Why theology is cool

I stole the title for this blog post from a Theology Network podcast which I highly recommend to anyone who loves the study of theology. (You'll find it here.) I admit, I never would have thought about Judges 6 as a paradigm for theology, might Mike Reeves makes perfect sense when he speaks about the role of theology as tearing down false gods and building up the worship of the one true God.

What really got me thinking about this, however, is the response to the last couple of posts on this blog. I had been posting Biblical observations that probably tended to be a little more pastoral and devotional this year, until this month. These last posts, however, have been accessed about three times as much as my previous posts averaged. I'm not going to tell you I get a huge number of hits on this blog, but I was surprised by just how much more popular the theological posts were.

Looking back to much older material, I also see more interest when I posted historical and theological material than when I recapped sermons, for example. (Except the Zacchaeus sermon- that's still the #1 post of all time on this blog. I have no idea why.) So I'm making a guess about the readers of this blog- you'd rather read more about theology and history than get your devotional thought for the day here. I don't know if that means I do a better job writing about academic subjects than I do writing devotional material, or if it's just a reflection of the interests of my readers.

I'm going to make an effort to deal with those kinds of topics more often here. I find theological and historical study fascinating myself, so this is no burden on me. I also realize I called this  blog "My little corner of academia," so it fits the original purpose I think I had when I started to write. (I could be wrong about that, since I don't remember what if anything I was thinking back then.)

I apologize for a post that's more about my thought process than any subject of interest to you, but I think I owe it to my readers to let them know the direction I'll be taking.In the meantime, go listen to that podcast. It will be time well spent.

The enormity of sin

A subject that has come up several times in my recent reading and listening has been the way that people, especially Christians, view sin. It's not a topic that many are comfortable with, and some preachers and churches try to shy away from the subject and dwell instead on what they would consider more "positive" aspects of salvation, like God's love and His plan for your life. (This is not true in my own church; our pastor is very clear about sin and its effects on everyone's life.) "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," they might respond to criticism of their approach.

Certainly some people come to Christ through the revelation of God's love expressed in Him. Still, there has to be some explanation for just how that love was expressed on the cross. This has been an issue throughout the history of Christianity; views of the Atonement have sparked controversy and produced an enormous amount of writings as theologians argued their points. No matter what approach you take, however, you still have to explain how the love of God for us required Jesus to go to the cross.

Part of the problem is that in our contemporary Western society we have lost a sense of the enormity of sin. In American culture, you are more likely to see sin applauded than condemned. People who live for sex, money, power, and vanity are looked up to by many, and what they do to achieve their successes is seen as something to emulate, not avoid. "As long as no one else is getting hurt, why worry about it?" is the question posed to those who would criticize from a Biblical worldview.

I think where the confusion comes is in the difference between the seriousness of the effects of sin here on earth and the enormity of sin in God's sight. We tend to think of sin on a sliding scale: a white lie isn't as bad as shoplifting, which isn't as bad as dealing drugs, which isn't as bad as killing someone, which isn't as bad as genocide. In terms of the temporal effects of those sins, there is some truth to this. However, this scale of sin fails to take into account what eternal effect of sin is.

In the end, all sin results in one dramatic and horrific effect: the nailing of God to a cross. Our sin, no matter what the individual act may have been, resulted in the death of Jesus. Given that effect, all sin is an offense against a holy and loving God. Sin is an infinite offense against an infinite God, and separates us from God by an infinite gulf that we cannot bridge ourselves.

It is because sin is this serious that it took Jesus' infinite sacrifice to enable us to be restored to God. Our sin separates us from the God who loves us, and He is the One who, through Christ, makes it possible for us to be brought back into His family.

To view sin as anything less is to take a human-centric perspective and assume that is reality. Popular religious belief says that if you just do more good than bad in your life, you'll get to heaven. God will give you a pass on your sin if you've done enough good deeds to offset them. If this is true, then there was no need for Jesus to die. God could have simply hand-waved away sin without Jesus having to suffer so much.

To do so, though, He would have to suppress much of who He is. In my previous post about the simplicity of God, we saw how all of God's attributes are of equal, interdependent importance. A God who winks at sin is no longer just or holy, among other things. To remain true to Himself, God has to view sin as it is, and we need to understand, as well as we can, just how serious sin is in His sight.

Once we realize the enormity of our own sin, we can understand out need for divine intervention for the forgiveness of our sin. Then we are open to the good news of Jesus' sacrifice for us, and can respond with hearts that are humbled, contrite, and grateful for all He has done for us. Remembering how serious sin is also helps us to "go and sin no more." True, we will stumble and fall sometimes, but knowing what it cost for those sins to be forgiven ought to at least begin to motivate us to avoid sin out of our love and thankfulness to our Lord and Savior.

The simplicity of God (a complex subject)

I like to listen to theological podcasts while I work out at the gym. (You need something to make 40 minutes on a stationary bike seem like fun.) One topic that came up in a couple of the podcasts I used this week was the simplicity of God. It isn't something we often talk about, unless you happen to be in a theology class. Preachers (including me) don't allude to it much. Yet it may be one aspect of God that helps us poke through some of the tough questions raised about God and His work.

While we use the term "simple" almost as a put-down, in theology it is something that God possesses that is distinctive from His creation. In a nutshell, simplicity means that God is a single unified being, not a being made up of many parts. So all the attributes of God-His omnipotence, omniscience, love, holiness, etc.- are not parts of God, but are all entirely essential to Him. Now to us, this seems a whole lot more like "complex" than "simple." We don't really have a mental capacity for grasping this as finite creatures. But it underscores an important truth that no one attribute of God is more "essential" than another.

One of the reasons the simplicity of God may be neglected is that it is very tough to pin it down without risking making God seems like an impersonal mass of attributes. We do sometimes fall into the trap of thinking of God as what He is rather than who He is. Personality and personal attributes are also a part of His simplicity, however. You can't make God out to be some kind of cosmic impersonal power, or treat Him as if He was a single attribute such as love, without doing violence to the reality revealed to us in Scripture.

If this all sounds like a lot to digest, it is. I'm not trying to pretend that I have a full grasp on this topic, or that I ever will. (At this point in my life I'm quite comfortable with the knowledge that as a finite creature there are just some things I'll never fully comprehend, even in heaven.) What is important about it is how it helps us sort through some theological questions by rejecting arguments that are built on an understanding of God as somehow having some "essential" attribute that takes priority over others.

For example, one of the arguments for universalism, the doctrine that all people will be saved, is built on the love of God as His essential nature. Love triumphs over holiness, righteousness, or anything else, so all people must be saved or somehow God is thwarted. But if the love of God is no more essential than any other attribute, we need to consider how the balanced nature of God would deal with salvation. (It's also possible to go the other way, to make holiness trump love in a way that pushes the love of God aside or stunts it, which leads to other problems.)

We need to make sure that we do our best to understand God as thoroughly as possible, and to analyze what is said about God with the knowledge (however imperfect) that He is everything He says He is equally. Will this solve all or theological problems? No. But it will help us become clearer and more exact in our study and understanding of God and His Word, and keep us from making God less than He really is.

Fad-free Christianity

This week I listened to a podcast from the excellent Theology Network web site called "A Move of God or a Spiritual Fad?". The talk covered ways to determine if a "movement" was truly from the Lord or if it was just some pretty packaging around an idea that wasn't necessarily Biblical. Much of the content was based on Jonathan Edward's Treatise on the Religious Affections, and it was very definitely a helpful guide to using discernment in choosing what popular trends we ought to follow to enhance our walk with God.

What struck me, however, was the list of "spiritual fads" that the audience and the speaker brought up. I remembered many of the trends, having grown up in the church and being active in ministry for much of the time period they could recall. Each of the items mentioned had been prominent to a greater or lesser degree in evangelical Christian circles, and most had caused some controversy and sparked some debate. There were quite a number of these items mentioned.

It wasn't just the list that struck me, however; it was the fact that all of these trends had died out, None of them had a truly lasting impact on the church or the world. While each had probably done some good, and perhaps helped the church deal with some issues that might never have been covered otherwise, they all have gone away, replaced by the next item on the list. These "spiritual fads" may have felt good or at least different for a time, but they left no lasting imprint for the good of the kingdom of Christ.

I suppose one could add many other items to the list of movements that have disappeared without a trace. You could also add a number of hot topics that have left some residual impact on the church, but which themselves no longer exist. I've been around long enough to have gone through quite a number of church growth fads, and while they have indeed brought some valuable insights and practices into the church, it would be rare to find someone in ministry adopting them in whole now.

I think what we really need to develop in our churches is a "fad-free" Christianity. As a student of church history, I find that the basic elements of evangelism, Christian discipleship, and church growth remain fairly stable. There needs to be an application of these elements to the specific cultural situation in which we find ourselves, but that has always been the case. Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 how he adapted to his audiences, and we do the same today. However, the core of our beliefs and practice is the same as it has always been.

I'm not talking about forms here. For example, worship should be done in a way that exalts God, can be done by the entire congregation, engages the spirit, and is theologically and Biblically sound. Whether you do that with a chant, organ, guitar, or voices, the underlying principle is the same. There are some fundamentals that are necessary for the church to remain faithful to its mission as given by Jesus. Maybe the "fads" belong to this realm, the elements that can change without altering the core of belief and practice.

My concern is really for those who simply move from fad to fad uncritically, accepting whatever the latest idea is because its "new" and "fresh" without examining whether or not it is also true and glorifying to God. Staying true to what the Bible teaches and reminding ourselves that we are just a part of a glorious historical and global people of God will be more helpful in the long run than any passing trend.

Through the Bible in a Year-just checking in!

For those of you who, like me, have decided to read through the Bible this year, I just want to give you some encouragement. At this point in your reading, depending on what plan you're following, you've probably gotten through one of the toughest stretches of reading in Leviticus and Numbers. If you made it through, congratulations! Once Moses finishes that loooong sermon in Deuteronomy, you get to start on what I think is one of the most exciting stretches of the Bible-the history of Israel, from the conquest of Canaan to the return from the Exile.

If you're doing OT and NT together, you spend much of the early part of the year with the Gospels. I doubt that I need to encourage you much in reading those books, since the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is not only the core of our faith, but an amazing, riveting read in its own right.

If you have fallen behind a bit, don't get discouraged and quit! You can catch up by adding a chapter or so a day to your reading, without placing a severe burden on myself. (You don't think I never miss a day, do you? I shouldn't, but it does happen.) The value of reading through the Word of God is worth the effort it takes to keep up with your reading.

So congratulations! You've made it this far, so I'll give you a rousing "Ebenezer!" Keep up the good work, and let God speak to you through His divine Word. If you want to let me know how you're doing, you can comment on Facebook under the post for this blog entry. May the Lord richly bless us all as we allow His Word to transform us throughout this year.

The book of Daniel and a supernatural God

Now that I no longer preach every week, when I do get the chance to preach, I often take my text from the Old Testament. I've always been a bit more OT oriented than my classmates and colleagues. (Maybe it's my Jewish blood-my great-great grandfather was a Jewish convert to Christianity who became a Baptist minister.) This morning I started a short, spread-out series of messages from the book of Daniel.

As part of my study, I read the usual discussion on the historicity of the events in Daniel and the date of its writing. There are a few technical issues that are raised by some scholars, but much of the rejection of the historicity of the book revolves around two major issues: the presence of the miraculous and the uncanny accuracy of the prophetic visions. So the miracle stories are written off as legends (or sometimes fiction), while the prophecies are posited to have been written after the events they predict.

Many scholars have dealt with these issues in far more depth than I can go into here. There is another way to deal with these objections, however. These two issues reveal the philosophical inclinations of the student by the way they begin their investigation into them. While the two positions I note here aren't necessarily the entire spectrum of belief, they do break scholarship into two broad camps.

The skeptical camp, which denies the historicity of Daniel and gives it a late date, finds belief in miracles and prophetic prophecy to be problematic. Both of these lie outside the realm of our normal experience, and because they are not subject to "scientific" study they are rejected out of hand. Given a commitment to a purely natural worldview, the ideas that the stories are legends and the prophecies were composed after the facts are really the only solutions to the problems.

I think this view has a serious theological flaw. I don't deny that some who hold to this position are genuine believers in God.  (I have an evangelical commentary on Daniel on my shelf that takes a view similar to this.) But if I were to have the chance to speak with them, I might ask them what kind of a God they believe in. If God isn't capable of performing miracles or providing visions that accurately address the future, is He really an omnipotent, omniscient God? If He can't save Daniel from a den of lions, how could He raise Jesus from the dead?

I would put myself into the supernatural camp. I believe in a God who can perform miracles, and who clearly sees and can reveal the future. If you accept the premise that God is like this, there's nothing in the book of Daniel that should give you any pause. The events recorded in the book are quite possible, so there is no insurmountable objection to its historicity. (As I noted above, there are a few other issues, but they can be discussed and answered fairly well.) The accuracy of Daniel's visions is also perfectly in line with what God can do.

When you read Daniel, I believe you can have confidence that what you are reading is an accurate account of events that really happened, and that Daniel's visions, while perplexing to him, can be seen as actual predictions of what God planned to do in the future. That doesn't mean that we find them easy to understand or interpret, even after the fact, but that we can be sure that they came the way the book recounts them.

Ebenezer

I recently attended a church music conference. One of the subjects that came up during a seminar was the question of updating archaic language in hymns. Some brought up the updating of archaic usages like "thee" and "thou," while others noted that their denominational hymnals occasionally changed lyrics to match the theology they espoused. There was a spirited discussion as to how far you can go in changing lyrics without doing an injustice to the original intent of the lyricist.

One example brought up came from a different perspective. The questioner asked about the term "Ebenezer" in "Come Thou Fount." This is a bit different, since the changes that are made to this term are designed to bring out a meaning that may not be evident to the singer. The original line is, "Here I raise mine Ebenezer, hither by Thy help I've come." One example of change I have seen is "This my glad commemoration that 'til now I've safely come." The desire of the editor is to make sense of the original line for the modern Christian.

However, I would argue in this case, and in some others, the effort is a failure on two fronts. First, it may be simply catering to the Biblical ignorance of those in the church, when what is needed is further teaching on the Biblical imagery. This issue may be a little more sensitive for me, since I happen to love to teach on the Old Testament. I don' think it's an exaggeration to say that many contemporary Christians are much less conversant with the Old Testament than the New. What we need to do in the church is to use occasions such as the singing of a hymn (or even a worship chorus!) to elevate the Biblical understanding of the congregation.

Once I was on the worship team of a church that wanted to use this hymn for worship. The pastor insisted that before we sing it, we explain the meaning of "Ebenezer" to the congregation so that they understood what they were singing. We did so, and several people commented that they had not understood the line before and appreciated learning what it really meant. This is one way we can use music to advance the teaching ministry of the church (which is another very large topic I won't get into right now).

The second way this effort to rewrite lyrics fails is that often the Biblical imagery is much richer than the modernized lyrics. Take the example I wrote above. While it catches part of the meaning of the phrase, it leaves out some important concepts. The background of the name "Ebenezer" is found in 1 Sanuel 7, where Samuel sets up the "stone of remembrance" (which is what the Hebrew name means). What is he commemorating? Ebenezer is a reminder that the Lord has helped Israel "thus far," following a rousing victory over the Philistines when they attacked during a ceremony of repentance before the Lord. It was to remind Israel that it is only by God's help that they had the victory, and that remaining in a proper relationship to Him was critical to their future. The change made above leaves out the entire idea of arriving safely only through the help of God. (And I double-checked the context of that version; the idea doesn't come up in the next line, which only refers to the future, not the past.) I think that eliminates a very significant point Robert Robinson, the original lyricist, wanted to make.

I'm not opposed to modern editing of hymn lyrics in general. I do think that we need to be careful that we do make every effort to retain the original meaning of the writer, which makes me cautious about changing lyrics for theological reasons. I also believe that we need to let the Biblical imagery of the song speak for itself, and if that means we need to teach people about that meaning then let us teach.