the 80s) that’s when we need people like Brad to step in and remind them of who they will ultimately answer to.
Luke
“Murder (in the hebrew concept) is intentional killing of an innocent.”
But we all know who gets to determine, who is Innocent and who is not.
“To the victor, goes the spoils of war.”
Slippery slope Man……..but I still think you Rawk.
oh i absolutely see the slippery slope.. IT’S BUILT RIGHT IN! but i guess i didn’t totally state that in my post, so thanks for pointing that out.
those hebrew writers of Exodus sure knew how to dodge military and justice issues.
you’re right on the money John T., as always!
John,
“Do you honestly think the war in Iraq is about a righteous fight?”
Regardless of your politics, does that inhibit the Christian soldier from acting righteously in it’s midst? I make no comment whatsoever about the righteousness of the fight, only that it is a short-sighted fallacy to assume that the Christian cannot work to redeem it through his role. And regardless of whether the fight itself is righteous, much good is being done in it’s midst.
Brad
“And regardless of whether the fight itself is righteous, much good is being done in it’s midst.”
Im sure these same words would be echoed by our Enemies.
Luke,
“sorry Brad, i’m a universalist and you’ll have to do better than those passages to try to refute… plus there are just as many passages to show that Jesus INTENDED universal salvation for ALL! Plus it’s not JUST in the NT, it’s also in the OT with the book of Jonah for one…”
Yes, but the universalist has to focus on those passages to the exclusion of those reinforcing exclusivism in order for their interpretation to hold water. For the exclusivist, it is not a problem to focus on all of them because salvation is open to ALL who believe. There is a combination of choice and divine sovereignty. It is unlimited atonement (infinite, universal) for those who put their faith in Christ (exclusive, just).
Sin separates us from God. If we do not embrace the bridge that reconnects us to Him, we will be forever separated. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
“Im sure these same words would be echoed by our Enemies.”
Aye, maybe. But it doesn’t make them true. If that is your justification, you’ve undercut the grounds for your initial statement (that the fight is not righteous). If that is a valid claim, then my claim that the fight is righteous, is equally valid. Moral relativism defeats itself.
LOL, you can’t just switch paradigms (moral absolutes to moral relativity) whenever it is convenient.
“We lose this meaning in english… so what the army does is completely legit scripturally SVS.. but when the go out of their way and commit vile acts like raping and destorying villages (like in El Salvador in the 80s) that’s when we need people like Brad to step in and remind them of who they will ultimately answer to.”
CAN I GET A WITNESS?!?! AMEN! Thank you Luke… THANK you….
And it is a slippery slope. We are called to discern, but not to judge necessarily. There are certain instances (in the Torah, judicial proceedings requiring witnesses) where careful and safe guarded judgment is not only permissible, but responsible.
Brad
“LOL, you can’t just switch paradigms (moral absolutes to moral relativity) whenever it is convenient”
Of course you can, thats what makes life great, the ability to switch our perceptions whenever we want.
LOL, uhhh…. “I rest my case”?
Brad
What if thats the issue, you both think youre righteous, but neither one is. Again a perception thing right? And if youre both wrong then its not killing, its actually Murder. Think about it.
Truth is not in the eye of the beholder. We may both think one is righteous, but it is God who judges the just and the unjust. The best we can do is discern from Him (through scripture) what is right and wrong. Scripture is not so unclear that it is impossible, or even improbable to discern that. Violence itself is not wrong, neither is sex, money, or power. It is how we use it that morality speaks to.
The sins of war are leveled against the politicians who lead us into it, not the soldiers who risk their lives carrying out what they believe to be the right thing.
This isn’t true in all cases - however I will not concede that our current conflicts are based in either good judgment or sound just-war reasoning. No Christian should.
But the soul-force, the prayer, the satyagraha of our Lord is manifest in the ethos of nonviolence, in the movements of Gandhi and King, in the demonstrations against the atomic bomb. I am convinced of this.
Somehow we are always commenting on the latest atrocities, ignoring the deepest messages of the gospel until we are already engrossed in conflict. We refuse to take up our crosses, continuing to crucify our brethren with nails of ignorance.
To all of this it should be argued: But what of the faceless killers who aim to destroy our “way of life?” What of the radical religious enthusiasts who are too scared shitless to read a book printed outside of their country (in the name of “purity” and “righteousness”) lest they fall victim to the preying lust of America? To this, too, I say we need the force of love which alone breeds understanding and compassion. The bomb, even as a symbol, will never accomplish this. As much reverence as I have for the United States Armed Forces, I fear that their Commander in Chief hasn’t fathomed the amount of damage inflicted by the air-strikes alone compared to the incredible heroism of removing Saddam, rebuilding a government, saving hundreds upon thousands of families…we mustn’t view the world through the kaleidoscope of the American dream, and we must realize that the most profound effect of this war, in my eyes, is a tragic one. I don’t know what kind of nonviolent strategies could have been employed to respond to the terrorists, but I do know this: We have proven to be the “abode of war” that Islam understands us to be, we have answered the sword with a bigger sword, and we have not sent the better message: we are not here for war, but to declare that He has already accomplished it.
Brad
This is where we part ways, kinda. I think Jesus’s message was that he came for all people. Jesus wasnt Christian, thats a title someone gave him. There is a good quote about truth, that does not have biblical origins, but just as powerful none the less.
“Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names”
“Violence itself is not wrong, neither is sex, money, or power. It is how we use it that morality speaks to.” (Brad)
Violence is, at best, a standing still, a lost cause, a defeat. The best morality play stands as nothing compared to the gospel, and no amount of moral justification will release it from my grip.
The taking of one human life is a threat to our existence. The end of the world is the end of rope, the cutting of heart-strings, the favor of intellect and morality-balancing in place of the relentless pursuit of grace.
Chris,
And that is why I refrained from talking about this specific conflict on the political level. “Just War Doctrine” is something this country ascribes too in the Geneva Conventions and our Constitution. Throughout our history, we have generally acted that part. Are there exceptions? Sure. Is this one of them? I believe that only history will tell. I know people on both sides of that debate, some of them in fairly upper echelons of the decision making process. I empathize with both, and understand the logic of both arguments.
What I do know is this: If we are to ascribe ourselves to love and nonviolence, that love must be played out in our critique of violence as well. All too often, I have heard pacifists cite the same leaders you do, yet condemn our brothers and sisters (politicians, soldiers, etc.) who are also just trying to make the right decision. Pacifism is often marketed through claims of love and peace, but resembles a Trojan horse bearing instead the hatred it seeks to overcome.
“I make no comment whatsoever about the righteousness of the fight, only that it is a short-sighted fallacy to assume that the Christian cannot work to redeem it through his role.” (Brad, on Iraq)
I see what you’re getting at, Brad, and I think it is a noble point.
And perhaps my ideals get the better of me, but it seems that if one man can get the whole world to stand on its head and throw down its arms in the name of peace - then his words should be heeded. And what did Gandhi do? He fasted until the brink of death. When he was murdered, all of the fighting stopped. It wasn’t that his celebrity, his image was what made him the father of India - it was the force of his soul gripped by love, moved by nonviolence. And love is infinitely more powerful than the British Empire ever was, and, embarrassingly, even more true than American jingoism. Love is more powerful because it speaks our language, it speaks truth to our hearts that we recognize from our birth…it spoke through Gandhi and his movement which saved millions of lives.
We are exasperated because sometimes love is the most difficult language to find - it is most often wordless. And yet when we are bruised we must respond with a louder piercing, a shriek, a defense. Who are we defending? ‘Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.’
I am calling for the life of nonviolence, which is the life of the soul, which is the life of Christ dwelling in us, giving us His peace.
John,
“I think Jesus’s message was that he came for all people. Jesus wasnt Christian, thats a title someone gave him.”
Jesus did come for all people. But not all people will come to Jesus. You’d have to do some pretty a-contextual study of scripture to reach an understanding of universalism. It’s borne out of a good heart, no doubt, but it requires some intellectual gymnastics.
And no, Jesus was not a Christian. The literal translation for “Christian” is “little Christ.” Jesus was THE Christ.
Chris,
I totally understand where you are coming from, and I empathize completely. The challenge of the Chaplain is to balance a respect for the soldier’s military training (patriotism, willingness to die for his country and brothers-in-arms) with the teaching that their “true citizenship is in heaven.” Good luck teaching non-violence in our military. It will get me court-martialed, and pushing a non-essentual doctrine (to salvation) that has been debated by theologians for centuries is not worth losing the opportunity to minister to soldiers. Besides, I am far from convinced that we are called to take a dagger in the back in addition to the slap on each cheek.
Brad
Christian was originally a term of derision. Go figure lol. And if you want to read a great book, by someone who does some great “intellectual gymnastics”. Its called “The Inescapble Love of God.” by Thomas Talbott. Im sure it will stretch your brain
“All too often, I have heard pacifists cite the same leaders you do, yet condemn our brothers and sisters (politicians, soldiers, etc.) who are also just trying to make the right decision. Pacifism is often marketed through claims of love and peace, but resembles a Trojan horse bearing instead the hatred it seeks to overcome.”
I completely agree. However those pacifists who have cited these leaders to you have given an awful caricature if their impression of nonviolence is passive. I bear no opinion burdensome enough to level against my brothers and sisters who are truly defending their country in war. It is clear and evident that their duties have less to do with our discussion than the (potential) political criminals who have gotten us here. Time will tell, and through my brother’s time in Iraq and others who defend America in arms and speech, I say that I do not reject you one bit. We must embrace every American soldier because in every soul is the greatest need, the utmost sacrifice, and here again is the gospel.
We cannot be shallow to the point that we say American lives shall die in vain. Blasphemy! Theirs are testimonies of the gospel of self-sacrifice.
Yet we cannot be shallow to the point that we uncritically allow the power brokers of this world to steer the direction of war so that it compromises the very gospel that brave men and women are dying for. This is my claim, and I don’t think it the least naive. General Petraeus is a war hero - but President George W. Bush has made some terrible decisions. He isn’t an idiot or a devil, but he is guilty of failing to comprehend the enemy, because he gave into the base human need: vengeance.
John,
I haven’t read it, and while I’d love to I doubt I will have time right now. I am well acquainted with unversalism, as my supervisor in the National Guard is a card-carrying universalist. We’ve had great conversations, but (as with most of the arguments I’ve heard) is born primarily out of pain and suffering and secondarily from scripture. It should be the other way around, otherwise our “truth” is truly in the eye of the beholder.
Chris
“because he gave into the base human need: vengeance”
Who are you kidding. Bush and the boys didnt go into Iraq for vengeance. They may have sold the people on the vengeance thing, but there motive was much more sinister than that. Not sure if you guys would remember this, but who originally helped Sadam get into power?
Chris,
I knew I liked you. I very much agree, we are called to discern our government as well. We have to have those checks and balances, and I’m not advocating blind submission. I greatly appreciate your redefinition of pacifism…. and… I ALMOST…. ALMOST agree…. I still hesitate, but I find it significantly more helpful than the blind-to-suffering-hippy-hypocritical BS I’m used to hearing. Thank you!
Oh geez… can we keep the speculative conspiracy theories off the table? Regardless of the politics, that was not the point of this entire conversation….
Brad
If you dont know what the fight is about or how or why it started and you werent the one who started it, then how pretell can you even remotely think there may be some righteousness for it?
“Yes, but the universalist has to focus on those passages to the exclusion of those reinforcing exclusivism in order for their interpretation to hold water. For the exclusivist, it is not a problem to focus on all of them because salvation is open to ALL who believe. ” Brad
here’s the problem with that… you and i, being protestants, are out, as the “believers” are only the one true catholic and apostolic church.. which is the Roman Catholic church…. or is it the Greek Orthodox? or the Calvinists? what about the Marconians or the Gnostics or the Jewish Appologists?
well then… what a right mess we’re in!
Brad - I think we stand united on the issue. As a Chaplain I would think it difficult to really get into the philosophy of nonviolence - nor would it seem to be what a Chaplain is called to do. I’m merely speaking out against the political tyrants. I want to emphasize the immeasurable good of nonviolence, because we have seen its abiding legacy from Christ through Dr. King. This war is different, indeed, and you are right: it is a knife in the back, not a slap in the face. Still, grace leaves us dumbfounded, and I believe deep within that a great message is yet to be taught to the deceived “jihadists.” For the time being we may kill them in number - but how I long to eradicate the disease in their souls!
Now, let’s talk about universalism…
John, Brad,
It is an issue of context and orthodox Christianity. Exclusivism is argued for convincingly if we consider the symbols and context of the Biblical narrative. This is unavoidable, and conservative orthodox Christians can and should affirm it. In other notes we have mentioned N.T. Wright and Dr. Timothy Keller - to their names I will add Richard Bauckham as one who well executes this claim.
[I'm still on the fence of orthodoxy and something else]
However, as I’ve mentioned to Tolliver earlier, this is the issue that haunts me, and it is what drives me into my biggest issue: interfaith dialogue. So, especially to you, John, I’d like to attempt to deepen the discussion on universalism.
Permit me this passage from Thomas Merton’s Seeds. Merton was a major player in East-West dialogue in his lifetime through his books and teaching.
“The heresy of individualism: thinking oneself a completely self-sufficient unit and asserting this imaginary “unity” against all others. The affirmation of the self as simply “not the other.” But when you seek to affirm your unity by denying that you have anything to do with anyone else, by negating everyone else in the universe until you come down to you: what is there left to affirm? Even if there were something to affirm, you would have no breath left with which to affirm it.
The true way is just the opposite: the more I am able to affirm others, to say “yes” to them in myself and myself in them, the more real I am. I am fully real if my own heart says yes to everyone.”
(consider this…)
“I will be a better Catholic, not if I refute every shade of Protestantism, but if I can affirm the truth in it and still go further.
So, too, with the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, etc. This does not mean syncretism, indifferentism, the vapid and careless friendliness that accepts everything by thinking of nothing. There is much that one cannot “affirm” and “accept,” but first one must say “yes” where one really can.
If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it.”
The emphasis in dialogue must be on where we stand united, and as seekers of the divine, I think that we have a lot of common ground. Indeed, where can we say YES? I will be the cynic and state clearly, where can I find the Christians who really understand other faiths and can thus possibly say Yes to anything they stand for? Here is the burden…
The cause of the universalist must be the cause of interfaith dialogue. But so too should the cause of the Christian! As Merton writes, this doesn’t mean giving up what we believe or submitting to a vapid blending, a new-age “spirituality” which really just feeds the ego. There are plenty of mysticisms out there that are touchy-feely because they affirm all religious groups without fathoming anything about their differences. Yes, we are all fingers pointing to the moon, and this should humble us and make us oriented toward one another in love and acceptance, but it doesn’t mean we should submit to relativism.
I am a Christian because I cannot adequately confess to being capable of getting over the beauty, the sacrifice, and the truth of Jesus Christ. In Him is all in all, and by intellectual standards nothing quashes the mystical experience of God in the wisdom and incomparable presence of Jesus.
I am caught up in this experience alone which offers me nothing in terms of predicting salvation for myself or any other of my brothers and sisters. It is my salvation.
The trouble with universalism has been, for me, the confusion. As human beings, we need symbols to express ourselves, indeed, in order to be expressed to. And Jesus, to me, is the ultimate expression. Does this make me an exclusivist? No. But in Him I find the true God and all debates cease.
Was that in any way helpful?
“religious groups without fathoming anything about their differences. ” -Chris Nation
what you’re describing is cheap pluralism, not universalism.
Universalism (in super condensed version) states that “If Jesus was God (or at the very least SON of God), then the atonement would be FOR all people.” That means believers and nonbelievers as well. Jesus saved THE WORLD not just the elect few (as in calvinism).
for futher reading on this ancient ORTHODOX doctrine, please read: http://emergingfaith.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30
Are you a unitarian universalist or a Christocentric pluralist?
I should make the distinction between syncretism and universalism, as well. It just hasn’t been clear to me what you are arguing for. Most brands of “universalism” that I encounter are syncretistic.
Chris,
we’re talking about grace… i’m argue’n that grace is universal.
what i’m making a distinction between is Universalism; aka apokatastasis, vs. what you’re talking about which is pluralism, which can and usually is syncretic.
Luke,
My bad! I’m used to universalism being used in a different sense.
But on the matter, I don’t think grace exists unless it is universal. What other impostor is worth talking about?
“I am well acquainted with unversalism, as my supervisor in the National Guard is a card-carrying universalist. We’ve had great conversations, but (as with most of the arguments I’ve heard) is born primarily out of pain and suffering and secondarily from scripture.” (Brad)
My challenge here is this:
If the Bible exists as holocaust literature, as survival literature, as holy testaments to God born OUT OF pain and anguish, how shall we separate our own experience? Surely we needn’t observe vast contradictions.
What of process theology on the matter??
“My bad! I’m used to universalism being used in a different sense. ” Chris
no problem… ppl get sloppy and interchange pluralism and universalism and those are NOT the same thing… one doesn’t have to be Christian to be a pluralist (buddhist, ba’hai, and other mystic traditions make these claims, some better than others) where as to be universalist, being a Christian is a pre-req. big difference in the too!
“If the Bible exists as holocaust literature, as survival literature, as holy testaments to God born OUT OF pain and anguish, how shall we separate our own experience? ” -Chris
i’m lost here… what are we exactly talking about? the nature of the Bible? is it JUST survivalist literature or is it the inerrant word of God? is that where this debate will be heading?
“If the Bible exists as holocaust literature, as survival literature, as holy testaments to God born OUT OF pain and anguish, how shall we separate our own experience?”
There are similarities and overlaps. That is the relevancy of God’s word, and the timeless beauty of it. But when we place our experience and prominence over that of God’s, we are (at best) fuzzying the lines of what we center our lives upon. To “put our faith in Christ” is to be God-centered, and dependent on Him. If we become primarily centered on our pain or experience (and thus ourselves) we are no longer depending upon God, but ourselves.
I don’t know as much as I should about process theology. Could you summarize it for me? Is it similar to trajectoral-theology? I’m not a fan of that, so I hope not….
“ppl get sloppy and interchange pluralism and universalism and those are NOT the same thing…”
Luke, NOW you are singing my tune. As a Chaplain, I operate in a VERY pluralistic environment, and there is a HUGE difference between that and universalism.
In Re: to Chris’s summation as well, even Calvinists can affirm the “law of God which is written on all men’s hearts,” we can affirm the values and principles of MANY faiths while holding to the exclusive claims of Christ being the only way to salvation. Paul demonstrated at the Aereopagus that those aspects of God’s truth can serve as inroads, bridges, or common connects through which to communicate the gospel. That is the beauty of the Christian message, that it is ultimately adaptable and flexable across all cultures (pluralism) because it TRANSCENDS all cultures (exclusive truth). If anything, a universal view of salvation cheapens the transcendance of the gospel, and (agreeing with SVS on this point) steals meaning from our lives.
I had thought that Unitarian Universalists had no “prerequisite” in terms of Christianity. Although it has its roots there, I think “universalism” is here being used in two different senses. Call me stubborn, but I don’t think it’s sloppy.
Anyhow, process theology is probably would be included in the “trajectoral” umbrella you cited, however it isn’t to be caricaturized or mistaken for a trajectory.
Process theology seeks to reconcile Biblical theology with modern physics. It posits a panentheistic God Who is in process with the created order. Here, do not cheapen yourselves and assume that process thus “cheapens the truth” (remember the hypocritical BS that pisses you off? here’s mine!). It is a very important movement in contemporary theology which should be treated seriously, and while difficult to swallow whole, it brings up the most important of issues, especially the problems of evil and suffering. Process thinkers believe that they have “solved” (intellectually speaking) the problem of evil (that is, it is the problem of good) — see Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb Jr., and the philosopher that founded process philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead.
I’m certain a good synopsis can be found online, although I would highly recommend Hartshorne’s Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. It isn’t as bombastic as you might think, although he is extremely clear about where he is coming from, and redefines some of the most central focuses of theology in some compelling ways. Obviously much of the work is centered on free will, determinism, power, divine foreknowledge, grace. For an important read regardless of your tradition, it’s a great intro to process thought, and very short, very clear.
More later…what do you mean by “trajectoral theology?” All I’ve found is stuff on Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. I should forewarn, I am curious if I should try to defend both on the merits of Scripture and reason, particularly against the arrogance of something as idolatrous and narcissistic as CRI or “The Bible-Answer Man” and his education (ego).
I’d better stop listening to 91.5
all love for the bruthuz,
chris
Another warning: Use the hermeneutic of suspending your disbelief; process and Calvinism are oil and water.
I know that Calvinism might be the perfect system to some of you, and I won’t dismiss it as such, but I do think that process theology poses some very serious challenges for traditional theism. In the current debates on science and religion, process theology stands as the most serious consideration for scientists and religious philosophers. A couple other names to consider: John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke…
Polkinghorne especially…an eminent physicist for decades — became an Anglican priest — a very, very special thinker. I’m a little in love with him.
compelled,
chris
and on the universalism note:
to clarify: well of course you can’t just sit there and not respond to Grace. that’s Hell. the ancients didn’t want to go too much further…
“I had thought that Unitarian Universalists had no “prerequisite” in terms of Christianity.” Chris
of course they have prereqs! God is one (unitarian) and Grace if universal (Universalists). I’d say all religions have prereqs… even the UCC (which i am a member of) which states that it has no “doctrine.” We do have a HISTORY of doctrine though under the Reformed, Evangelical and Congregationalist movements. so that means we have calvinists in pews with puritans! eeek! but it works, don’t ask me how
i really like process theology! it’s one of my interests here at seminary (namely as we have a handful of process theologians here on staff). a great resource and learning tool on process can be found at http://www.processandfaith.org/
oh and Chris, John Polkinghorne spoke this past winter at LTS… i LOVED it. he’s amazing!
peace bro!
Chris and Luke,
So is process theology along the same lines as the argument that God grows/matures/changes over time? I’ve heard that argument in detail before, and not gonna lie, sounds infinitely more speculative rather than revealed (i.e. Biblical). I’m wholeheartedly open to learning about new perspectives, but am hyper sensitive to “new ideas,” since most of those over the course of history do not hold water. Our sub-tagline for the blog (yet to be incorporated in the new design) is “A reformed perspective on ancient truth from an emerging generation.” the “ancient truth part” is the only one that isn’t real flexible IMO.
And my experience with tragectoral theology is Merrienne Thompson’s “The Promise of the Father,” and it was to argue that cultural norms, not objective truth, determined the gender labels of God as Father, warrior, shepherd, etc. (Luke: I know, I know.
) I disagreed with it because that theology gives entirely too much liberty in Biblical interpretation, and insinuates that God cannot work outside of cultural norms (which would contradict a lot of the counter-cultural exhortations of the OT and NT).
it’s worth checking out.. i did a few posts about it.. it’s helped me with the trouble of “is everything that happens the will of God or not?” from a reformed perspective, the answer is yes (at least traditionally). Process says no, not everything that happens is the will of God, however, God’s will is never thwarted (as God works with what happens).
as for “too much liberty in Biblical interpretation and insinuates that God cannot work outside of cultural norms” (Brad), i think that there’s a misread there. I’ve read that book (a while ago) and what i got out of it is that God specifically works within our cultural norms so that we can understand God’s work. OR that we can only understand God’s work THROUGH our norms where as God is working outside our framework. I think that’s an acceptable interpretation biblically as we DON’T know all that God does… the bible attests to this in Genesis, Job, Ecclesiasties, the Proverbs, and even the gospels (Jesus saying that even he does not know the complete will of the father (Mark 13:32).
It’s like this… if i pick up an ant on the tip of my pinkie finger and move it from the ground to the plant, how then would the ant describe the event to it’s friend? it would prolly use ant metaphors and symbols to describe what happened, but it wouldn’t be the whole thing.. as it can’t comprehend how big I am… same with my experience with God. I may be only seeing the pinkie of God, and i can’t even describe that! i don’t have the means. so to fix this, God works in ways that we can comprehend… whether through science (polkinghorne and whitehead), experience (pomo and charismatic), ritual (classic theology), or whatever, God utilizes whatever avenues God can to get the message we need to receive.
does that make any sense? it’s a form of Apophatic theology… but that’s as close as i can get to it.
“Process says no, not everything that happens is the will of God, however, God’s will is never thwarted (as God works with what happens).”
I’m pretty sure that reformed theology can affirm that as well… In fact, I’m sure of it. The doctrine of sin is essential to it, as is the Calvinistic (not HYPER-calvinistic) tension of both sovereignty and human responsibility.
And yeah, i hear the importance of understanding cultural context (1Cor being a case-in-point). But Thompson suggested that this “trajectory” gave an authority to cultural values and influences that we could reinterpret those (contextualized) truths through our modern lens. This was used to justify the PCUSA’s renaming of the Trinity to “more culturally acceptable terms”… Her analysis ignored the fact that Christianity (OT and NT) has been anything if not counter cultural, yet her claim was that culture has and should primarily dictate essential doctrine like the Trinity. Does that make a little more sense?
Brad, you are spot on to note that process conflicts with hyper-Calvinism, not so much the tension between sovereignty and free will. Philosophically, process “solves” the dilemma more coherently, but tension is always mysterious, and wonderfully rendered by the majority of Calvinists I have spoken to (probably because they have given the time and study necessary to call themselves Calvinists beyond the surface-level issues…)
Perhaps we should consider the “sovereign freedom of God” in Ernst Kasemann’s terms? This brings us right into the tension of human will and divine foreknowledge…
But again, all of this talk about process must be preceded with a more in-depth consideration of the nature of God and His relationship with creation. Panentheists would posit a partnership…
“Philosophically, process “solves” the dilemma more coherently, but tension is always mysterious…”
I wonder how much of God we can ever solve “coherently.” We are bearers of His image, but there’s still a huge gap there… I worry that, in trying to shove a square peg into a round hole we end up shaving off some important (read: essential) aspects of who God is. Maybe the square peg was never meant to go into the round hole?
“Perhaps we should consider the “sovereign freedom of God” in Ernst Kasemann’s terms? ”
Go for it. I have no idea who that is, but I’m always up for it.
“Panentheists would posit a partnership…”
Yeah… and Biblicists would cry “heresy.” LOL. A partnership between the uncreated and created? How exactly does that work? And more importantly, how is that justified biblically?
Abraham Joshua Heschel is considered by many to be the most significant Jewish theologian of the 20th Century — you might say a Biblicist — who sees the partnership between man and God, the mystery of God in search of man and man in search of God as a major Biblical theme. Jacob wrestling Who?
I think we’re just misunderstanding what is meant by “partnership.” In bringing peace and compassion, truth and love to this world I don’t see any conflict with Biblical Christianity and the objectives of process.
Now to affirm your words on mystery and the square peg. I think you’re absolutely right. In my experience of God, I am more inclined to negative theology, to saying less about God rather than overstepping my grounds. Disaster only follows such pride.
When I mentioned that I find it difficult to swallow process theology in full, this is precisely what I would say: I can never subscribe to a theology that “has it figured out,” but only a system of thought that truly tastes of humility. As always, any thinking that causes me to realize how vast God is, how beyond me He is, is to be trusted.
More on Kasemann next time..
lovins,
chris
“Panentheists would posit a partnership…”
Yeah… and Biblicists would cry “heresy.” LOL. A partnership between the uncreated and created? How exactly does that work? And more importantly, how is that justified biblically? ” -Brad
i would argue that Jesus was the first Panentheist… or at least the first successful Jewish panentheist… look no farther than John 14 to get the whole run down.. starts with a classic theist view of God in heaven (Do not let your hearts be troubled, I go to prepare an abode…) then talks about how he is the way to the Father (way, truth life), THEN he throws a curveball… A spirit, an advocate to come and help us that will indwell us? craziness!
Luke,
True.
-Chris