Another walk around the elephant

Posted on July 15, 2006 by me

Earlier this week, Plato wrote about his recent experience in church, remarkably similar to my own. I try not to complaint about church, but like Joe Walsh, sometimes I still do. If you’ve been reading my recent series, My Own Personal Religion, you know that I have some issues with what I see in the current trend of worship and church services in general.

The main trend, which is somewhat unusual, given the direction of my life for the past 20 years or so, is away from the focus on the personal experience, and toward a corporate, theologically and historically sound expression of church.

For example, last Sunday in church, worship was “standard” for our style of church: worship choruses, led by a rock/pop worship band. I was noticing during one particular song, that many of the people were really “into” it; however, the only thing the song really said was something like “God you are awesome.” Wow. That’s profound, isn’t it? It was so profound, we sang that line about 25 times. This, by the way, is by one of the “premier” worship songwriters today, and you probably sing it in your church. It struck me that this songwriter really had nothing to say about God – no reasons why God is awesome, no concrete examples, not even a few scriptural quotes. Just, “God you are awesome.” Then, when the song was over, people clapped. ??? Carried away by the profundity? Or by the music (it is a catchy song)?

The sermon started out wonderfully. The guest preacher actually taught the Bible, not his perspective on life. He talked about how he never gave “practical” sermons (the “how to” kind), but teaches the Bible. Yay! I was so happy… until all of a sudden he left the Bible and took a left turn into a patch of non-Biblical perspectives. And, most of the people rejoiced. I was, suffice it to say, disappointed.

A few years ago, I wrote a great little piece entitled The Challenge of the New Church (which can still be found on a few different sites on the web), based on the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each man grabbed hold of a different part of the elephant, and so each had completely different descriptions for what an elephant looked like. The moral of the story obviously is to keep moving, exploring, and open to new ideas.

Since I wrote that article, I have gone through spiritual detox, deconstruction, and decompression (and ocasionally depression). I am now in the process of reconstruction, having found a firm foundation intact, only to find that reconstruction has its own challenges. But, that’s another story. As I sat in church last Sunday, wondering why I was feeling so disjointed from the rest of the people I was with, the thought popped into my head, “you’re just walking around the elephant.” I will credit God with that thought, as it had a ring of truth that went beyond my ability to make stuff up.

As I have been “walking around the elephant” I now am seeing a part of the elephant I haven’t seen or appreciated for over 20 years. It’s not that a personal experience of worship isn’t valid; it’s that it has, for the most part, been removed from the rest of the elephant. People are happy swinging from the elephant’s trunk, not realizing that the foundation lies elsewhere.

There is a need to bring the church around to see that there is a larger context than just the elephant’s trunk; to ignore it is to wind up with one-dimensional worship experiences and preaching that can’t tell when it departs from the Bible. I think it’s time now, to move beyond the “I’m so happy” choruses and “be more committed to the program” sermons and spend a little time finding out about this God that we claim we are following.

Anybody else feel like taking a little walk?

Posted in Church, My Own Personal Religion | 1 Comment

Authority Issues, continued

Posted on July 8, 2006 by me

Over the years I’ve talked to a number (pick a number, any number) of people about the need to understand the cultural, historical as well as theological contexts of the Bible. More than once, I’ve had people respond with something like, “Shouldn’t the Bible meaning be clear? Why would God gives us the Bible, and make it so we can’t just read it and understand it for ourselves, without learning history, etc.?” I’ve also had people say, “It says it right here, in plain English. I believe the Bible means what it says.” (as Dr. Suess may continue: … and says what it meant, the Bible is faithful, 100%.)

Continuing the theme of my last post, Authority Issues, let’s take a very quick look at these issues.

To respond to the first question, I would remind these people that we have a God to revealed Himself as a man who teaches in parables, so that “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.” (He who has ears, let him hear.) So, at the very least, we have established a precedent for this kind of cryptic communication. I would also point out that Jesus’ disciples were often befuddled, even when Jesus was being clear. Again, a precedent. He who has ears …

But, there are other considerations; I propose that the Bible wasn’t always as hard to understand as it may be now, due to the Bible having been removed, by the church and by time, from its original context. Now, most of us see that the Old Testament can only be properly understood in the context of Israel’s history, which, for the most part, it also conveniently teaches. Paul, when addressing his Gentile audiences, did his best to provide that context, without forcing Gentiles to adopt the Jewish culture (as the “super apostles” apparently were doing, among other things). So, again we have a precedent for reading the Bible in its proper cultural context. Remember, too, that it is the church who removed the Bible from it’s 1st Century, Jewish/Greek context (such as the Roman church, who put everything in a Roman context, the Enlightenment church who put the Bible in a Modern context, and us in the U.S who insist on putting everything in our context).

When something as important as the Bible is removed from its context, I think we have an obligation to bring forward and teach the context as well; this is, I believe, a failure of the church in more often then not, teaching the Bible either isolated from any context, or simply presuming our own equally applies. We are now so far removed from the 1st Century church, not just culturally but in our entire worldview, so that we have a bit of work to do to reconnect.

In other words, it is not God who inspired a cryptic, difficult-to-understand Word, it is the Church who muddied it up. It is, I think, quite presumptuous of us to assume that God has magically created the Bible to be instantly translatable into all languages without regard for history, culture and philosophy. Now, I believe that the Gospel is, in fact, translatable across cultural boundaries, but I also believe that this is part of our challenge, to do it properly. I think it is also presumptuous, and arrogant, for us to expect that we shouldn’t have to “work” at understanding and applying God’s Word. It may even be God’s desire that we work a bit – in cooperation with those around us – to constantly rediscover Truth and learn to apply it in our own circumstances.

I think we are in error if we expect that God has not only inspired the original writing, but has absolutely controlled every transcription and translation. We may wish God to be that way, but it is clear from experience and Scripture that this is not God’s M.O.; the disagreement of various translations themselves demonstrate that God will indeed allow us to err. God does not keep us from error, but rather, He graces us with the way back. I think most of us are aware that later manuscripts contain some things that are not found in earlier manuscripts, indicating that a scribe may have added “clarification” here or there, or simply added stuff that possibly shouldn’t belong. We discover error, and by the grace of God, we repair it. If you believe in a God who prevents us from making errors, then you probably have the wrong religion.

Today, we live in an instant, microwave world. However, if you invest $10-20 in a couple of good, New York cut steaks, you’re not going to toss them in a microwave. No, you may marinate them for a day or two, then probably grill them slowly over some hot coals, and serve them with the appropriate side dishes and a good bottle of wine. If you believe with me that the Bible – Old and New Testament – is the inspired, authoritative Word of God, then isn’t it, too, worth marinating, preparing and serving properly?

As Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Posted in My Own Personal Religion | 4 Comments

Authority Issues

Posted on July 5, 2006 by me

The Bible is not a Rorschach inkblot. This seems obvious; however I’ve known many, many people over the years who tend to read it that way.

A Rorschach inkblot, as most of you probably know, is just that – an inkblot, as if you’d spill some ink on a piece of paper then fold the paper in half. You look at it, and supposedly your impressions of what you think it looks like reveals something about yourself. For example, in Batman Forever, Bruce Wayne asks the lady shrink, “why do you have a picture of a bat?” Turns out it isn’t a bat, just an inkblot. Oops.

Many people read the Bible the same way, not bothering to consider the author’s intended meaning, the cultural issues, or even the context for whatever passage they’re reading. Instead, the Bible is seen, because it’s “the Living Word,” speaking something unique to them. I’ve known people to open up the book at random and blindly put their finger on a verse that gives them their “secret message” for the moment. And, this is done by many people who would also argue the the Bible is authoritative, inerrant, and other words whose meanings they don’t really know.

I’ve read enough books and heard enough sermons over the last 30+ years to know that you can make the Bible say anything you want, as long as you read it according to your own rules. This is not what Martin Luther, Wycliffe and others had in mind when they put the Bible into the hands of the people, in their own language.

I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit can’t illuminate certain things for you, for certain occasions. What I am saying is that if you accept the authority of the Bible, anything you induce from (or perhaps more correctly, into) the Bible text is always subject to the balance of the Bible. There’s a reason that inductive Bible Studies and inductive preaching is so popular: it takes relatively little scholarship; that is, if you don’t subject your interpretation to the rest of the Bible.

Is inductive Bible study invalid? Not at all. But, we must be careful not to assign any kind of authority to our interpretation (except our own authority). What is invalid is using the Bible as a Rorschach blot, creating our own wild-eyed meanings and then blaming them on the Holy Spirit.

The issue of the authority of the Bible is really not that complex, but most people fail to understand it; in part, I think, because it means we must constantly surrender our own authority in its interpretation (and, as Americans, we just hate that).

I think of it like this: If God’s Word actually means something, if the Holy Spirit actually inspired the authors, then it’s worth a bit of work to properly understand what it means. If, however, it’s something that I can project meaning into like a Rorschach test (even with the help of the Holy Spirit), then we’d be nearly as well off reading the Oxford Dictionary (again, the issue of authority – Oxford, or Webster?).

If the Bible does indeed have “authority,” which I believe that it does, then it’s authority comes from God, and His intent. I believe that there is a meta-narrative, an over-arching, all-encompassing story that serves as the only true context for interpreting Scripture. To read the Bible as an inkblot, or to render our own isolated interpretations based on whatever, is actually to take a postmodernist approach, where we decide our own truth.

It may actually be that our personalized interpretations of Scripture act as Rorschach tests, and reveal more about ourselves that it does about God.

Posted in My Own Personal Religion | 2 Comments

Church History – the truth behind the Nicene Creed

Posted on June 21, 2006 by me

I’ve recently been talking about theology and Church history, saying that they are good things to know, even though a faith that is grounded on a belief system rather than on God can be somewhat shaken.

In weeks past I’ve also mentioned that a failure in most modern, Evangelical churches is the lack of any sort of corporate confession; I am, of course, speaking of confessing a creed, or belief, rather than confession of sins (as in, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord…”). Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, and a few others all include, at some point in their worship, a recital of one of the generally accepted creeds, usually the “Apostles” or the Nicene.

I like the creeds. However, we should also understand their historical context; otherwise, they become simply historical artifacts.

The Nicene Creed, for example, was developed at the Council of Nicea, held in A.D. 325. As many know, the main issue was whether Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, or not. Athanasius, our hero, believed that Jesus was of a timeless generation (eternal) and of the same substance as the Father. Arius and his followers were the bad guys, believing Jesus to have been created by the Father before the beginning of time, and so “the same but different” than the Father.

What many don’t know is that neither of these positions held the majority view, and that Athanasius couldn’t have won a simple majority vote, without help. Most of the church elders were someplace in the middle, believing that Jesus had to be different than the Father. This is perfectly understandable, considering they didn’t have hundreds of years of trinitarian theology to fall back on, and were obviously concerned about not falling into a polytheist heresy. The majority of leaders wanted the Nicene Creed to say that the Son was of a similar nature to the Father (close, but no cigar).

So, how was the decision made? By unanimous vote? By prophetic proclamation?

No. The decision was made by none other than Constantine, who was apparently tired of the arguing. Constantine, that conqueror who made Christianity his state religion, influenced the vote. (This information, by the way, didn’t come from Dan Brown, but from reliable Christian sources.) Constantine, of course, was the one who organized the Council in the first place, to try to unify the Church. (His “one God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor” slogan was hard to use while the Church argued over major doctrines.)

As you might guess, the debate over the nature of Jesus continued for years, notwithstanding the Council of 325. Political clout is no match for theology. A 2nd council was held in 381, where the Creed was “upgraded” a bit, and the closing lines added. There is still some dispute over the language concerning the Holy Spirit, whether it proceeds from just the Father (as the Eastern churches hold), or from both the Father and the Son. But, otherwise, the Nicene Creed is now the standard, universal creed of the Church.

It’s a good creed – and it saddens me that we don’t expect people to learn it anymore. Without this, and the simpler Apostles’ Creed, I can only guess how fractured the Church would really be… or would it? In spite of the differences of theology, interpretation and so on, the gates of Hell are not prevailing against the Church. After all, God promised.

The beauty of studying Church history is not that you dig up all of the church’s skeletons, but that we can learn the context for our current faith, as well as see how God has indeed revealed Himself through the ages.

Posted in Church, My Own Personal Religion | 2 Comments