Encouragement for the Journey

Today, I began my classes at Yale Divinity School. But my devotional time this morning set the scene beautifully. Here is an apt word from Oswald Chambers, whether you're pursuing theological education or just any new phase of life:

Every time you venture out in your life of faith, you will find something in your circumstances that, from a commonsense standpoint, will flatly contradict your faith. But common sense is not faith, and faith is not common sense. In fact, they are as different as the natural life and the spiritual. Can you trust Jesus Christ where your common sense cannot trust Him? Can you venture out with courage on the words of Jesus Christ, while the realities of your commonsense life continue to shout, "It's all a lie"? When you are on the mountaintop, it's easy to say, "Oh yes, I believe God can do it," but you have to come down from the mountain to the demon-possessed valley and face the realities that scoff at your Mount-of-Transfiguration belief (see Luke 9:28-42). Every time my theology becomes clear to my own mind, I encounter something that contradicts it. As soon as I say, "I believe 'God shall supply all [my] need,'" the testing of my faith begins (Philippians 4:19). When my strength runs dry and my vision is blinded, will I endure this trial of my faith victoriously or will I turn back in defeat?

Faith must be tested, because it can only become your intimate possession through conflict. What is challenging your faith right now? The test will either prove your faith right, or it will kill it. Jesus said, "Blessed is he who is not offended because of Me" (Matthew 11:6). The ultimate thing is confidence in Jesus. "We have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end..." (Hebrews 3:14). Believe steadfastly on Him and everything that challenges you will strengthen your faith. There is continual testing in the life of faith up to the point of our physical death, which is the last great test. Faith is absolute trust in God - trust that could never imagine that He would forsake us. 

(emphasis mine)

Getting ready to embark on this new journey will be a great joy. God has refined my faith in Him through conflict and He will continue to strengthen and further define my "intimate possession" first and foremost because He saw fit, for His glory, to give it to me. I thank and I praise Him for it. I hope this blesses you.

Bite-Sized: Spiritual but not Religious

I'll admit...this post is slightly informed, slightly speculative. Take from it what you will. It's in response to a very special someone who wanted a quick explanation.

There seems to be a growing population of individuals claiming to be "spiritual but not religious". For a majority of church-going individuals, this seems weird. So allow me, as an outsider looking into the phenomenon, to add some clarification.

From what I've seen, this seems to be on the heels of what is starting to look like a rejection of organized religion, largely among young adults. This kind of rhetoric yields individuals who claim to "love Jesus and hate religion" or who are "spiritual but not religious". It generally stems from a discontent with the churches that the individual grew up with, manifested in perceived hypocrisy or bigotry. In other words, "The church I grew up with was full of hypocrites and close-minded people and I wasn't really comfortable in that atmosphere. I still love and believe in Jesus but I'm not really into the whole organized religion thing."

In response to that, I can see where people come from. There are some churches that are full of hypocrites. But hypocrisy is not nearly as widespread as you think it is. Talking about how bad sin is but also sinning as an individual is not hypocrisy. It's a reality of every Christian's life. We are called to hate sin, but we also face the reality of the weakness of our flesh and the fact that we are bound to disobey from time to time. But by the grace of the Holy Spirit, He prompts us to repentance and brings us back into the fold. What true hypocrisy is is condemning sin while living an unrepentantly sinful lifestyle, which is, in essence, a sign that you're not really a Christian (Don't blame me for this, blame the writer of 1 John, among others). This is, hopefully, very, very rare in the Church. And besides that, don't throw out organized religion as a whole just because the church you were involved with did some stuff wrong. That is, I believe, a grave mistake. My big issue with the "love Jesus, hate religion" thing is that it doesn't make any sense. Jesus loved "religion". He instituted a church (Matthew 16:18). He spoke on discipline within that church (Matthew 18:15-20). He was a faithful and observant Jew (evident when you read the Gospels). If you want an anti-religion poster boy, Jesus is absolutely not the man to look to. So I think it calls for us to look at religion differently. We should probably look at it like Jesus did: worship of the Triune God in spirit and truth, serving the poor, widow, and orphan, and engaging in the community of the Body of Christ. That's true religion.

Note: "Spiritual but not religious" can also refer to an undefined theism: the thought that God and the divine exist in some way but that no religion has it completely right. One of my best friends classifies himself as an "agnostic theist" who believes exactly that (from what I can tell).

Other note: Another good buddy of mine said this: "It's hilarious because saying you're spiritual is about as specific as saying you're physical." I'm inclined to agree.

Who Do You Say That I Am?

 Note: So it's been about a week and a half. Here's a culmination of what I've been thinking about for that time. Hope it pricks you as it has pricked me.            

           The first week in divinity school has been a blast. Being in one place with so many like-minded, academically inclined (read: nerdy) Christians has been eye-opening and thrilling for me. But the conversations that I have been involved in have reminded me of one over-arching, pervasive fact: our answer to Jesus’ question in Mark 8:29 dictates how we think about God and ultimately how we live our lives.

            At first the response might be, “Uh…well, duh! Since Christ is the Son of God, Christology and theology have to be inextricably linked.” But it’s deeper than that. I’ve come to define my research interest as an interest in patristic Christology.¹ In undergrad, I wrote my final paper in religious studies about two early Christian writers, Athanasius and Arius, their Christologies, and their views of pilgrimage. For these two men, it was their disparate views of Christ, which led to extended, vitriolic polemics. In their day and in ours, people are quick to call the details of Christ’s identity irrelevant.² In many cases, the focus is instead shifted to focus exclusively on his actions.* But in their day and in ours, Christ’s identity is paramount if we are to serve Him in Spirit and in truth. But back to the specifics of these two…

These different views of Christ stemmed from different views of God. For Athanasius (in my view, the orthodox one), Jesus was/is the Word of John 1: in the beginning with God, God Himself, and active in creation. If one were to diagram the cosmic order according to Athanasius, God the Father and God the Son would be at the top together, with the rest of creation below them. (Note: to properly imagine Christ’s immanence, imagine Him also among creation. He’s got the transcendence and the immanence going on at the same time.) Arius, on the other hand, had a slightly different view of Christ. He operated with, in my opinion, a Middle/Neo-Platonic backdrop. In other words, he saw transcendence and oneness as the primary attributes of God. To him, nothing was like God or could ever be like God³. So to suggest that Jesus was God would be a grave error in his mind. Arius said this, “If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this, it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.” To Arius, there was a time that God the Father was not a Father, he was just God. But at some later “time”⁴, God created Jesus. But Jesus’ status as a creation has some key implications, which Arius goes on to explain: Jesus “neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the…Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power.” Thus, Christ is given the names of Scripture because of access as opposed to possession, according to Arius. To him, Jesus has access to the Wisdom and Power of God the Father, but that is the extent of his uniqueness. Besides that fact, he is portrayed as just another human being. To diagram Arius’ cosmic, imagine God the Father at the level of the outer reaches of the Milky Way, imagine Christ at the ceiling of your local church/cathedral, and you and the rest of creation right where you sit. Needless to say, this type of thought definitely had practical, pastoral implications.

Do you see the issues that this brings up when it comes to salvation? Athanasius definitely did. If Jesus doesn’t fully understand or know the Father, how in the world are we supposed to trust in Him for salvation? Is John sorely mistaken when he says that the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ? To borrow Paul’s characteristic response, μη γενοιτο⁵! Jesus has to be fully God for Christianity to make any kind of sense. Let’s look at one practical, pastoral issue that this Christological assertion speaks to: pilgrimage and holy travel.

To Athanasius, pilgrimage and holy travel are unnecessary. The Kingdom of God is within you. You don’t need to travel to a far away holy place or some far away holy person to experience God’s presence and build your relationship. The body of believers is more than enough for that. His view stems from his view of Christ as both transcendent and immanent. He is both above His creation and among His creation. After all, He became human for us. That wasn’t a sign of his weakness, as Arius might argue, but rather a manifestation of his power. To formulate for yourself some external locus of holiness is to misunderstand the Gospel. To Arius, however, pilgrimage and holy travel would seem natural, if not imperative. After all, God is far away and difficult to understand. I mean, Jesus is close but not quite there. So for me to think that I need to travel a great distance to talk to a sage or go to Christ’s birthplace and tomb to experience holiness makes sense. In my mind, the same kind of logic applies to prayer and how we think about it and practice it. It is difficult to pray and have a conversation with a God who, intellectually, we think is far away. But if our Christology is informed by Scripture, we know that we serve a God who will never leave us nor forsake us. In the words of Athanasius: “He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father. For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are.”

This is all just to show that Christology and theology are not just lofty ideas that should be left to theologians and pastors to contemplate. These are things that we all as Christians should consider. As a matter of fact, if we don’t, that is a kind of consideration in and of itself. If who Christ is isn’t important to us, how can we claim to know Him? Do we run the risk, at the time of the Final Judgment, of Him turning to us saying that He never knew us? Believe me, that is literally the last thing I want to hear from my Savior. The Master has given us the opportunity to know him. I say we seize that opportunity and run with it because it is only by knowing Christ that we can truly do what He wants us to do and be who He wants us to be.

1: To the unitiated, patristics is the study of early Christian writers.

2: Emperor Constantine wanted Arius and Athanasius to lay aside their differences and to stop “quarreling about small and very trifling matters”. We offer the same kind of dismissal in the name of ecumenism and “tolerance”. We disagree about theology. That’s a fact. Let’s civilly engage that disagreement.

*: This is just something I recently noticed. This is what I see as the root of "liberation theology", which is prominent in a lot of divinity schools and some seminaries. Whether it is black liberation theology, gay/lesbian liberation theology, feminist theology, or other similar schools of thought, the root is this: God, and by extension Christ, is seen as first and foremost a protector and advocate for the oppressed. Each of these groups then appropriate that as a theological declaration that God is for them because they are oppressed in today's world. This leads to a reinterpretation of Scripture on those grounds. I think the social justice bent is definitely an important aspect of the faith, but it was neither my nor Christ's main focus. He came to set the captives free, but not necessarily in earthly terms. Sometimes freedom from sin manifests itself in prosperity and earthly freedom but sometimes it doesn't. We've still got to be patient for Christ to come back and set the world straight. We can't do all of that on our own. 

3: Looking at this today, it reminds me of the pure, indivisible monotheism that Islam suggests. One of the necessary conversations that needs to take place between Christians and Muslims is a correct elucidation of what we (Christians) believe about Christ and how, truly, it doesn’t make us polytheistic. While the Trinity is a weird kind of monotheism, God is indeed still One.

4: We can’t really call it “time”, since all of this is taking place before time actually exists…yeah. Intense.

5: The NIV translates this, “By no means!” Other translations have things like “Let it not be!”, which is the literal translation. In context, however, it’s much more similar to the contemporary “Hell no!” Paul has quite a few slightly vulgar moments. 

Bite-Sized: The Merit of "Dialogue"

This one's a little abstract...

The quest for "dialogue" is something I hear about a lot. We pursue thoughtful dialogue. We want to establish dialogue. It seems that the greatest pursuit is the pursuit of tolerance through dialogue. I'm inclined to disagree. We shouldn't be asking questions just to ask questions or just to facilitate dialogue. We ask questions to receive answers. We ask questions to reach understanding and wisdom. Once we receive that wisdom, we would do well to accept and act on it. But inquiry for the sake of inquiry is toothless unless we have a burning desire for the Truth behind it. Excerpted below is a discussion between the White Spirit and the Episcopal Ghost of C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce:

EG: Ah, but we must all interpret those beautiful words [read: sacred Scripture] in our own way! For me there is no such thing as a final answer. The free wind of inquiry must always continue to blow through the mind, must it not? "Prove all things"... to travel hopefully is better than to arrive.

WS: If that were true, and known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be nothing to hope for.

EG: But you must feel yourself that there is something stifling about the idea of finality? Stagnation, my dear boy, what is more soul-destroying than stagnation?"

WS: You think that, because hitherto you have experienced truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can taste it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom. Your thirst shall be quenched...You have gone far wrong. Thirst is made for water; inquiry for truth. What you now call the free play of inquiry has neither more nor less to do with the ends for which intelligence was given you than masturbation has to do with marriage. 

Don't just ask questions to be trendy or "foster dialogue". Ask questions to learn the Truth. Look to the Eternal Fact, as Lewis calls Him. Look to Christ, the center and Source of all creation.

Thankful

KB: Some say they’ve seen the Lord/but live on casually/I don’t know what you saw/but the Lord ain’t what you seen/Once you really seen the Lord/ You’re obsessed with what you see

Ah gospel rap…

There will be slightly less rigorous theological inquiry in this post. I just want to express how thankful I am. As of now, I’m basically settled in my apartment at divinity school with my pretty cool roommate and I am seeing God work literally my wildest dreams to fruition. My best friend, whom I’ve been best friends with since the sandbox (read: 4^th grade), is starting up at the medical school affiliated with my university and we’ve already planned to hang out all the time. Admission to this school was a blessing and further financial aid was an even greater blessing, but I see now that this was all part of a master plan that, apparently, God has set into motion to work through me. It is my hope and my prayer that I can continue to merely be a vessel of His awesome power. This is why these gospel rap lyrics came to mind. This is, of course, not to say that I’ve had some life-changing vision of Christ that exploded my existence, but my revelation of Christ, His work, His Spirit, and His Father has been a progressive one and it still continues to amaze me. Surely three more years of rigorous academic instruction and an integrated worship life will strengthen my bond with my Creator. I thank the Lord and I look forward to it. 

Bite-Sized: The Christian Sexual Ethic

This whole Chick-Fil-A thing is interesting. I think it's admirable to see Chick-Fil-A stand up for biblical principles. Of course, there are people who disagree, even some who think that what Chick-Fil-A says about marriage is a perversion of biblical principles. Let's set the record straight.

Homosexual acts are sin. Plain and simple. This statement is not based on three or four "proof-texts", though for some it is. When I say that homosexual acts are a sin, it is only a tiny part of the Christian sexual ethic which essentially boils down to this: the only person that you should have sexual contact with or contemplate having sexual contact with is your wife (if you're a man) or husband (if you're a woman). It is from this fact that all of the sexual regulations of the Bible stem. Jesus talked about it too in Matthew 19 in setting the standard that a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they are considered "one flesh". So people say Christians are restrictive because of the homosexuality thing, but they fail to realize that God keeps sex confined to the marriage bed and only the marriage bed...and also for very good reasons that include the security and commitment in that covenant. But the best reason is because He said so. It is a system instituted by God for our good. We should respect it as such and trust Him to look out for our best.

Awesome book on the topic of homosexuality from a man struggling with the desires and accepting the testimony of Scripture: Washed & Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness & Homosexuality by Wesley Hill. I recommend it to everyone.

Important to note: Many will exalt sexual sin to a pedestal, making it worse than other sins. Some of this is warranted as Paul himself suggests that sexual sin is different. But we must remember that we are all sinners and ALL sin separates us from God, and unless our brother/sister is immersed in an unrepentant, sinful lifestyle, we must continue in fellowship of love with them.

Another important note: One of the very real, very tangible threat to traditional marriage: no-fault divorce laws. As one of my coworkers put it to me yesterday, "If more people entered marriage with the conviction that divorce was  not nor would it ever be an option, the picture would be different."