Halloween is an example of syncretism between ancient Celtic religious traditions and Christian ones. We’ve been saving this conversation until Halloween because we thought it fitting to discuss the relationship between Christianity and paganism on a holiday which, though it finds its origin in a paganism, has also been appropriated by the Roman Catholic church over the course of its history. You can find a history of Halloween according to the History Channel here: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=713&display_order=1&mini_id=1076
But I digress. Our subject for discussion for this week will not be Celtic paganism or the traditions which Halloween has been based, but rather the ancient religions in the region surrounding the Mediterranean and their influence, or lack thereof, on the development of Christianity. A member of the Tuesday Night Discussion Group comments:
A topic that I think many will find interesting and deserves some analysis is the connection between Christianity and Greek paganism. We all know that most Christian holidays occur on the same day as pagan festivals and that many elements of Jesus' life are strangely similar to those of pagan gods/heroes. What are we to make of this?
What are we to make of this, indeed. Is Christianity, like some scholars believe, the Jewish embodiment of the cultural ideas and religions popular in ancient time? Or is the development of Christianity a historically unique process which relies upon its singular Jewish roots and factual events?
Throughout pre-Christian religious history, traditions in the regions surrounding Palestine comprise myths* concerning gods with dual divine and human relations and resurrection and recreation stories of gods. Could those traditions have fed into Jewish thought, thus creating a new mystery cult, called Christianity by its Hellenistic and radical Jewish followers?
The myth of Dionysus (Bacchus) is one myth that scholars believe could be a significant ideological contributor to the plot of Jesus‘ life. Two versions of the birth of Dionysus exist; however the main feature of both is that Dionysus was born of a divine male and a human female. In one version of the story, a disguised Zeus impregnates a human woman, Semele. Hera, Zeus’ wife, is jealous when she discovers the affair and tricks Semele into asking Zeus if he is a god and begging him to reveal himself. Because any human who sees a god must die, when Zeus reveals himself, Semele dies. Zeus rescues Dionysus, not yet carried to term, and sews him into his thigh until he is developed. Thus, Dionysus, according to some, has the same type of equally human and divine parentage as Jesus.
In a second version of the story, the young Dionysus is born as the son of Zeus and Persephone, but a jealous Hera has him torn to pieces by the Titans. The Titans eat all but his heart, which Athena rescues and gives to Zeus. Zeus uses the heart to reconstruct Dionysus inside Semele. Again, Dionysus is twice born, but also received back from the dead. Some versions of this story indicate that Semele was to eat the heart of Dionysis in order to birth him again, a potential indication of a ritual communion-like in nature.
Dionysus is also considered to be similar to Jesus in his relationship to wine. Dionysis was considered to be the god of wine, and Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding in Cana, according to the gospel of John.
Even considering these similarities to Christianity, most scholars think that Dionysis is merely a copy of another god, the Egyptian Osiris, whom many consider to be the first savior who is the form for all saviors of all other religions.
I will direct you to two other sites which have a deeper explanation of the Dionysus myth, and paganism’s potential influence on Christianity. Though neither may have the most solid academic basis, they will provide a solid understanding of the stories of Dionysus and Osiris, and seem consistent with the academic accounts that I’ve read on the subject.
Wikipedia on Dionysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysis
About Jesus.com: http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm#Dionysus
Scholars acknowledge the existence of these myths, yet there is great debate over the relationship between these myths and Christianity.
Scholar Shirley Jackson Case claims that these myths are supremely influential, and make Christianity richer for their influence. He claims,
We are leaving the cloister and going to the marketplace, believing that there we shall find religion at its best because we find it there in the making. If we believe that Christianity today should draw upon all sources of information available in modern life, why should we so religiously strive to make a purely other worldly product? Will it not gain rather than lose significance if we discover that even in the first century its foundations were broad and its inspirations as wide as those of life itself? (3-4).
One view on the matter then, is that Christianity can be the most inclusive and pertain the most to life itself if it in fact incorporates many ancient religious traditions.
Drs. John Ankerberg and John Weldon counter Case’s argument:
One consequence of interpreting Christianity as an embellished mystery religion is the conclusion that the Christian faith per se is the invention of man, not a revelation from God. In the end, virtually all the unique teachings of New Testament theology, including the distinctive doctrines of Jesus Christ, God, man, sin, salvation, ect. Are viewed as mere religious innovation after the fact. For example, concerning Jesus Christ, this would mean his incarnation and virgin birth, miracles and teachings, atonement for sin, physical resurrection from the dead, promised return are not historical facts, but later revisions of pagan myths. In essence, the cardinal teachings of orthodox Christianity become lies and falsehood, a conclusion that warms the heart of some people today.
In these scholars’ estimation, the association of Christianity with pagan myth is its very undoing.
To be sure, this idea seems to be either one of the most constructive or destructive to Christianity, depending on your perspective. Which will it be? The task comes to us to enter this dialogue about the origins of Christianity, and make judgments about its relation to its ancient counterparts. Please comment with your analysis the matter.
To ponder:
1. This question pertains to the origins of Christianity. Is Christianity the divinely inspired revelation of a historical son of God? Or product of the influence of a series of cultural exchanges between Jews in Palestine and their conquerors the Romans (who had a Hellenistic culture) and their near neighbors the Egyptians?
2. What difference does the origin of Christianity make to the claims of Jesus Christ? In other words, what if the “one and only Son” is not so unique after all?
3. How important is the historicity of Christianity?
*Contrary to popular notions of myth as fictional, in religion studies, myth indicates “a story which conveys spiritual truth” -- that is, one beyond the possibility of contradiction. In this sense of the word, the narratives in Genesis 1-11 can be called myths, regardless of their literal or figurative interpretation, in the sense that they reflect basic truths in ancient Israel.
Sources:
Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. “Did Christianity Arise Out of the Mystery Religions?” http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/DaVinci/PDF/Mystery-Religions.pdf
Case, Shirley Jackson. “Christianity and the Mystery Religions.” The Biblical World. Vol. 43, No. 3, p. 3-Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1914.
Fossum, Jarl. “The Myth of the Eternal Rebirth: Critical Notes on G. W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity” Vigiliae Christianae. Leiden,Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 1999.
Wikipedia on Dionysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysis
About Jesus.com: http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm#Dionysus
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Predestination: Did I pick this topic, or did this topic choose me?
Perhaps one of the most controversial questions in regard to christianity is that of election. Election is an offset of the concept of predestination, or theological determinism. It is the idea that God exerts control over the way people make decisions. It is the lack of libertarian free will. Libertarian freedom is the ability to make a choice, but also the ability to have chosen another alternative given identical circumstances. Free will theists believe that God grants people libertarian free will. What theological determinists believe is much like a set of dominoes God has set up. Given certain antecedent conditions, events will unfold in a certain set way. God has set up the antecedent conditions and thus each person's actions are fixed.
Calvinists believe in 5 points. Please excuse my paraphrasing.
Total depravity- man is all bad
unconditional election- because man is totally depraved, God, because of His desire, chooses whom He will save through his mysterious plan.
Limited Atonement- because salvation is based on the desire and will of God, the atonement of sin is limited to only those God has elected.
Irresistible Grace- Those God elects must be saved. This doctrine is opposed to the idea that God's grace can be resisted, or that men can choose or resist the efficacious grace of God.
Perseverance of the saints- "once saved, always saved"
This debate has appeared again and again. Today, many that start as free-will theists have changed directions. "When you first become a believer, almost everyone is an Arminian, because you feel like you made a decision," said Laura Watkins, featured in a recent edition of Christianity Today magazine. Through developing a larger view of God's authority she has completely turned around. "I believe God is sovereign and has ordered things in a particular way," she explained. Just as "he's chosen those who are going to know him before the foundations of the earth."
One other facet of this debate is the concept of middle knowledge. This is a term for the knowledge of what all free creatures will do in any given situation.
The Southern Baptist Conference, the largest religious denomination in the country is beginning to see division over election, or reformed Theology. The current president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is known as a proponent of reform Theology, but many others do not agree with his views, namely election.
Here are just some of the many questions that one could ask in regards to this issue:
1. Does God predetermine people's actions? What about their salvation, does God elect those that are saved?
2. One offset of calvinism is the idea of the prosperity gospel, does God want you to be rich?
3. If it is indeed God, and not the individual that makes the decision over salvation, what is the role of evangelism?
4. Does God have middle knowledge?
5. If God gives humans free will, how is he constrained to act upon that free will?
6. If God is ever present and active in our lives, does that not violate human freedom?
Calvinists believe in 5 points. Please excuse my paraphrasing.
Total depravity- man is all bad
unconditional election- because man is totally depraved, God, because of His desire, chooses whom He will save through his mysterious plan.
Limited Atonement- because salvation is based on the desire and will of God, the atonement of sin is limited to only those God has elected.
Irresistible Grace- Those God elects must be saved. This doctrine is opposed to the idea that God's grace can be resisted, or that men can choose or resist the efficacious grace of God.
Perseverance of the saints- "once saved, always saved"
This debate has appeared again and again. Today, many that start as free-will theists have changed directions. "When you first become a believer, almost everyone is an Arminian, because you feel like you made a decision," said Laura Watkins, featured in a recent edition of Christianity Today magazine. Through developing a larger view of God's authority she has completely turned around. "I believe God is sovereign and has ordered things in a particular way," she explained. Just as "he's chosen those who are going to know him before the foundations of the earth."
One other facet of this debate is the concept of middle knowledge. This is a term for the knowledge of what all free creatures will do in any given situation.
The Southern Baptist Conference, the largest religious denomination in the country is beginning to see division over election, or reformed Theology. The current president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is known as a proponent of reform Theology, but many others do not agree with his views, namely election.
Here are just some of the many questions that one could ask in regards to this issue:
1. Does God predetermine people's actions? What about their salvation, does God elect those that are saved?
2. One offset of calvinism is the idea of the prosperity gospel, does God want you to be rich?
3. If it is indeed God, and not the individual that makes the decision over salvation, what is the role of evangelism?
4. Does God have middle knowledge?
5. If God gives humans free will, how is he constrained to act upon that free will?
6. If God is ever present and active in our lives, does that not violate human freedom?
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Authority, Power, and Submission
When I was in elementary school, I went to a Christian release-time program at 2:00 every Friday afternoon. As you might expect, we learned sang songs, played games, did crafts, and had other sorts of elementary school fun. Here’s something you might not expect, however. In that program, we sang several songs about obedience. I remember two that we sang nearly every week. One had the lyrics “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus than to trust and obey.” The other taught us both to spell and to submit. “O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E,” we sang.
What surprises me most is how little it surprised me to sing these songs. My most cynical inclinations tempt me to wonder if I was being indoctrinated into an unfair submission. You see, as a child I never questioned authority. Now I seem to have nothing but questions: What is authority? Who should have it? Should we really wield power over each other? Why should I let anyone tell me what to do?
Traditionally, in Western society, the notion of authority implies hierarchical power or influence of some kind exercised over another to enforce or encourage obedience or submission to a behavior. However, authority does not always have to mean hierarchical influence. The Oxford English Dictionary includes three definitions of authority among others.
Authority, from the OED:
1. Power or right to enforce obedience; moral or legal supremacy; the right to command, or give an ultimate decision.
4. Power to influence the conduct and actions of others; personal or practical influence.
5. Power over, or title to influence, the opinions of others; authoritative opinion; weight of judgement or opinion, intellectual influence.
We see all three of these definitions competing for control in contemporary society daily. We see the authority of the law to command us to take certain actions and enforce our obedience. We see the authority our friends and family have to influence us practically to make personal decisions about both trivial and serious issues; more than likely we have influence in their lives as well. Those of us who are university students see the appeal daily to the authoritative opinions and intellectual influence of others in the work of our professors and instructors and the scholars they require us to read and understand as experts in our fields of study. We too, are striving to become experts who share mutual authority in academic disciplines. This is all to say that authority does not hold only one type of power in our lives -- it is not always the governmental, the dictatorial, the oppressive and controlling. Authority can also be mutually conferred, and, in that sense, is probably a natural part of daily existence.
Even as I write to you now, I know that I attempt to wield a certain amount of authority, though I hope it is of the benevolent and mutual kind. I desire to influence the way that you think about authority. I do not require that you agree with my opinion. In fact, your doing so entirely would lead to poor discussion and limited growth for us all. But I do in fact hope that you think about authority in perhaps a new way or think about it analytically for the first time. I wish that you should be changed by my work in some way and therein lies my own appeal to be authoritative towards you. You do not have to agree to be changed, however.
Just as you can choose any reaction you wish to my blog -- abandon reading it, adopt its assertions as your own, choose to discuss and in doing so change my opinion, you can choose several reactions to any authority in your life. You may rebel, you may challenge, you may question, you may accept, you may submit, you may love, you may understand, and respect and obey while disagreeing.
Thinking theologically, Christian submission to authority should be divided into at least two categories which have some degree of relationship with each other: submission to God and submission to fellow men and women.
Though this blog focuses on the submission of human beings to each other, an important point should be made about the submission to God. Submission to God is the primary Biblical task designated to one who follows the way and teaching of Jesus. After all, how can you follow someone whom you would not obey? When faced with the mandate to stop teaching in the temple about Christ, the apostles refused to obey.
The story is told in Acts 5 of what happens when the apostles are caught breaking the mandate given them by the religious authorities of their time:
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!”
Christian submission to other people cannot be divorced from the notion of following God first and foremost. The story above relates that the Christian notion of submission to authority relies upon the fact that authority not disagree with the ways of God, which the Christian must first and foremost follow. Ephesians 5:21 encourages, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Submission to other people in the Christian sense derives directly from a knowledge of submission of our own personal desires in order to follow a better set of actions and values -- those taught by Jesus Christ in the Bible.
The Biblical position on submission to men in authority is that we should submit to our governments and obey those leading us in our churches. Romans 13:1-3 mandates,
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
Rebellion, then, for a Christian, seems to be a non-option. Hebrews 13:17 continues the theme, exhorting, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Obedience rather than rebellion seems to be mutually beneficial. Obey and then those governing will have an easier job, and therefore govern better and without discipline, thus making your obedience a delight.
Let me say this: Obeying and submission can be wonderful. Learning and growing from those with more knowledge and authority than you have because of their experiences or outside work can benefit you. Life can’t just always be “Damn the man, save the Empire,” much as many in the world wish it could be.
However, questions arise when considering authority that, to me, indicate we should proceed with caution in claiming authority for ourselves or validating that of another, especially within the church. Many from high church traditions and conservative evangelical protestant traditions come to the table with an understanding of church leadership as mandates and hierarchy that we can’t question or influence because they come from God or the authority God has conferred on an individual to teach us. Here are some questions though. Has God appointed and ordained all those who govern churches today? In that case, what determines those who are appointed? What qualities do they have that we who have not been appointed do not have? Do all who have the title of minister deserve our unqualified respect and obedience? Surely we are not required to obey in the face of oppression and pain. But who is to draw the line of when oppression and mistreatment is intolerable and when it is simply a by-product of a fallen human nature? We mistreat each other daily without even realizing the power of our actions.
Our beliefs about authority are often shaped by our personal experiences as much as our rational ability to create a philosophy about leadership and power. Those in authority over us -- our parents, teachers, pastors, other spiritual leaders, mentors, political leaders, local governors -- have perhaps been the greatest influence in caring for us, protecting us, endowing us with values, love, faith, trust, and goodness. Those in authority may have been the best influences in our lives as they raised us to become who we are today. When that is the case, we must be thankful for those who have treated us so well and given us so much of themselves. It surely is not easy to do so because human beings are often very selfish by nature. However, more of us seem to remember the moments we’ve had with authority that make us less capable as individuals of healthy trust and growth. People in authority have disappointed us, mistreated us, hurt us, misjudged us, refused to trust us mutually, perhaps even oppressed us with their irresponsible use of power. These are the moments that lead us to mistrust and rebellion.
I would like to say that this never happens in the church, that only secular authorities bully or wield power inappropriately, refuse to acknowledge the talents and gifts of those “under” them in order to maintain their own position. I can’t say it. I have been in too many groups where the power of prayer and accountability has been manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally, into confused relationships of power. I do not discredit the power of prayer or accountability, I only acknowledge the brokenness of mankind and our inability to wholly treat each other well, especially in certain leadership structures.
In a blog I read this morning, I found a notion of authority that I could relate to. Brother Maynard (not his real name) says:
A week or so ago, I told someone that I could sum up 16 years of experience in a particular c church in this way: “No, I don’t have a problem with authority. You have a problem with control.” Hope that helps set the stage… the place I came from was pretty big on the notion of “spiritual authority,” by which I mean big… based on an understanding I couldn’t stand by…. Far from wanting to outline the problem and stop at a hopeless end, we tossed around ideas of what accountability, authority, and servant leadership should look like, and how it should work…. I postulated that authority was in many ways not something given by God to men who ruled over others as is commonly supposed, rather it is simply given by one person to another. Radical, yes. I wouldn’t suggest that God is completely uninvolved in the process, as he dispenses leadership gifts. People choose leaders to whom they will “submit” and they have the freedom to revoke that choice. If they don’t, they might end up stock-piling munitions and drinking magic Kool-Aid in the desert somewhere; not everyone chooses wisely. The main point here is that this kind of authority is never absolute, and with an eye to past abuses, it’s worth pointing out that one cannot legitimately appeal to a heirarchical structure leading from God down through their leadership and so exert their will upon another individual. Remember, the pyramid is inverted, and leaders are to be servants, not “lording it over” others. It’s the individual who decides if the leader has any “authority” over them or not. (You can check out the rest of his thoughts on authority and leadership at his blog Subversive Influence http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/?p=874).
To summarize, Brother Maynard suggests that authority is derived from the willingness of an individual to follow and obey another. If no one chooses to obey you, you have no authority. While I believe that God plays a greater role in the determining of authority than Maynard does, in that God blesses those who follow Him and allows them influence that they may benevolently use, the notion of conferred authority appeals to me and seems to be best derived from lived experience.
The Flaming Lips have a song called “The Yeah, Yeah, Yeah Song.” I’m going to leave an excerpt from their lyrics as a final challenge, to speak from their own authority, and not my own.
If you could blow up the world
With the flick of a switch
Would you do it?
(Yeah yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah yeah)
If you could make everybody poor
Just so you could be rich
Would you do it?
(Yeah yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah yeah)
And so we cannot know ourselves
Or what we'd really do
With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?
Are you crazy?
It's a very dangerous thing to do
Exactly what you want
Because you cannot know yourself,
Or what you'd really do
With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?
Questions to consider:
1. Whom do you allow to have authority in your life, and why?
2. Who has been one of the best authority figures you have had in your life? Why? Who has been the worst? Why?
3. Do you believe that authority can be conferred divinely by God? Or do you believe that authority is earned?
4. Are there ways to organize leadership in a church that are not based in hierarchy? Is hierarchy Biblically ordained? What are its benefits? Weaknesses?
5. Are there limits to obedience? What are they? From where do you derive the authority to disobey?
6. Let’s dream a little. What would an ideal power relationship look like? What can you do to the best of your ability to make your relationships look like your ideal vision, as much as it depends on you?
What surprises me most is how little it surprised me to sing these songs. My most cynical inclinations tempt me to wonder if I was being indoctrinated into an unfair submission. You see, as a child I never questioned authority. Now I seem to have nothing but questions: What is authority? Who should have it? Should we really wield power over each other? Why should I let anyone tell me what to do?
Traditionally, in Western society, the notion of authority implies hierarchical power or influence of some kind exercised over another to enforce or encourage obedience or submission to a behavior. However, authority does not always have to mean hierarchical influence. The Oxford English Dictionary includes three definitions of authority among others.
Authority, from the OED:
1. Power or right to enforce obedience; moral or legal supremacy; the right to command, or give an ultimate decision.
4. Power to influence the conduct and actions of others; personal or practical influence.
5. Power over, or title to influence, the opinions of others; authoritative opinion; weight of judgement or opinion, intellectual influence.
We see all three of these definitions competing for control in contemporary society daily. We see the authority of the law to command us to take certain actions and enforce our obedience. We see the authority our friends and family have to influence us practically to make personal decisions about both trivial and serious issues; more than likely we have influence in their lives as well. Those of us who are university students see the appeal daily to the authoritative opinions and intellectual influence of others in the work of our professors and instructors and the scholars they require us to read and understand as experts in our fields of study. We too, are striving to become experts who share mutual authority in academic disciplines. This is all to say that authority does not hold only one type of power in our lives -- it is not always the governmental, the dictatorial, the oppressive and controlling. Authority can also be mutually conferred, and, in that sense, is probably a natural part of daily existence.
Even as I write to you now, I know that I attempt to wield a certain amount of authority, though I hope it is of the benevolent and mutual kind. I desire to influence the way that you think about authority. I do not require that you agree with my opinion. In fact, your doing so entirely would lead to poor discussion and limited growth for us all. But I do in fact hope that you think about authority in perhaps a new way or think about it analytically for the first time. I wish that you should be changed by my work in some way and therein lies my own appeal to be authoritative towards you. You do not have to agree to be changed, however.
Just as you can choose any reaction you wish to my blog -- abandon reading it, adopt its assertions as your own, choose to discuss and in doing so change my opinion, you can choose several reactions to any authority in your life. You may rebel, you may challenge, you may question, you may accept, you may submit, you may love, you may understand, and respect and obey while disagreeing.
Thinking theologically, Christian submission to authority should be divided into at least two categories which have some degree of relationship with each other: submission to God and submission to fellow men and women.
Though this blog focuses on the submission of human beings to each other, an important point should be made about the submission to God. Submission to God is the primary Biblical task designated to one who follows the way and teaching of Jesus. After all, how can you follow someone whom you would not obey? When faced with the mandate to stop teaching in the temple about Christ, the apostles refused to obey.
The story is told in Acts 5 of what happens when the apostles are caught breaking the mandate given them by the religious authorities of their time:
Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!”
Christian submission to other people cannot be divorced from the notion of following God first and foremost. The story above relates that the Christian notion of submission to authority relies upon the fact that authority not disagree with the ways of God, which the Christian must first and foremost follow. Ephesians 5:21 encourages, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Submission to other people in the Christian sense derives directly from a knowledge of submission of our own personal desires in order to follow a better set of actions and values -- those taught by Jesus Christ in the Bible.
The Biblical position on submission to men in authority is that we should submit to our governments and obey those leading us in our churches. Romans 13:1-3 mandates,
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
Rebellion, then, for a Christian, seems to be a non-option. Hebrews 13:17 continues the theme, exhorting, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Obedience rather than rebellion seems to be mutually beneficial. Obey and then those governing will have an easier job, and therefore govern better and without discipline, thus making your obedience a delight.
Let me say this: Obeying and submission can be wonderful. Learning and growing from those with more knowledge and authority than you have because of their experiences or outside work can benefit you. Life can’t just always be “Damn the man, save the Empire,” much as many in the world wish it could be.
However, questions arise when considering authority that, to me, indicate we should proceed with caution in claiming authority for ourselves or validating that of another, especially within the church. Many from high church traditions and conservative evangelical protestant traditions come to the table with an understanding of church leadership as mandates and hierarchy that we can’t question or influence because they come from God or the authority God has conferred on an individual to teach us. Here are some questions though. Has God appointed and ordained all those who govern churches today? In that case, what determines those who are appointed? What qualities do they have that we who have not been appointed do not have? Do all who have the title of minister deserve our unqualified respect and obedience? Surely we are not required to obey in the face of oppression and pain. But who is to draw the line of when oppression and mistreatment is intolerable and when it is simply a by-product of a fallen human nature? We mistreat each other daily without even realizing the power of our actions.
Our beliefs about authority are often shaped by our personal experiences as much as our rational ability to create a philosophy about leadership and power. Those in authority over us -- our parents, teachers, pastors, other spiritual leaders, mentors, political leaders, local governors -- have perhaps been the greatest influence in caring for us, protecting us, endowing us with values, love, faith, trust, and goodness. Those in authority may have been the best influences in our lives as they raised us to become who we are today. When that is the case, we must be thankful for those who have treated us so well and given us so much of themselves. It surely is not easy to do so because human beings are often very selfish by nature. However, more of us seem to remember the moments we’ve had with authority that make us less capable as individuals of healthy trust and growth. People in authority have disappointed us, mistreated us, hurt us, misjudged us, refused to trust us mutually, perhaps even oppressed us with their irresponsible use of power. These are the moments that lead us to mistrust and rebellion.
I would like to say that this never happens in the church, that only secular authorities bully or wield power inappropriately, refuse to acknowledge the talents and gifts of those “under” them in order to maintain their own position. I can’t say it. I have been in too many groups where the power of prayer and accountability has been manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally, into confused relationships of power. I do not discredit the power of prayer or accountability, I only acknowledge the brokenness of mankind and our inability to wholly treat each other well, especially in certain leadership structures.
In a blog I read this morning, I found a notion of authority that I could relate to. Brother Maynard (not his real name) says:
A week or so ago, I told someone that I could sum up 16 years of experience in a particular c church in this way: “No, I don’t have a problem with authority. You have a problem with control.” Hope that helps set the stage… the place I came from was pretty big on the notion of “spiritual authority,” by which I mean big… based on an understanding I couldn’t stand by…. Far from wanting to outline the problem and stop at a hopeless end, we tossed around ideas of what accountability, authority, and servant leadership should look like, and how it should work…. I postulated that authority was in many ways not something given by God to men who ruled over others as is commonly supposed, rather it is simply given by one person to another. Radical, yes. I wouldn’t suggest that God is completely uninvolved in the process, as he dispenses leadership gifts. People choose leaders to whom they will “submit” and they have the freedom to revoke that choice. If they don’t, they might end up stock-piling munitions and drinking magic Kool-Aid in the desert somewhere; not everyone chooses wisely. The main point here is that this kind of authority is never absolute, and with an eye to past abuses, it’s worth pointing out that one cannot legitimately appeal to a heirarchical structure leading from God down through their leadership and so exert their will upon another individual. Remember, the pyramid is inverted, and leaders are to be servants, not “lording it over” others. It’s the individual who decides if the leader has any “authority” over them or not. (You can check out the rest of his thoughts on authority and leadership at his blog Subversive Influence http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/?p=874).
To summarize, Brother Maynard suggests that authority is derived from the willingness of an individual to follow and obey another. If no one chooses to obey you, you have no authority. While I believe that God plays a greater role in the determining of authority than Maynard does, in that God blesses those who follow Him and allows them influence that they may benevolently use, the notion of conferred authority appeals to me and seems to be best derived from lived experience.
The Flaming Lips have a song called “The Yeah, Yeah, Yeah Song.” I’m going to leave an excerpt from their lyrics as a final challenge, to speak from their own authority, and not my own.
If you could blow up the world
With the flick of a switch
Would you do it?
(Yeah yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah yeah)
If you could make everybody poor
Just so you could be rich
Would you do it?
(Yeah yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah yeah)
And so we cannot know ourselves
Or what we'd really do
With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?
Are you crazy?
It's a very dangerous thing to do
Exactly what you want
Because you cannot know yourself,
Or what you'd really do
With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?
Questions to consider:
1. Whom do you allow to have authority in your life, and why?
2. Who has been one of the best authority figures you have had in your life? Why? Who has been the worst? Why?
3. Do you believe that authority can be conferred divinely by God? Or do you believe that authority is earned?
4. Are there ways to organize leadership in a church that are not based in hierarchy? Is hierarchy Biblically ordained? What are its benefits? Weaknesses?
5. Are there limits to obedience? What are they? From where do you derive the authority to disobey?
6. Let’s dream a little. What would an ideal power relationship look like? What can you do to the best of your ability to make your relationships look like your ideal vision, as much as it depends on you?
Monday, October 09, 2006
Religious Pluralism
One of the greatest questions concerning faith is what happens to those faithful in other religions. Though there is no consensus among all people that describe themselves as Christians, the more classical Christian view, as a Southern Baptist described it, “Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and therefore every other religion in the world is wrong.” This seems to be one of the greatest objections to Christianity, the “exclusive” nature it has. Robert Jeffress, in his book Hell? Yes! Lists the things Christians usually here when claiming that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.
“You are being intolerant.”
“Exclusivity promotes hatred.”
“How can so many people be wrong?”
“All religions teach basically the same thing.”
“It is unfair for God to send people to hell just because they haven’t believed in Jesus.”
The primary belief surrounding this discussion is that of religious pluralism. Religious Pluralism in its strongest sense holds that no single religion can claim absolute authority to teach absolute truth. RP can stem from many things. For some, naturalists, religions as we know them are nothing more than the products of human nature and is not the result of contact between humans and the divine. The opposite of naturalism is the belief that there is one, true faith, and other religions must be viewed in the light of the one true religion.
Some religions, like Judaism, have tenets that are some what exclusive, but also include other faiths. Jews believe that Judaism represents the revelations of the one true God, but that when other cultures and religions respect the laws in the Mosaic tradition, they are on the path to revelation from the one true God.
In regards to the question “ Can any one religion be true?”, we see three answers emerge. The naturalist says “No. No religion is true.”, the exclusivist says “Yes. My religion is the one true religion.” And the Religious Pluralist has severe doubts about whether or not one religion is true, or thinks that while one religion may be true, human beings will never know if it is or not.
Our discussion tomorrow night will revolve around these questions. Christians, and believers of many other faiths believe that their faith is the only way. Naturalists believe that all religion is false, and Religious Pluralists don’t think that any religion is completely true, or that if one is, we can never know positively.
1. Is it possible that there is only one true religion? What accounts for the similarities in many religions?
2. What are some drawbacks in your opinion, of the three described perspectives? What fits your beliefs?
3. What consequences does a belief in religious exclusivism have on religious discrimination? Is it intolerant of Christians, or other faithful, to exclude others from salvation?
“You are being intolerant.”
“Exclusivity promotes hatred.”
“How can so many people be wrong?”
“All religions teach basically the same thing.”
“It is unfair for God to send people to hell just because they haven’t believed in Jesus.”
The primary belief surrounding this discussion is that of religious pluralism. Religious Pluralism in its strongest sense holds that no single religion can claim absolute authority to teach absolute truth. RP can stem from many things. For some, naturalists, religions as we know them are nothing more than the products of human nature and is not the result of contact between humans and the divine. The opposite of naturalism is the belief that there is one, true faith, and other religions must be viewed in the light of the one true religion.
Some religions, like Judaism, have tenets that are some what exclusive, but also include other faiths. Jews believe that Judaism represents the revelations of the one true God, but that when other cultures and religions respect the laws in the Mosaic tradition, they are on the path to revelation from the one true God.
In regards to the question “ Can any one religion be true?”, we see three answers emerge. The naturalist says “No. No religion is true.”, the exclusivist says “Yes. My religion is the one true religion.” And the Religious Pluralist has severe doubts about whether or not one religion is true, or thinks that while one religion may be true, human beings will never know if it is or not.
Our discussion tomorrow night will revolve around these questions. Christians, and believers of many other faiths believe that their faith is the only way. Naturalists believe that all religion is false, and Religious Pluralists don’t think that any religion is completely true, or that if one is, we can never know positively.
1. Is it possible that there is only one true religion? What accounts for the similarities in many religions?
2. What are some drawbacks in your opinion, of the three described perspectives? What fits your beliefs?
3. What consequences does a belief in religious exclusivism have on religious discrimination? Is it intolerant of Christians, or other faithful, to exclude others from salvation?
Sunday, October 01, 2006
How to Read and Why: A Thought on Biblical Interpretation
As a literature major, I understand that the way which we read has profound implications for the way in which we live. I’ve been reading as long as I can remember, from pouring through books about Cinderella when I was three, to reading Tolkien at fifteen, and on to reading Kierkegaard at twenty. There can be nothing more enjoyable than internalizing a fiction fantasy or philosophy for the first time. However, the process of reading involves more than examining letters on a page and consuming them as appear. All reading relies on varying levels of interpretation, the process through which we create meaning in what we read. No one comes to a text without their own particular context, background, aesthetic preferences, or educational training. All these factors come into play when reading even the shortest texts.
Let’s think about a brief example, which, though simplistic, reveals the difference between interpretation and reading. Consider the red octagon-shaped sign with white trim and letters that read “STOP.” We like to call this a stop sign. Though the text is relatively short, we all know how to react to the sign. When we are driving, we cease movement a reasonable distance in front of the sign, and then we wait for a few seconds, and then proceed again. We understand what the sign is saying because we have been taught to read it in a certain way by our parents, law enforcement officials, and societal conventions. The text itself, four simple letters, doesn’t actually tell us all the information that we need to fully understand the actions we need to take at the sign. The text of the sign tells us to stop, but questions arise. Stop? Stop where? Stop for how long?
I’ll admit that this example is a bit far-fetched. Yet, to me it illustrates a basic principle of interpretation vs. reading. Mere reading implies that every text read by every reader will elicit the same responses every time, without fail. Interpretation implies that the process of coming to a standard normative reading takes work and searching for all individuals and communities. Interpretation also implies that we can’t understand a text fully on our own. We have to outside the text itself for parts of its meaning.
In Acts chapter 8, the apostle Philip meets an Ethiopian eunuch reading the Hebrew Scriptures by the side of the road after worshiping in Jerusalem. While the man was moved by the texts that were read in service, he did not know how to make meaning out of them. When Philip approached him, asking “Do you understand what you are reading?”, the eunuch replied, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” The eunuch has reasonable questions about the meaning of the text, and knows that reading the text alone, while it probably produces good feeling in him, is not enough for creating meaning. He must ask questions of another, and extrapolating from the story a bit, ask questions of the text itself in order to discover the meaning of it. The reason why sermon giving is so important in churches, and why humans publish outside material on divine text is that, sort of like our stop sign, the meaning of sacred texts is illuminated by the interpretations that others present to us.
While I believe that learning to shrewdly interpret rather than merely read is crucial even for human fictions and philosophies, I believe that learning to interpret could have no better end than learning how to interpret the Bible. Even if one does not accept the claims of the Bible as true, one should learn that the claims made by the entirety of the Bible are quite serious. Men claiming to interact with God is not to be taken lightly. At the least, the Western culture in which we live has been profoundly altered by the claims of the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian New Testament. For that reason, if none other, one should learn to grapple with the serious issues of Biblical text.
In the Hebrew Bible class that I am currently taking at Wesley seminary, one of our textbooks, A Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament, talks about the Old Testament in terms of interpretive claims inherent in the text: “Claims are made by and for these ancient texts that make them more than the literature, history, and sociology of an ancient people called Israel. These texts are written, collected, and passed on through generations as the witness of a community of faith shaped in relation to the character and actions of the God of Israel” (Birch, et al. 1). We are caught in a tension. The Bible is a book that makes serious claims about a divine God, and yet it’s production and assembly -- from the writing and compiling of oral traditions, to the editorial work of rabbis, church fathers, and scribes, to the discovery and translation of various texts which show certain degrees of variance-- is quite human.*
According to Birch, et. al, in the twentieth century, under the rise of modernism, the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation and its variants (source criticism, form criticism, tradio-historical criticism, and redaction criticism) assumed that the one concrete meaning to the Biblical text could be established through the study of history, textual convention, and tradition. As modern assumptions about the world and man’s ability to improve it through enlightened thought have been contradicted by the chaos and disappointment of human experience in an increasingly turbulent world, new questions have been asked of traditional texts. Scholars, pastors, and serious readers of the Biblical text now consider issues of gender, class, ethnicity, and political difference when reading the Bible. Through asking questions in a different manner, the Bible comes alive again for a new generation.
This week at Davenport we’ll continue the conversation that I’ve been having with myself for some time. Here are some questions to think about and comment about here in preparation. As always, please feel free to participate in our discussion here even if you can’t come to our discussions.
1. Some suggest that only certain methods of interpretation are valid for Biblical scholarship because uncovering what might seem like potential contradictions in the text destabilizes the meaning and purpose of Christianity. In light of this thought, do you believe that there are certain ways which the Bible should not be read? Are there interpretations so dangerous that they should not even be entertained before they are rejected?
2. What should be understood by what some see as contradictions in the Bible? Can the Bible be contradictory if it is divinely inspired?
*Many, myself included, believe in an element of divine guidance and inspiration even in the human processes of compilation, editing, and translation.
Let’s think about a brief example, which, though simplistic, reveals the difference between interpretation and reading. Consider the red octagon-shaped sign with white trim and letters that read “STOP.” We like to call this a stop sign. Though the text is relatively short, we all know how to react to the sign. When we are driving, we cease movement a reasonable distance in front of the sign, and then we wait for a few seconds, and then proceed again. We understand what the sign is saying because we have been taught to read it in a certain way by our parents, law enforcement officials, and societal conventions. The text itself, four simple letters, doesn’t actually tell us all the information that we need to fully understand the actions we need to take at the sign. The text of the sign tells us to stop, but questions arise. Stop? Stop where? Stop for how long?
I’ll admit that this example is a bit far-fetched. Yet, to me it illustrates a basic principle of interpretation vs. reading. Mere reading implies that every text read by every reader will elicit the same responses every time, without fail. Interpretation implies that the process of coming to a standard normative reading takes work and searching for all individuals and communities. Interpretation also implies that we can’t understand a text fully on our own. We have to outside the text itself for parts of its meaning.
In Acts chapter 8, the apostle Philip meets an Ethiopian eunuch reading the Hebrew Scriptures by the side of the road after worshiping in Jerusalem. While the man was moved by the texts that were read in service, he did not know how to make meaning out of them. When Philip approached him, asking “Do you understand what you are reading?”, the eunuch replied, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” The eunuch has reasonable questions about the meaning of the text, and knows that reading the text alone, while it probably produces good feeling in him, is not enough for creating meaning. He must ask questions of another, and extrapolating from the story a bit, ask questions of the text itself in order to discover the meaning of it. The reason why sermon giving is so important in churches, and why humans publish outside material on divine text is that, sort of like our stop sign, the meaning of sacred texts is illuminated by the interpretations that others present to us.
While I believe that learning to shrewdly interpret rather than merely read is crucial even for human fictions and philosophies, I believe that learning to interpret could have no better end than learning how to interpret the Bible. Even if one does not accept the claims of the Bible as true, one should learn that the claims made by the entirety of the Bible are quite serious. Men claiming to interact with God is not to be taken lightly. At the least, the Western culture in which we live has been profoundly altered by the claims of the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian New Testament. For that reason, if none other, one should learn to grapple with the serious issues of Biblical text.
In the Hebrew Bible class that I am currently taking at Wesley seminary, one of our textbooks, A Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament, talks about the Old Testament in terms of interpretive claims inherent in the text: “Claims are made by and for these ancient texts that make them more than the literature, history, and sociology of an ancient people called Israel. These texts are written, collected, and passed on through generations as the witness of a community of faith shaped in relation to the character and actions of the God of Israel” (Birch, et al. 1). We are caught in a tension. The Bible is a book that makes serious claims about a divine God, and yet it’s production and assembly -- from the writing and compiling of oral traditions, to the editorial work of rabbis, church fathers, and scribes, to the discovery and translation of various texts which show certain degrees of variance-- is quite human.*
According to Birch, et. al, in the twentieth century, under the rise of modernism, the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation and its variants (source criticism, form criticism, tradio-historical criticism, and redaction criticism) assumed that the one concrete meaning to the Biblical text could be established through the study of history, textual convention, and tradition. As modern assumptions about the world and man’s ability to improve it through enlightened thought have been contradicted by the chaos and disappointment of human experience in an increasingly turbulent world, new questions have been asked of traditional texts. Scholars, pastors, and serious readers of the Biblical text now consider issues of gender, class, ethnicity, and political difference when reading the Bible. Through asking questions in a different manner, the Bible comes alive again for a new generation.
This week at Davenport we’ll continue the conversation that I’ve been having with myself for some time. Here are some questions to think about and comment about here in preparation. As always, please feel free to participate in our discussion here even if you can’t come to our discussions.
1. Some suggest that only certain methods of interpretation are valid for Biblical scholarship because uncovering what might seem like potential contradictions in the text destabilizes the meaning and purpose of Christianity. In light of this thought, do you believe that there are certain ways which the Bible should not be read? Are there interpretations so dangerous that they should not even be entertained before they are rejected?
2. What should be understood by what some see as contradictions in the Bible? Can the Bible be contradictory if it is divinely inspired?
*Many, myself included, believe in an element of divine guidance and inspiration even in the human processes of compilation, editing, and translation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)