The Nuance of Theology

Our church held a seminar on “Basic Theology” that was led my a couple of our pastors.  It was designed, based on what was  described, as a seminar to go over some basic tenants of theology; salvation, the Trinity, Heaven, etc. Here’s what bothers me a bit about the whole thing.  Why don’t they simply state specifically what may be implied. The seminar is on basic theology as held by our church. Not a theology that is applicable to all churches, mainly our church which – without reservation – is ultra conservative and dispensational in their belief system.

A part of this whole issue of theology is the basic principle that what is biblical is biblical mostly as it relates to a person or church’s specific belief system.  If someone disagrees with the basic tenants of “the faith” as laid out by a particular person or church they are often accused of not being biblical in their approach to scripture.  Is this a correct way to approach the biblical text?  Is there ever a time when we let the text speak for itself without trying to water it down, nuance the words, or try and uncover other texts that might balance out what one verse or series of verses might say compared to another?  When does “all” mean all?  When do if/then statements really present conditionality?  When does endurance really mean endurance?

In John 15 Jesus said he had “called” and “chosen” those who followed him (the Twelve). Does that mean they were predestined to be the twelve or that he simply selected them over others?  Jesus said that the Father is greater than him. Does that mean their is a hierarchy in the heavenly realm? Jacob seemed to indicate that if God would meet his needs then YHWH would be his God. All of these are challenging verses that can often be interpreted differently depending on an individual’s biblical perspective. Does that make these texts, or any others for that matter, non-specific either in context or application? I suspect not.

In a blog post I read the other day, Mark Galli – senior managing editor of Christianity Today – made this comment:

Like the longing for authority. One of the most frustrating things about being Protestant, and especially evangelical, is that there is really no place to turn when you are ready to end a conversation on a controversial point. There is no authority figure or institution that can silence heterodoxy. No one has your back—well, except the Holy Spirit (we’ll come back to this in a moment). The more Protestants there are, the more churches and theologies are birthed. As soon as we say, “The Christian church believes …” we hear someone say, “Well, I’m a Christian, and I don’t believe that!” To be an evangelical used to mean one stood for certain theological convictions—penal substitution, inerrancy, and so forth—but now many evangelicals take delight in defining themselves over and against one of these formerly cardinal doctrines, while insisting on the right to be called evangelicals.**

The point that struck me most was, “Well, I’m Christian and I don’t believe that!”  The rub there is simply this, many people are uncomfortable moving off center when it comes to their theology. Once you move past accepted orthodoxy there is the struggle to re-define one’s faith principles. That’s both challenging and often on-going. Moving away from center can cause a certain level of angst especially if one senses they are in the minority, even though they may be right.  At least, right for a time.

Orthodox theology provides a foundation that many people find comfortable and reassuring. They can echo the words “the church believes” even though they may not fully understand that belief system or be able to explain it should someone ask. Nevertheless, they find comfort there. Much like we find comfort at home. We have our routine and habits that give us both solace and a sense of stability.  Theology is much the same. We reside within the walls of orthodoxy because it offers us both solace and a sense of stability. Even though we may find a particular portion of that orthodox faith uncomfortable in both our heart and mind we push those feelings aside in favor of stability.

I suppose I could say “I’m orthodox to a point.” Of course, that would and has gotten me in trouble. I like to push the edge of the envelope. I want to be challenged to understand why something should be considered orthodox.  At times theology can be both fascinating and frustrating. It can stretch the mind and heart in ways many people who do not study theology would not understand.  At the same time it can bring us to our knees.

**http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/11/17/magisterium-or-holy-spirit/

The Conflict with Money

Thinking about money can drive me nuts. Actually, it’s thinking about spending money that handicaps me.

Not too long ago my wife was unemployed for over a year. With her unemployment check and my job we were able to keep our heads above water most months. There were times we dipped into savings and were very thankful we had planned ahead and had enough there for a cushion. Because we were in that situation my wife got involved, which got me involved ,  with Dave Ramsey and his Financial Peace program.    We began to learn more about money – how it works and how we can either be a slave to or master over our finances. All of that “training” has put us in a rather simple mode of contemplating every purchase we make – big or small.  That’s what cultivates my conflict.

The other day I ended up replacing my work shoes which were three years old and falling apart. Then I took the dog to vet for some annual check-ups and blood work. Then I put gas in the truck.  It was a “nice” three hundred-dollar plus day! I was really feeling bummed about it. Then, because I’m reading through Genesis again, I had been looking at commentaries and struggling with whether or not to buy one on Genesis. Would I read it all? Is it worth the money to have another book? Heck, I have books stacked up in the dining room that I haven’t completed. Would I wane after a week or two then lament making the purchase and put that book in the stack with the others?   I was beginning to feel like an old Batman movie – “Pow!” “Zam!” “Zonk!”  I was reeling from the blows of indecision.

But wait, indecision is a good thing. It helps me think through my purchases. Something rather transforming when I consider my past behavior toward money – we have it so lets spend it!

Adding to my “conflict” is that nasty little thing called a budget.  We have one!!  We not only have one, my wife works diligently at maintaining and monitoring it. We have “regular” budget meetings. Fortunately, my only responsibility at those meetings is to make a change to something – anything -  in the budget. I usually opt for moving some of my shooting funds to another category that may need an extra boost that month.  Yet — and this is a big yet – I feel pretty comfortable with having a budget. Although we may not be as thorough as some with every dollar having a name. We do know where all our dollars go in  month. I keep receipts and turn them in like a good little boy. We have envelopes with funds for certain activities – eating out, groceries, gas, etc.  When it’s appropriate, we pay cash which, I might note, is most times.   I have a “blow money” allotment that is mine to do with as I please. I can spend it all in a week or save it up to have more cash for those little things I might “need.”  It’s all rather refreshing and yes, sometimes crazy.

It’s unlikely my conflict with money will ever be totally resolved and that’s okay. I’d rather have conflict in the midst of organization than conflict in the midst of chaos!

It’s a Stretch

In Mark 6, just after the feeding of the multitude, Jesus sends the disciples away so he can gou about dismissing the crowds. The disciples climbed in a boat and started rowing to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. After a while Mark offers this account as noted in the ESV:

Mar 6:48  And he (Jesus) saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
Mar 6:49  but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out,
Mar 6:50  for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”

Recently I heard a sermon on this passage. The overall theme of the sermon was this – God is there during our most severe struggles and that’s true.  However, two hermeneutical points were unwrapped as a part of the message. One was Jesus’ statement to the wave weary disciples that he was not a ghost but ego eimi, “I am” translated as “it is I” in the ESV.  The speaker made the point that Jesus was, to a large degree, making a declaration with his “I am” statement. The point he was making -  he was God. For it was God who said to Moses that His name was “I AM” – translated in the LXX as ego eimi (Ex 3:6,14). Hence when Jesus used that phrase “I am” he was proclaiming his divinity as being without beginning or end, as was the Father and thus being God.    One of the support passages used for this was in John 8:58 where Jesus said to the religious leaders, “before Abraham was, I Am.”  Now that may have been his intent, but it seems unlikely considering how many times he uses the “I am” phrase in John’s gospel with little, if any, reaction from the religious leaders or even his disciples who all had a Jewish heritage. Even more to the point, Jesus was not the only one to use that declaration. Gabriel used it in Luke 1:19 to identify himself and the blind man Jesus healed also used the same ego eimi (John 9:9). In fact, the phrase is used a multitude of times throughout the gospel narratives.

Do we thus conclude that each time those words are used it is a reflection of God’s self-revelation in Exodus? Do we say each time Jesus used it that it’s a reflection of God’s self-revelation in Exodus?  How do we choose which might be and which definitely are not?  Once we leave the pages of the Old Testament, can we say with any certainty that using that phrase ever has supreme theological significance outside of a direct reference or quote?  It’s a stretch.

Another point was made when Mark records that Jesus “intended to pass them by.”  When reading the text it seems clear that Mark simply stated an aside. Jesus intended to pass the disciples by and leave them to their struggles against the wind and the waves. After all, strength comes from adversity, so what real value is there if Jesus came to the rescue every time his followers found themselves in difficulty.    Isn’t that what patience, endurance, and self-discipline are intended to produce? As I observed on a sign the other day, “if God brings you to it, he will see your through it.”  Jesus trusted that his disciples would make it through that difficult time and emerge all the better for it. As it was, even though he calmed the storm, suppressed their fears and eased their load, they were oblivious to that and consumed with trying to understand what had just happened regarding the loaves and their hearts were hardened(6:51-53).  Unfortunately lesson not learned.

Now, the hermeneutical point made regarding this portion of Mark was that Jesus’ intention to “pass them by” was a reflection of God passing by Moses (Ex 32:19, 22; 34:6).  This may have been an insight that only Mark had since not one of the other gospel writers mention this part in their recollection of the event. And since Matthew was most likely the only one present at this early stage in Jesus ministry one would think, if this was important to the story, he out of all of them would have mentioned it. So what might have been Mark’s point?  Could it have been a reflection of God’s interaction with Moses? It’s a stretch.*

I’ll grant that there are many times in the New Testament when the writers may be extracting from their understanding of scripture (the OT) and using terms or phrases that give nuance and a deeper meaning to their current narrative.  But these are almost exclusively couched in the words of Jesus and are often done in parables.  To say that Mark was alluding to something like this in his rather casual comment, “…he meant to pass by them”, is a stretch.  I will also grant, with much enthusiasm, that one cannot fully understand the NT without understanding the Old. Does that mean we always see the Old referenced or reflected in the New? Not at all. However, much of the gospel and Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God finds its meaning when bounced up against the OT scriptures. Yet to stroke each word and phrase with the same brush is – well – a stretch.

 

*(The ESV Study Bible offers a treatment of this “event” and makes a strong correlation not only to Exodus, but also to Job’s comments in Job 9:8-11)