Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
an essential element of Christian freedom
Any discussion about freedom should specify what the freedom is from. The personal freedom to do something is omnipresent; the more relevant issue is the action's consequences.
I have the freedom to cross between states of my nation. Even if there were prohibitions and patrols, I'd nevertheless still have the freedom to cross between states. I'd be detained and/or charged, but my personal freedom to provoke those reactions (or not) is never in question. In this case, the actual freedom described is freedom from government interference of my state-crossings. Put another way, each person is free in his or her own soul. We possess the human dignity of decision-making at all times. In that sense, no one is ever "granted freedoms" that he or she didn't have already.
When a believer or an unbeliever says or sings "I am free", the statement ascribes no additional attributes to "I". "I" wouldn't be "I", if "I" wasn't free. The immediate question to "I am free" shouldn't be "Free to do what?" but "Free from what?"
Without this context, Christianity's concept of freedom can befuddle. For some people, freedom implies being able to do whatever is in one's power. Whereas for the Christian, that freedom is assumed for everybody in any case. Christianity's freedom then must be "freedom froms", not "freedom tos". Christianity's freedom is freedom from Hell, from selfishness, from fear, from despair. Some unbelievers see Christianity and freedom as opposites because God's demands of holiness draw firm bounds around a number of "freedom tos". They don't see that coupled with this list of behavioral limits is a long list of "freedom froms". In alternative words whose coarseness approaches rank inaccuracy, the Christian "trades" lordship over his own life--a lordship that might not be going at all well--for freedom from sinful bondage now and freedom from eternal punishment later.
I have the freedom to cross between states of my nation. Even if there were prohibitions and patrols, I'd nevertheless still have the freedom to cross between states. I'd be detained and/or charged, but my personal freedom to provoke those reactions (or not) is never in question. In this case, the actual freedom described is freedom from government interference of my state-crossings. Put another way, each person is free in his or her own soul. We possess the human dignity of decision-making at all times. In that sense, no one is ever "granted freedoms" that he or she didn't have already.
When a believer or an unbeliever says or sings "I am free", the statement ascribes no additional attributes to "I". "I" wouldn't be "I", if "I" wasn't free. The immediate question to "I am free" shouldn't be "Free to do what?" but "Free from what?"
Without this context, Christianity's concept of freedom can befuddle. For some people, freedom implies being able to do whatever is in one's power. Whereas for the Christian, that freedom is assumed for everybody in any case. Christianity's freedom then must be "freedom froms", not "freedom tos". Christianity's freedom is freedom from Hell, from selfishness, from fear, from despair. Some unbelievers see Christianity and freedom as opposites because God's demands of holiness draw firm bounds around a number of "freedom tos". They don't see that coupled with this list of behavioral limits is a long list of "freedom froms". In alternative words whose coarseness approaches rank inaccuracy, the Christian "trades" lordship over his own life--a lordship that might not be going at all well--for freedom from sinful bondage now and freedom from eternal punishment later.
Friday, August 22, 2008
"missional" should be implied
One word that bugs me among Christians is "missional". Christianity itself is missional. "Go and make disciples". "Faith without works is dead". Christianity is bowing one's entire being and life to the Holy God. Don't bother to tell me a ministry or church is "missional", although that's nice to hear. I'm missional. You're missional. Together, we are even more missional.
People like to point out that God doesn't despise creation, in order to emphasize that sex isn't repulsive in its proper time and place. I remind them that it also means that belief in God isn't only mystical or mental. Jesus stated that the kingdom of heaven had come. We are part of it now. We live in it now. Christianity has physical consequences. It can't help but be missional.
People like to point out that God doesn't despise creation, in order to emphasize that sex isn't repulsive in its proper time and place. I remind them that it also means that belief in God isn't only mystical or mental. Jesus stated that the kingdom of heaven had come. We are part of it now. We live in it now. Christianity has physical consequences. It can't help but be missional.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
the scapegoat everyone can agree on
American culture.
Apparently, regardless of a complainer's perspective or the specific, systemic societal downfall he or she complains of, American culture is to blame. If only it was more like ______, then people would act the way they should.
The sad yet amusing truth is that the accusation is somehow both simplistic and correct: American culture is in actuality brimming with subcultures and regional differences, but it is still an "invisible hand" that directs behavior. "Culture" is composed of so many pieces and assumed by so many minds that the bulk of it can't be suddenly changed. The most anyone can do is 1) produce counteracting works of culture and 2) cultivate and expand a counterculture.
And 3), remember that culture includes crucial items other than mass (crass) media. Human relationships, for instance. "Unplugging" oneself from electronic noise (this blog excepted!) is a fine way to become reacquainted with, well, reality, which Christians are called to beneficially engage in.
Apparently, regardless of a complainer's perspective or the specific, systemic societal downfall he or she complains of, American culture is to blame. If only it was more like ______, then people would act the way they should.
The sad yet amusing truth is that the accusation is somehow both simplistic and correct: American culture is in actuality brimming with subcultures and regional differences, but it is still an "invisible hand" that directs behavior. "Culture" is composed of so many pieces and assumed by so many minds that the bulk of it can't be suddenly changed. The most anyone can do is 1) produce counteracting works of culture and 2) cultivate and expand a counterculture.
And 3), remember that culture includes crucial items other than mass (crass) media. Human relationships, for instance. "Unplugging" oneself from electronic noise (this blog excepted!) is a fine way to become reacquainted with, well, reality, which Christians are called to beneficially engage in.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Christianity without doctrine
Doctrine is divisive. This effect is intentional. To believe in doctrinal truth is also to believe in the possibility of doctrinal falsehoods. If doctrines delineate true and false, then the proponents of doctrines are similarly delineated into groups that each believe the others to be mistaken. Why can't Christians, for the sake of unity, toss all that stuff out the window?
Picture what that would mean. When a church, a body of disciples, has no doctrines, then everybody has nothing to disagree over (that's the ideal, anyway). The beliefs of individuals don't matter, because they can be neither right nor wrong. So no doctrine leads to each person holding to any doctrine. But if disciples can pick and choose their doctrines (passing over the question of what basis they use), then what is Christianity's distinction in the sea of ideas? Truth can't be chosen; truth is. Christianity without truth isn't a Christianity worthy of martyrs.
Nevertheless, the necessity of doctrine in order to uphold the very concept of solid spiritual truth doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent Christians from cooperating to accomplish good. In many causes agreeable to the Christian faith, they can also cooperate with other religions and secularists. Frankly, doctrinal differences aren't relevant to every action.
Yet doctrinal differences are inescapably relevant to Christian practice: sermons, governance, sacraments. Churches that profess no doctrine really do have doctrines, demonstrated by their words and actions. Faith isn't the same as "works", but works "prove" faith. Doctrines are analogous.
Picture what that would mean. When a church, a body of disciples, has no doctrines, then everybody has nothing to disagree over (that's the ideal, anyway). The beliefs of individuals don't matter, because they can be neither right nor wrong. So no doctrine leads to each person holding to any doctrine. But if disciples can pick and choose their doctrines (passing over the question of what basis they use), then what is Christianity's distinction in the sea of ideas? Truth can't be chosen; truth is. Christianity without truth isn't a Christianity worthy of martyrs.
Nevertheless, the necessity of doctrine in order to uphold the very concept of solid spiritual truth doesn't (and shouldn't) prevent Christians from cooperating to accomplish good. In many causes agreeable to the Christian faith, they can also cooperate with other religions and secularists. Frankly, doctrinal differences aren't relevant to every action.
Yet doctrinal differences are inescapably relevant to Christian practice: sermons, governance, sacraments. Churches that profess no doctrine really do have doctrines, demonstrated by their words and actions. Faith isn't the same as "works", but works "prove" faith. Doctrines are analogous.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
a question of terminology
Is an enjoyable experience described as: 1) sinful, 2) heavenly? In either case, I hope the adjective is only being used playfully. But does the choice between these two words, trivial or not, indicate a deeper opinion about the very idea of righteousness? Does it reflect the actual level of belief in the benefits of living well? Which side is "fun" (no matter how shallowly it be defined), good or evil? Is heaven considered boring?
Just something to ponder the next time a "sinful" dessert is presented or a "heavenly" singer performs.
Just something to ponder the next time a "sinful" dessert is presented or a "heavenly" singer performs.
Friday, July 25, 2008
2 Timothy 3:16
2nd Timothy 3:16 is a popular verse for illustrating the importance of the Bible, and also in support of sola scriptura.
But am I the only one to have wondered if and how it can possibly be referring to itself? At the time it was written, the New Testament hadn't taken final shape, naturally (though I imagine that one or more of the Gospels and/or the Gospel source document(s) may have been around in some form). And it's far-fetched indeed to suppose that 2nd Timothy's writer included 2nd Timothy as Scripture, anyway.
That doesn't mean that 2nd Timothy isn't part of Christianity's biblical canon. Being actually written by an apostle is a good basis to trust it (all the shaky, disreputable other "gospels" don't have that basis).
But am I the only one to have wondered if and how it can possibly be referring to itself? At the time it was written, the New Testament hadn't taken final shape, naturally (though I imagine that one or more of the Gospels and/or the Gospel source document(s) may have been around in some form). And it's far-fetched indeed to suppose that 2nd Timothy's writer included 2nd Timothy as Scripture, anyway.
That doesn't mean that 2nd Timothy isn't part of Christianity's biblical canon. Being actually written by an apostle is a good basis to trust it (all the shaky, disreputable other "gospels" don't have that basis).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)