From evangelical to Episcopal, Part 4

I recently found myself in a conversation on facebook with a friend of mine from my evangelical days.  I was a youth minister at a particular church, and this friend was a recent high school graduate from the church when I knew her.  She messaged me to ask a number of questions about being Episcopalian and about my views on certain Christian themes in general.  In this series, I'll simply restate the questions I was asked and then my reply.  These are pretty off-the-cuff responses, but precisely the kind of thing a blog is for.  In other words, they're pretty rough around the edges.  

4.  Round 4 took us back to the Bible:   Is the Bible God's Word, inerrant, inspired, etc.?

My answer:


Mmm. Good one. The Bible certainly is the Word of God. Or at least it can be. The writings are inspired. They were also preserved under the providence of the Holy Spirit. And for those with ears to hear it is God's Word. That doesn't mean one follows it word for word, necessarily. It does mean one meets God in the sacred page. God's Word is, of course, first and foremost Jesus Christ. The Scriptures reveal Jesus. But not just as history. For whatever reason, the scandal of the Scriptures is nearly as great as the scandal of the incarnation. How can it be that God should use human language to convey the presence of the Word of God? Sounds very much like, How can it be that the infinite God should become finite in this one Jewish peasant at this one time?

So, the Scriptures are more than history. But they are not like the Qur'an, either. The Qur'an, according to Islamic belief, was dictated in Arabic from God (or Gabriel) to Muhammed. Therefore, each and every word is literally a word from God. Therefore, the Qur'an must be read in Arabic to be read as the words of Allah. Christians have never had a problem translating the Bible into the vernacular. If we did, we would only ever read it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So it must not be the Word of God in a purely literal way.

I'm not entirely sure, either, what it would mean to follow only the ideas or general principles, unless we recognize that the only general principle Christians read in the Bible is Jesus Christ. On the one hand it is about the past (Jesus of Nazareth), but on the other hand it's about the present (Christ through the Spirit), but on yet another hand it's about the future. So there is some history, but not everything in it is historical. There are some general principles and moral codes, but not all of them are ratified by the Spirit in our times (most of the laws of Leviticus, for instance).

With the early Christians, I agree that Scripture has multiple levels of meaning. There is the literal sense, of course, but also the spiritual sense. And within the spiritual sense there are allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. In short, then, the Scriptures are "inspired by God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." The Bible teaches us about God and about Christ, about who this God is that we worship, but it also teaches the way to this God and what God expects--it is a training ground for virtue. But it is also (as St. Augustine once put it) the face of God for now. The Bible is to us, as Christians, divine discourse. I'm not sure there are any hard and fast rules about how to listen to God's voice.

And that brings us to inerrancy. I think it really depends what we mean by inerrant. How can God's Word possibly err. Of course it cannot. But that doesn't mean that every bit of it is fitting for every context. Is the book of Genesis a description of the historical course of events of the Creation? I very much doubt it. Does that mean that God's Word errs? Absolutely not, unless we think it is only to be taken as a description of the historical course of events of creation. If we take it as God's Word for us, then it still conveys truth. Such as, nature is not divine in itself, but it does come from God; humans have a responsibility as stewards of creation; humans are prone to rebellion against their creator, or at the very least prone to ignoring him. In these truths, this part of the Word of God is inerrant. And, for those with ears to hear, the Bible is inerrant in its capacity to make a person a Christian--to break through the justifications and evasions of our own illusions and tell us the truth about who we are and about who God is, and about how far we are from that God who loves us, and how to return. Is it important whether God created the world in seven literal days, seven thousand years, or seven million. I don't think so. The difference between those three scenarios tells me very little about God or myself or the world we live in that makes any difference to my Christian discipleship.

So, inerrant? I don't know, because I'm not sure what that means exactly, or what context we mean it in. But certainly our final authority and, at least for Christians, the Word of God. Why do I say, "for Christians"? If it's the Word of God, it's the Word of God, right? Except the Bible CAN be read as just any other book--one truth among others. For people who read it this way, it just isn't the Word of God. It is a book written by humans, after all. That it is an inspired book, I think, requires the eyes (or ears) of faith.

From evangelical to Episcopal, Part 3

I recently found myself in a conversation on facebook with a friend of mine from my evangelical days.  I was a youth minister at a particular church, and this friend was a recent high school graduate from the church when I knew her.  She messaged me to ask a number of questions about being Episcopalian and about my views on certain Christian themes in general.  In this series, I'll simply restate the questions I was asked and then my reply.  These are pretty off-the-cuff responses, but precisely the kind of thing a blog is for.  In other words, they're pretty rough around the edges.   

3. Round three:  What are my thoughts on premarital sex?  Do all roads lead to heaven (e.g. a Buddhist who displays Christian virtues)?  How does a Christian determine his or her ethics, since the Bible can be interpreted in different ways?  And here she mentioned wanting to be able to answer her daughter's questions when she asks why she is or is not allowed to do certain things--why some things are right and others wrong.

My reply:

Let's start with the broad question of ethics. The Bible certainly can be (and is) interpreted in various ways. Even within evangelical camps. I don't know too many evangelicals who follow the 613 laws of the books of Moses. I don't even know too many who follow the Ten Commandments for that matter. So which part of the Bible is supposed to supply our ethics? There is a popular saying amongst evangelicals: the Spirit never speaks against the Scriptures. I prefer, the Scriptures never speak against the Spirit. Or better, the Spirit and the Scriptures speak together. The Bible is not self-interpreting. But it is easy to suppose our own voice to be that of the Spirit. So we need a community of the faithful who can be attentive to both the Holy Spirit and to the Scriptures and makes decisions together. In my last message, I indicated that Paul's writings on ethics are important--not so much because he tells us what is wrong, but because he tells us what is right. The fruit of the Spirit is right, the law of Christ is right, indulging the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life (in the words of James) is wrong. Why? Because the Spirit and the Scriptures agree on this.

I'm not really very interested in what is wrong or avoiding evil. I'm interested in pursuing good. Luther's famous phrase: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly." We can do better. In pursuing the good we may sin boldly, but by believing and rejoicing in Christ even more boldly we are being transformed into the image of God's son. And that tells us right from wrong. If we walk in the Spirit, we will do the works of the Spirit.

In short, if Jesus really is alive, then it is Jesus to whom I am accountable and Jesus who will teach me right from wrong. He will do this through Scripture by the power of his Spirit, but he doesn't ONLY teach me that way. He also teaches me in prayer and in the transforming of my heart to love as he loves.

So the answer I hope I am wise enough to give my son when he starts asking such questions is "because Jesus wants you to/doesn't want you to." That's the place to start, I think. We don't pray to someone up in the sky who left us a book of rules. He left us inspired writings that lead us to him. And who is he? We pray to someone who is up in the sky, but also all around and in our hearts and in our minds and in our bones and in the tears of the suffering and even in the joys of lovers.

So, good segue to premarital sex. I like what a theology professor of mine told his children: no mingling of bodily fluids before mingling of bank accounts. Why? Because sex is more than a fun time. Sex is a covenant. Sex is not two bodies enjoying one another (which is what our culture tends to tell us), but two persons embracing a mystery, which is a sacramental sign of God's love for us if we are not too dim to perceive it. Sex is as serious as it is delightful. Premature sex stifles our ability to see that and to take it for the sign of God's love that it is--or should/can be.

As for the Buddhist who displays Christian virtues. Perhaps we should go with the Hindu, since there is nothing in Buddhism that really prevents a practitioner from believing everything Christianity teaches. A Hindu, on the other hand, may worship Vishnu or Siva. So does this Hindu get to heaven? Will this Hindu be saved? Will an atheist be saved if they display the fruits of the Spirit? It's a good question--a God-sized question, actually. In other words, I have no idea. I'm not even entirely sure what heaven is, truth be told. I know two things. 1. The God I have experienced in Jesus Christ does not lose anything or anyone that belongs to him. God is not in the habit of losing sheep or coins; he's in the habit of finding them. 2. God desires that all be saved. God has something wonderful reserved beyond the grave. Death is a door, in a manner of speaking. But to what that door leads, I do not know.

Now, if we take those two convictions together, it is hard to imagine that God will let a little thing like praying to the wrong God or not understanding Christianity very well stand in the way of God's desire to redeem. In other words, as Christians we must dare to hope that all be saved (or we have not understood the depth of God's love or the breadth of God's mercy), even if we know that the opposite must always remain a possibility. As Paul says, at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess--in heaven, on the earth, and BELOW the earth--that Jesus is Lord. And as John tells us, whoever confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved. And yet, I suppose there may be some who do not wish to be saved. What God in his surpassing wisdom will do with those, I have only a ghost of a whisper. And I do not presume to know.

From evangelical to Episcopal, Part 2

I recently found myself in a conversation on facebook with a friend of mine from my evangelical days.  I was a youth minister at a particular church, and this friend was a recent high school graduate from the church when I knew her.  She messaged me to ask a number of questions about being Episcopalian and about my views on certain Christian themes in general.  In this series, I'll simply restate the questions I was asked and then my reply.  These are pretty off-the-cuff responses, but precisely the kind of thing a blog is for.  In other words, they're pretty rough around the edges. 

2. The second set of questions was, Do Episcopalians use the Catholic or Protestant canon?  Where do I personally and the Episcopal Church at large stand on homosexuality?  If we are welcoming of homosexuals, how does that work biblically?

My reply:

The Episcopal Church mostly uses the Protestant canon, but occasionally also uses the Apocrypha.
Homosexuality is a large issue. I would say the church generally recognizes it exists, and that homosexual Christians exist (as do, say, divorced Christians). I think the question you are asking is whether the Episcopal Church condones homosexual relationships as fitting with the way of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Church at large has no official teaching as yet, and each church differs. That said, in general the Episcopal Church tends to accept the healthy expression of homosexual partnerships as compatible with Christian discipleship. (As do I.)

How does that work biblically? This could take a long time to unravel, so I will have to be brief. In short, I am not convinced that any passage in Scripture trumps any other. Jesus did not come and the New Testament was not written and canonized under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to give us more rules to follow. Jesus as often as not hung out with the outcasts, of course, and he doesn't always tell them to "go and sin no more." Biblically, the foundation of our faith and our way is love--the love of God poured out for we sinners and the love of Christ that shattered death on the cross. What are the two greatest commandments? Love the Lord your God...and love your neighbor as yourself.

I understand that Paul seems to have some harsh words for homosexuals. That is, Paul seems to think men with men or women with women is disordered desire. But I confess that I see no more nor less disordered desire in my homosexual friends who are Christian than I see in myself. (One might want to claim that any desire not directed to God is disordered, but where would that leave marriage...or the second greatest commandment?) In 1 Cor 6:9-10, Paul outlines the works of those who will not inherit the kingdom, two of which have been taken to be potentially about homosexual acts. In Galatians 5, Paul outlines a similar list of the works of the flesh (though without those questionable terms). But notice what he says after. The works of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. I have met homosexuals who evince these marks of the spirit. I have met heterosexual, Bible-believing, evangelical Christians who display far more of the vices Paul mentions (fornication, drunkenness, envy, wrath, selfishness, for instance) than my homosexual Bible-believing friends. I find it hard to believe then, based on the testimony of Scripture, that these friends are not or cannot be or should not be Christians when their heterosexual counterparts are considered "good" Christians.

I will have to leave it there, but that is the short story. If we were to disqualify as Christian everyone who lusted after a woman in his heart (which is adultery in Jesus's book) or everyone who was wrathful, envious, selfish, drunken, etc. (the works of the flesh according to Paul), then we would be left with very few Christians, I think. But if we turn it around and look for the fruit of the Spirit, a relationship with Jesus, and a love for the Word, then we will still find Christians who do not think it any worse to be in a committed relationship with a member of the same sex than it is to be in the same kind of relationship with a member of the opposite sex. I take the Spirit's lead on this.

From evangelical to Episcopal, Part 1

I recently found myself in a conversation on facebook with a friend of mine from my evangelical days.  I was a youth minister at a particular church, and this friend was a recent high school graduate from the church when I knew her.  She messaged me to ask a number of questions about being Episcopalian and about my views on certain Christian themes in general.  In this series, I'll simply restate the questions I was asked and then my reply.  These are pretty off-the-cuff responses, but precisely the kind of thing a blog is for.  In other words, they're pretty rough around the edges.   

1.  So the first question:  What does it mean to be Episcopal, and when and why did I become Episcopal?  Also, when and why did my political views become liberal (or were they always)?

My reply:

First: Episcopal. The Episcopal Church is the church in America that comes out of the Anglican Communion, or the Church of England. When England colonized America (not when the Pilgrims came, but later), most of them were part of the Church of England. During the American Revolution, those Christians naturally set up their own hierarchy (since there is no separation of church and State in England). But essentially it is the same church as it was. You can read more here: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/.

Second, why I joined the Episcopal Church (in 2008). The short answer is, I learned about the history of Christianity. A slightly longer (but still not full) answer is that I learned that bishops, the creeds, and the Bible were all part of the same process in the history of the Church. So much more to talk about here, but I don't want to tax your patience. I also came to really appreciate Catholic theology. The Episcopal church is similar to Catholicism but without explicit veneration of Mary (or the Marian dogmas) and without the pope.

Third, when/why did my political views become liberal. I don't know if liberal is quite the right designation, but that seems to be where I fit in the common understanding of it. They've always basically been liberal in the sense that I think taking care of the poor and ensuring justice for all is liberal. I would rather people took care of each other than pay less taxes, for instance. My father was a factory-worker, so I believe in collective bargaining. If I were a woman I don't think I could ever choose abortion (but not being a woman, how would I know?!), but I don't think it should be outlawed. I think that does more harm than good. Fundamentally, I don't think America is a Christian country, and we do both Christianity and Americans a disservice to think of it as such.

Now in print

 My article on the motivations for Encratite prohibitions in early Christianity was published by Journal of Theological Studies in October.  The article along with the whole current issue is currently available here.  Here's the abstract:

The most prominent accounts of encratism identify it as an early Christian ascetical sect that refrained from sex, and possibly also wine and meat. Scholars usually give protological speculation as the reason for these prohibitions: the prohibition of marriage and sex is linked with speculation on the state of humanity and/or the world from the beginning of creation. This article questions that assumption, and, through a close examination of the evidence of early Christian heresiologists, possible cultural contexts, and certain apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, instead argues that encratism was marked by several motivations, of which the protological was perhaps one. The evidence from the ancient heresiologists and apocryphal Acts points to at least four potential motivations for encratite prohibitions: Hellenistic moral philosophy, demonology, social demarcation, and Pythagorean ethics.

 Also my review of Gordon Campbell's Reading Revelation was published just last month in Modern Believing.

Now in (e-)print

My review of Experientia, Volume 2 has been posted at the Review of Biblical Literature website. 


A brief excerpt:

"This volume offers an array of voices to think with, conversation partners to engage for those interested in examining ancient religious experience and the texts that reflected and elicited them. What it lacks in coherence it makes up for in verve. Experimentation may not provide the solid results we might desire, but it might just show us which paths are worth taking and which should remain untrod."

If you're interested, read the review.  If you're still interested after that, buy the book here or at Amazon. 

You're still there?

So, it looks as though I still have more traffic here than on my other blog.  At least for now, then, I'm going to double dip.  I'll be posting academic content in both places.  First up, this announcement:

What does Karl Barth have in common with John Wesley, Jacob Taubes, Stanley Hauerwas, and the Coen Brothers?  To find out take a look at what just rolled off the presses at Pickwick.

The Karl Barth Blog Conference of 2010 is now in print, including a modest contribution from myself.  If Barth interests you, you should pick up a copy.  There are some very stimulating essays in the volume.  Travis McMaken has posted the announcement over at DET.  And the book is up on Wipf & Stock's page. 

Moving Content

Dear Loyal Readers, Friends, Romans, Countrymen:

I am opening a new blog:  Didaskalikon.  I am migrating all academic content there, and will be blogging said academic content at that location.  I hope you will follow me over.  This blog will remain my personal blog, and I may make it private.  So bookmark my new blog!

See you soon!

Andy

...being rapt with the love of his beauty

God which moveth mere natural creatures as an efficient only, doth otherwise move intellectual creatures, and especially his holy angels:  for beholding the face of God, in admiration of so great excellency they all adore him; and being rapt with the love of his beauty, they cleave inseparably for ever unto him.  Desire to resemble him in goodness maketh them unweariable and even unsatiable in their longing to do by all means all manner good unto all the creatures of God, but especially unto the children of men:  in the countenance of whose nature, looking downward, they behold themselves beneath themselves; even as upward, in God, beneath whom themselves are, they see that character which is no where but in themselves and us resembled.

 Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, I.iv.1.