As I mentioned in my previous post on this topic, my grandmother's Bible--something I received when she passed--is very precious to me. I have been looking through it and noting some of the passages she has marked. I am not covering everything, because she marked a lot of passages.
Today's passage is Genesis 18:19, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."
The context of the passage is God deciding to tell Abraham about his determination to destroy Sodom and Gonorrah. God ultimately decides to tell Abraham because of the covenant God and Abraham have. A lot has been written about Sodom and Gomorrah and homosexuality, but I don't think this is why grandma highlighted this passage. Instead, I think it is because of what the Bible says about Abraham and his family that led my grandmother to underline this passage.
Grandma believed in the importance of sharing faith across generational lines. I think this passage served as a guideline of the person she wanted to be. She wanted to be someone who taught her children and her grandchildren to keep the way of the Lord. But this was something she had learned from her mother. One of the reasons our family was a part of the Churches of Christ was because her mother--my great grandmother who I never met--was taking her kids into town to church and someone stopped to offer them a ride.
This is the kind of generational legacy I want to pass along to my children, the same one I saw in my grandmother. I want to command my children to follow the way of the Lord. Those of us who are parents are encouraging one type of generational legacy or another. Sometimes that draws our descendants closer to God, sometimes it moves them further away. Generational legacies are not written in stone. They can change for good or ill. What once started out rejecting God can be turned to his service, but the opposite is true as well. So, we should be aware of and working toward a godly legacy that honors the Lord.
I know that I am the person I am today in large part due to my grandmother. She helped to shape me and mold me and tried to show me what was most important in life. She was by no means perfect, and we didn't see eye-to-eye on absolutely everything. But she was a godly woman whose example could be emulated by everyone. Although God didn't speak directly to my grandmother, I do believe God has made some general promises in scripture to us all. And so, I do believe we could revise this verse and say that God knew Mae March that she would command her children and their households to keep the way of the Lord so that he would bring on her what he has spoken.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Passages from my Grandmother's Bible
When my grandmother passed away two years ago, there was only one thing I wanted--a little brown Bible, pocket-sized with a zipper that could keep it closed. The reason? My brother and I stayed with my grandmother after school and during summers until I was in high school. On days we didn't have school, our standard practice was to have lunch by 11:30, have it cleaned up by noon, and listen to the first fifteen minutes of a local newscast on the radio at 12:00. Nearly every day was like this. Then, around 12:15, after the weather and before sports, Grandma would turn off the radio and then we would read from the Bible. And I would use that little brown Bible. A Bible my grandfather had gotten in the 1940s. I would play with the zipper while waiting my turn to read. It was the King James Version and we frequently read from the Gospel of Luke, to this day one of my favorites.
In addition to getting the little brown Bible, my mother also gave me Grandma's Bible. It has a lot of sentimental meaning for me, and I am honored to be the caretaker of the physical representation of my grandmother's godly heritage. The Bible is certainly special to me in any form, but this one is more so. Even after my brother and I were old enough to stay by ourselves, Grand,a would still frequently talk to me about her Bible reading. She read the Bible every day. She would read it through every year, frequently getting done before the year was out and then starting over again. In her Bible was a reading plan from the 1980s that she used several times, first filling in the check boxes, then using x's, then cross the readings out with a line.
Other non-biblical material is throughout the Bible. Old bulletins, clippings of various poems or brief thoughts, taped into the front and back covers. Pages with thoughts or scriptures written out in Grandma's hand. Throughout the Bible are under linings and brief marginal notes--something struck her as interesting or important about this passage or that. Something observed in reading or perhaps gleaned from a sermon--she listened to many in churches or on tapes. She would often remark to me about the multiple listenings she did to my sermons--I knew Grandma would have something positive to say about it even if I didn't think I had worded something the best or had failed to explain clearly the import of what I was saying. Here, though, in her Bible is a way for me to remember what my grandmother thought was most important--God's word. Of all the things she could have passed on to me as important, it was that the Bible was to be read, understood, and applied.
I'd like to share some of the passages she marked. I wish she were still around so I could ask her why she marked a particular passage, although, of course, it is possible she wouldn't have remembered. For her, though, now, she is with the Word and needs not to simply read the word to know.
One of the first passages marked in her Bible is Genesis 13:8--"And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren." The context is the ever expanding flocks of both Abram and Lot which led to conflicts between their shepherds and other hired workers. To solve the issues, Abram suggests that he and Lot go their separate ways and divide the land so that there is plenty of room for each other's blossoming herds.
While I do not claim to know my grandmother's mind, I would guess that what was important or interesting to her about this passage was the phrase "we be brethren." Lot was Abram's nephew, and it appears Abram wanted to make sure that the conflict raging among their hired hands didn't end up separating Abram and Lot. Family needs to be united, not divided, whether that's biological family or spiritual family.
Grandma definitely liked to see family together. Family cohesiveness was very important to her. Holidays and family reunions dotted my childhood. Togetherness was very important. I think if Grandma had the opportunity to sag what this passage meant to her, it would be that whatever happens, work for unity, especially in the family. There is so much in our culture that works to separate and isolate us, even from those we should be close to. Families breakdown, refuse to speak to each other, go their separate ways. But don't foster that strife. Look for ways to draw back together, because we are family. Maybe that's what Grandma was thinking. If so, it is something a lot of us need to hear. Thanks, Grandma. I can't wait to see what else your Bible holds for me.
In addition to getting the little brown Bible, my mother also gave me Grandma's Bible. It has a lot of sentimental meaning for me, and I am honored to be the caretaker of the physical representation of my grandmother's godly heritage. The Bible is certainly special to me in any form, but this one is more so. Even after my brother and I were old enough to stay by ourselves, Grand,a would still frequently talk to me about her Bible reading. She read the Bible every day. She would read it through every year, frequently getting done before the year was out and then starting over again. In her Bible was a reading plan from the 1980s that she used several times, first filling in the check boxes, then using x's, then cross the readings out with a line.
Other non-biblical material is throughout the Bible. Old bulletins, clippings of various poems or brief thoughts, taped into the front and back covers. Pages with thoughts or scriptures written out in Grandma's hand. Throughout the Bible are under linings and brief marginal notes--something struck her as interesting or important about this passage or that. Something observed in reading or perhaps gleaned from a sermon--she listened to many in churches or on tapes. She would often remark to me about the multiple listenings she did to my sermons--I knew Grandma would have something positive to say about it even if I didn't think I had worded something the best or had failed to explain clearly the import of what I was saying. Here, though, in her Bible is a way for me to remember what my grandmother thought was most important--God's word. Of all the things she could have passed on to me as important, it was that the Bible was to be read, understood, and applied.
I'd like to share some of the passages she marked. I wish she were still around so I could ask her why she marked a particular passage, although, of course, it is possible she wouldn't have remembered. For her, though, now, she is with the Word and needs not to simply read the word to know.
One of the first passages marked in her Bible is Genesis 13:8--"And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren." The context is the ever expanding flocks of both Abram and Lot which led to conflicts between their shepherds and other hired workers. To solve the issues, Abram suggests that he and Lot go their separate ways and divide the land so that there is plenty of room for each other's blossoming herds.
While I do not claim to know my grandmother's mind, I would guess that what was important or interesting to her about this passage was the phrase "we be brethren." Lot was Abram's nephew, and it appears Abram wanted to make sure that the conflict raging among their hired hands didn't end up separating Abram and Lot. Family needs to be united, not divided, whether that's biological family or spiritual family.
Grandma definitely liked to see family together. Family cohesiveness was very important to her. Holidays and family reunions dotted my childhood. Togetherness was very important. I think if Grandma had the opportunity to sag what this passage meant to her, it would be that whatever happens, work for unity, especially in the family. There is so much in our culture that works to separate and isolate us, even from those we should be close to. Families breakdown, refuse to speak to each other, go their separate ways. But don't foster that strife. Look for ways to draw back together, because we are family. Maybe that's what Grandma was thinking. If so, it is something a lot of us need to hear. Thanks, Grandma. I can't wait to see what else your Bible holds for me.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Theological reflections on the environment
Recently it has been announced that the ice caps are melting. This is proof, to some, that we are experiencing great climate changes that are due to the actions of human beings. Others have consistently denied that human beings are responsible for climate change or that anything substantial is going on. I don't have the credentials to judge the scientific evidence behind climate change, so I have decided to accept the likelihood that we are going through climate changes. Are we as human beings behind it? Ultimately, yes, whether you accept our use of fossil fuels or indiscriminate wasteful culture especially in the US is behind considerable changes. As a Christian, I affirm that the consequences of human sin aren't just relegated to human beings. Sin affects creation around us. I think Paul stresses this in Romans especially.
In 1967 historian of science Lynn White wrote an article in Science magazine called "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." One of White's points was that Christian views of the environment, particularly shaped by Genesis 1--have dominion over the earth and subdue it--had led to Christians taking a lax view toward the environment and not particularly caring how their actions affected the planet. After White wrote the article, there were quite a few responses by historians and theologians who challenged White's assertions. Many theologians claimed that the biblical text encouraged stewardship of creation not domination. That might be true--and I think it is--but that doesn't change what actually happened. There have been Christians who have had a strong theology of the environment as stewardship. There have been other Christians who have seen the environment as something to be exploited or something that they did not need to be concerned about.
But no matter what Christians think about their relationship to the environment, scripture teaches that creation suffers because of our sins and waits for the revelation of the children of God. We are reaping the consequences of the sins of humanity. So where does that leave us? Humility should be the order of the day. It is God's creation; we have failed to live up to what he has wanted us to be and creation has suffered for it and we then suffer from creation suffering through tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. We also need to consider what is driving our views on the environment if we are Christians. Are we being influenced by theology or are we being influenced by politics? I think many Christians are being influenced by political opinions and not a reasoned understanding of creation that is shaped by scripture.
I believe God gave humans creation for us to take care of it. We have done a poor job of that, often being driven by economic and political concerns wrapped in religious ideology, claiming God was on our side. I think it is time that we started recognizing our failure to accept and responsibly care for God's gift to us. I have failed in this. I need to be more responsible in how I treat the environment. Maybe we cannot make significant changes to what appears to already be happening to the planet. But I also believe God values repentance, so if we make changes now, God will respect and value that and maybe we can express more gratitude for how he has blessed us with a creation that provides with what we need to live full lives on this beautiful planet.
In 1967 historian of science Lynn White wrote an article in Science magazine called "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." One of White's points was that Christian views of the environment, particularly shaped by Genesis 1--have dominion over the earth and subdue it--had led to Christians taking a lax view toward the environment and not particularly caring how their actions affected the planet. After White wrote the article, there were quite a few responses by historians and theologians who challenged White's assertions. Many theologians claimed that the biblical text encouraged stewardship of creation not domination. That might be true--and I think it is--but that doesn't change what actually happened. There have been Christians who have had a strong theology of the environment as stewardship. There have been other Christians who have seen the environment as something to be exploited or something that they did not need to be concerned about.
But no matter what Christians think about their relationship to the environment, scripture teaches that creation suffers because of our sins and waits for the revelation of the children of God. We are reaping the consequences of the sins of humanity. So where does that leave us? Humility should be the order of the day. It is God's creation; we have failed to live up to what he has wanted us to be and creation has suffered for it and we then suffer from creation suffering through tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. We also need to consider what is driving our views on the environment if we are Christians. Are we being influenced by theology or are we being influenced by politics? I think many Christians are being influenced by political opinions and not a reasoned understanding of creation that is shaped by scripture.
I believe God gave humans creation for us to take care of it. We have done a poor job of that, often being driven by economic and political concerns wrapped in religious ideology, claiming God was on our side. I think it is time that we started recognizing our failure to accept and responsibly care for God's gift to us. I have failed in this. I need to be more responsible in how I treat the environment. Maybe we cannot make significant changes to what appears to already be happening to the planet. But I also believe God values repentance, so if we make changes now, God will respect and value that and maybe we can express more gratitude for how he has blessed us with a creation that provides with what we need to live full lives on this beautiful planet.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Homespun Gospel and Touchy-feely Faith
Jay Green from Covenant College recently reviewed Homespun Gospel, my book, and gave it a pretty positive review. The weaknesses he pointed out and places that were undelevoped were places I was aware of and were often places I intentionally didn't address. I don't bring this up to say "look how great." Instead I am more interested in the comments. In among several of the commentators, a tense interchange has developed over intellectual faith and emotional faith. Basically there is one commenter who is charging others with not loving God, claiming that the others don't have a heart for God, and Jesus told us to love not develop our intellect. Others have attempted to respond to this commenter that the Christian walk is about the intellect as well.
It is a common refrain and tension particularly in evangelicalism. Some have emphasized the heart. Some have emphasized the head. The problem is that this us not an either/or proposition. The greatest command is to love the Lord (Matthew 22:37), but that love is to come from both the heart and the mind. God doesn't want only our heart or only our mind but both. Now, is a particular individual going to tend toward one aspect than another? In other words, do individuals tend to love God more from her or his heart or the mind? Yes! Is one better than the other? Not necessarily, but unless you engage both, you are only giving God part of who you are. He wants it all. He wants you to engage all of it when you give yourself to Christ.
But with all that people talk about Christianity being a relationship rather than a religion, does this mean tending toward the intellectual actually working against God's intent for it? Isn't it all about love? Well, here again, it is overly simplistic to look at it this way. Think about it this way: what does Jesus tell the Eleven to do in sharing the message with the rest of the world? Well, in Matthew's Gospel he says that they are to make disciples--make learners, baptize them, teach them some more. Look through the book of Acts. Here are Jesus' closest followers going out to tell people about Jesus. What are they telling them? Are the going out and saying "God loves you"/"Jesus loves you"? No. Would they tell them this; does Paul emphasize this? Yes, but what Luke says the early disciples went around talking about Jesus being king and his resurrection proving that God was in charge. Furthermore when you really look at what people mean by "love" today and what the biblical writers mean by love, it is often very different.
But there is an important warning for those of us who favor the intellect. It is very easy to get prideful and assume we have totally figured out or that we are closer to God than others. It is also tempting to look at those who relate to God more easily through their emotions as being immature or lacking in depth. That is not necessarily the case. A judgmental attitude is wrong no matter whether we approach God more easily through our heart or head.
But wait, didn't you write a book that is judgmental about emotion? No. I wrote a book about a certain type of emotionality and some of the trouble it has produced. As I say in Homespun Gospel, the problem isn't sentimentality. The problem is not being reflective about how people have used sentimentality or what a spiritual diet of only sentimentality might produce. I am a very sentimental person at times. I don't have a problem with sentimentality per se. What becomes problematic is when we don't use our brains like we should.
The biblical text emphasizes the importance of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Readers are encouraged to meditate and study God's word. We are called to know truth--know truth. I don't believe these are necessarily best discovered in a Ph.D. program or in the classroom, but I don't believe they have to be excluded from there either. In fact, the more research i do and the more intellectual exploration I do, the more I love God. My heart is engaged when I better understand. That's me. Others can be moved first, and then seek understanding--they are moved to love God and then want to learn more about him.
Isn't the Bible just one big love letter? You don't need to think much to understand a love letter. Well, in one sense the overarching narrative throughout the Bible is the story of God's love for humanity, his expression of that love on the cross in the person of Jesus Christ, and his desire to see that love expressed in community both in this life and in the one to come. But there is so much more to the Bible to learn as well. Also, conceiving of it as one giant love letter. Also overlooks the creation of the Bible over centuries in different circumstances by different authors.
Ultimately the body of Christ needs those who desire to plumb the intellectual depths of God's love and those greatly moved by God's mind. We help each other to remember God is so vast that he cannot be completely understood and so loving that he cannot be out loved. When we can respect each other, we can do more work for God and less damage to our witness.
It is a common refrain and tension particularly in evangelicalism. Some have emphasized the heart. Some have emphasized the head. The problem is that this us not an either/or proposition. The greatest command is to love the Lord (Matthew 22:37), but that love is to come from both the heart and the mind. God doesn't want only our heart or only our mind but both. Now, is a particular individual going to tend toward one aspect than another? In other words, do individuals tend to love God more from her or his heart or the mind? Yes! Is one better than the other? Not necessarily, but unless you engage both, you are only giving God part of who you are. He wants it all. He wants you to engage all of it when you give yourself to Christ.
But with all that people talk about Christianity being a relationship rather than a religion, does this mean tending toward the intellectual actually working against God's intent for it? Isn't it all about love? Well, here again, it is overly simplistic to look at it this way. Think about it this way: what does Jesus tell the Eleven to do in sharing the message with the rest of the world? Well, in Matthew's Gospel he says that they are to make disciples--make learners, baptize them, teach them some more. Look through the book of Acts. Here are Jesus' closest followers going out to tell people about Jesus. What are they telling them? Are the going out and saying "God loves you"/"Jesus loves you"? No. Would they tell them this; does Paul emphasize this? Yes, but what Luke says the early disciples went around talking about Jesus being king and his resurrection proving that God was in charge. Furthermore when you really look at what people mean by "love" today and what the biblical writers mean by love, it is often very different.
But there is an important warning for those of us who favor the intellect. It is very easy to get prideful and assume we have totally figured out or that we are closer to God than others. It is also tempting to look at those who relate to God more easily through their emotions as being immature or lacking in depth. That is not necessarily the case. A judgmental attitude is wrong no matter whether we approach God more easily through our heart or head.
But wait, didn't you write a book that is judgmental about emotion? No. I wrote a book about a certain type of emotionality and some of the trouble it has produced. As I say in Homespun Gospel, the problem isn't sentimentality. The problem is not being reflective about how people have used sentimentality or what a spiritual diet of only sentimentality might produce. I am a very sentimental person at times. I don't have a problem with sentimentality per se. What becomes problematic is when we don't use our brains like we should.
The biblical text emphasizes the importance of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Readers are encouraged to meditate and study God's word. We are called to know truth--know truth. I don't believe these are necessarily best discovered in a Ph.D. program or in the classroom, but I don't believe they have to be excluded from there either. In fact, the more research i do and the more intellectual exploration I do, the more I love God. My heart is engaged when I better understand. That's me. Others can be moved first, and then seek understanding--they are moved to love God and then want to learn more about him.
Isn't the Bible just one big love letter? You don't need to think much to understand a love letter. Well, in one sense the overarching narrative throughout the Bible is the story of God's love for humanity, his expression of that love on the cross in the person of Jesus Christ, and his desire to see that love expressed in community both in this life and in the one to come. But there is so much more to the Bible to learn as well. Also, conceiving of it as one giant love letter. Also overlooks the creation of the Bible over centuries in different circumstances by different authors.
Ultimately the body of Christ needs those who desire to plumb the intellectual depths of God's love and those greatly moved by God's mind. We help each other to remember God is so vast that he cannot be completely understood and so loving that he cannot be out loved. When we can respect each other, we can do more work for God and less damage to our witness.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Difficult religious questions part 2
I wrote in my last post of our "Tough Religious Questions" chapel. Overall we had some good speakers address some challenging topics in a brief amount of time. But at base, I think it is important to ask, how do we determine how to apply the Bible to our lives? Now again, the assumption I am making here --at least for now--is that the Bible applies to our contemporary lives. There are a variety of other assumptions I am making as well: we reliably have the original text or the closest representation, the Bible comes from God through human authors, there are normative components to scripture that are valid across time, and some other assumptions we can address elsewhere. These assumptions are very important in how I approach the text. I think in many respects everyone approaches the Bible from a variety of assumptions whether one is the strictest inerrantist (someone who believes the Bible is literally true word for word and contains no errors) to the atheist. It is probably useful to every so often examine these presuppositions to identify them but also to question why it is that one holds a particular set of assumption instead of others. Simply holding assumptions or presuppositions is not a problem, but if they are not investigated and examined every so often, we might be missing out on how we are being unknowingly influenced or how we are missing some truths that could be very important.
But all of this is sidetracking me from what I want to discuss--the question of applicability. I believe the Bible is applicable today, but I think one needs to be careful in how one applies it. First, I do not believe that everything in the Bible applies to everyone for all time. I think a perfect example of this is 2 Timothy 4. Paul (and here is another assumption--I believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy) writes many commands and requests specifically to Timothy that are not meant for everyone. So, for example, I don't think it is my duty as a 21st-century Christian to get Paul's cloak and bring it to him.
So, how does anyone determine what is applicable and what is not? The first part, I think, must be to take seriously that the documents of the Bible were written to specific audiences. We must understand these documents in their original contexts first, before we can try to apply them to us today. To focus only on today ignores how the Bible was written--none of it was written directly to anyone living today. Certainly, I believe it was written for us, but it wasn't written to us. So, original context is very important. What did it mean to them? Why was it being written? What problems was if addressing? How should we understand this text in light of the situation of the author and recipients?
I think many of the problems and errors we see about the Bible today among Christians are due to an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the original context. Revelation is a perfect example. How different is someone's interpretation of Revelation if they first recognize that it was written to an audience in antiquity and not to an audience thousands of years in the future? The same is related to salvation. A variety of people will pull passages out of their contexts (Romans 10:9-10, for example), and claim that a particular passage includes everything one needs to know about salvation as if Romans was not written to people already Christian (so they didn't need to be told how to become Christian) and as if Romans 10 didn't come after several other passages in Romans that addressed other aspects of how the Romans put on Christ or were put in Christ. But by making the text about us first, we lose something vital to understanding it.
Applying the text must start then with serious work and effort to understand the text and not take the quick and easy route to short answers. If I really want to understand how to live a life pleasing to God, I need to take the tine to understand what was originally written before trying to understand what it means for me today. Sure, I can take shortcuts, but if I want a faith that is authentically mine, there are some corners that cannot be cut.
More next time.
But all of this is sidetracking me from what I want to discuss--the question of applicability. I believe the Bible is applicable today, but I think one needs to be careful in how one applies it. First, I do not believe that everything in the Bible applies to everyone for all time. I think a perfect example of this is 2 Timothy 4. Paul (and here is another assumption--I believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy) writes many commands and requests specifically to Timothy that are not meant for everyone. So, for example, I don't think it is my duty as a 21st-century Christian to get Paul's cloak and bring it to him.
So, how does anyone determine what is applicable and what is not? The first part, I think, must be to take seriously that the documents of the Bible were written to specific audiences. We must understand these documents in their original contexts first, before we can try to apply them to us today. To focus only on today ignores how the Bible was written--none of it was written directly to anyone living today. Certainly, I believe it was written for us, but it wasn't written to us. So, original context is very important. What did it mean to them? Why was it being written? What problems was if addressing? How should we understand this text in light of the situation of the author and recipients?
I think many of the problems and errors we see about the Bible today among Christians are due to an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the original context. Revelation is a perfect example. How different is someone's interpretation of Revelation if they first recognize that it was written to an audience in antiquity and not to an audience thousands of years in the future? The same is related to salvation. A variety of people will pull passages out of their contexts (Romans 10:9-10, for example), and claim that a particular passage includes everything one needs to know about salvation as if Romans was not written to people already Christian (so they didn't need to be told how to become Christian) and as if Romans 10 didn't come after several other passages in Romans that addressed other aspects of how the Romans put on Christ or were put in Christ. But by making the text about us first, we lose something vital to understanding it.
Applying the text must start then with serious work and effort to understand the text and not take the quick and easy route to short answers. If I really want to understand how to live a life pleasing to God, I need to take the tine to understand what was originally written before trying to understand what it means for me today. Sure, I can take shortcuts, but if I want a faith that is authentically mine, there are some corners that cannot be cut.
More next time.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Difficult religious questions
At Faulkner University, we have daily chapel. Well, Monday through Thursday chapel. On Tuesdays last semester and this semester, we have breakout chapels throughout campus based on majors or certain topics. In the V. P. Black College of Biblical Studies this semester our theme has been "Tough Religious Questions." I have been helping another professor select the topics and speakers, but we didn't choose theme. One problem we have had is how do you handle a difficult religious question in 15 minutes, which is basically what our speakers have to develop their thoughts. All of our speakers have done a good job discussing topics like the existence of evil, the hiddenness of God, whether God uses evil, the relationship of men and women in the home, and same-sex attraction. We have more good speakers and topics coming up on Christians and politics and worship. If I had thought more ahead, I might have developed this blog earlier so that speakers could post more information to further develop their thoughts. But, you can't change the past.
I am going to be speaking about instrumental music in worship in a couple of weeks. Now, for most people in the larger world of Christianity, this isn't an issue but an accepted practice. But in Churches of Christ (the religious group I am a part of), we have traditionally been a capella until recently when some Churches of Christ have started incorporating instrumental services. In the next couple of posts I want to address why this is a difficult religious question and what might be the answer to it.
To begin, though, there are bigger questions that need to be addressed. Does God care about what human beings do in worship? If he does, how do we figure out what pleases God and what is acceptable worship? Christians throughout the centuries have differed over these questions, but is this a place where Christians can differ and as long as they are doing it to the glory of God and Christ it is ok?
These are important questions that Christians must answer. Obviously, if you don't believe in God or don't believe the Bible contains the word of God, this isn't a big issue. But if you believe the Bible at the very least contains some parts that come from God that are applicable for all time, then you have to decide how you determine what is applicable for all time and how you make the leap from the Bible in its historical context and Christian life in the twenty-first century.
I will say more at another time, but for now, I close with this. Too often we blithely go about our approach to this that doesn't lead to consistently applying scripture but applying it in ways that lead to us applying it the way we want and not necessarily the way we should.
I am going to be speaking about instrumental music in worship in a couple of weeks. Now, for most people in the larger world of Christianity, this isn't an issue but an accepted practice. But in Churches of Christ (the religious group I am a part of), we have traditionally been a capella until recently when some Churches of Christ have started incorporating instrumental services. In the next couple of posts I want to address why this is a difficult religious question and what might be the answer to it.
To begin, though, there are bigger questions that need to be addressed. Does God care about what human beings do in worship? If he does, how do we figure out what pleases God and what is acceptable worship? Christians throughout the centuries have differed over these questions, but is this a place where Christians can differ and as long as they are doing it to the glory of God and Christ it is ok?
These are important questions that Christians must answer. Obviously, if you don't believe in God or don't believe the Bible contains the word of God, this isn't a big issue. But if you believe the Bible at the very least contains some parts that come from God that are applicable for all time, then you have to decide how you determine what is applicable for all time and how you make the leap from the Bible in its historical context and Christian life in the twenty-first century.
I will say more at another time, but for now, I close with this. Too often we blithely go about our approach to this that doesn't lead to consistently applying scripture but applying it in ways that lead to us applying it the way we want and not necessarily the way we should.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Conversations of faith
With the plethora of views and opinions out there, especially about religion, in one sense it might be useless to add another voice. But, I think that I have some unique ideas that hopefully will find a place for a hearing. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I am an assistant professor of Christian history at Faulkner University. My academic background is in American religious history, and I have a Ph.D. from Florida State University. I am also the author of Homespun Gospel: The Triumph of Sentimentality in American Evangelicalism. Second, in addition to my academic credentials, I have served as a full time minister and have a seminary-like education as well.
I have several purposes for writing this blog. First, it is entitled "conversations" because that's what I would like to have. There's too much debate and invective online and not enough civility and conversation. Second, I use the phrase "of faith" in two ways. One, "of faith" as in "about faith." My major focus will be on issues connected to religion. Not that other topics aren't worthwhile, but I plan on focusing on those issues that relate to how human being make sense out of ultimate questions of meaning. Two, "of faith" in the sense of coming from a position of having a faith. There are certainly places for bracketing questions related to truth or falsity in religion and for trying to withholding one's personal position to examine religious people. But, not for me and not here. I intend these conversations for my part to come from my personal commitments to Christianity. I hope not to do this in a judgmental way--remember these are conversations--but I do believe there are some things true about Christianity, and I do believe in truth.
Who do I hope reads this blog? Anyone interested in having a conversation about religion or issues related to religion. All are welcome to comment, but I will moderate the comments. Not because of making sure only those which agree with me get posted but so that spam or a lack of civility doesn't interrupt those who are serious about the conversation. If you are serious about the conversation, welcome. If you are looking to troll, consider the comment section at CNN's Belief Blog. There are plenty there who you can annoy. Feel free to suggest discussions as well. I am open to suggestions.
I have several purposes for writing this blog. First, it is entitled "conversations" because that's what I would like to have. There's too much debate and invective online and not enough civility and conversation. Second, I use the phrase "of faith" in two ways. One, "of faith" as in "about faith." My major focus will be on issues connected to religion. Not that other topics aren't worthwhile, but I plan on focusing on those issues that relate to how human being make sense out of ultimate questions of meaning. Two, "of faith" in the sense of coming from a position of having a faith. There are certainly places for bracketing questions related to truth or falsity in religion and for trying to withholding one's personal position to examine religious people. But, not for me and not here. I intend these conversations for my part to come from my personal commitments to Christianity. I hope not to do this in a judgmental way--remember these are conversations--but I do believe there are some things true about Christianity, and I do believe in truth.
Who do I hope reads this blog? Anyone interested in having a conversation about religion or issues related to religion. All are welcome to comment, but I will moderate the comments. Not because of making sure only those which agree with me get posted but so that spam or a lack of civility doesn't interrupt those who are serious about the conversation. If you are serious about the conversation, welcome. If you are looking to troll, consider the comment section at CNN's Belief Blog. There are plenty there who you can annoy. Feel free to suggest discussions as well. I am open to suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)