Just For Men?
Rant follows…. you’ve been warned!
Mark Driscoll says marriage is about women giving men what they “need”. None of this wimpy “Submit to one another as unto the Lord” stuff for Driscoll. Where would you read that kind of garbage, anyway? Oh, yeah…. (Ephesians 5:21)
(While Driscoll’s vision might sound fun for a while, I want a partner to share all of life with, not merely an eternal sex slave.)
John Piper says that Christianity is mostly masculine. So forget all that garbage about God gathering us under God’s wings like a mother bird. Who made that image up anyway? Oh, yeah…. (Matthew 23:37)
Why do I single these thoughts out? Because these men present themselves as important speakers and writers. Because too many innocent people will find their books in stores and assume the authors write with Biblical authority. Because these men are “conservative” (whatever that means), many will never question anything they say or write.
Where in the scriptures are women second-class citizens? Is real grace only available for “he-men”, macho jock-types, and not for male artists, musicians, poets, and dreamers?
I hope this seems like a silly debate to you. The problem is that too many are falling for this garbage because it’s the current “in” thing. (“Itching ears” anyone?)
Our church (Memorial Baptist, Columbus, Indiana) and our denomination (the American Baptist Churches in the USA) are blessed through many women with leadership gifts. I’m proud to say that I’ve learned much from the women God has placed in my life. (I’ll put Molly Marshall, president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, up against any theologian or preacher any where any time. Period.)
When will we realize we’re missing out on the movement of God’s Spirit by insisting on limiting that movement to men? (Or white men? Or educated men? Or rich men? Or…….??)
Grace – Law – Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Law or Grace? Law and/or Grace? Law and Grace? If I ever get this figured out to everyone else’s satisfaction, I’ll let you know. (I’m quite happy with my own limited perspective, thank you very much.)
Grace preachers are often accused of being soft on sin. At least, we’re often accused of being soft on sin by those who relish the role of prosecutor, judge, and jury, who act as if our primary job description in the scriptures is to eradicate sin in everyone else’s lives. (I’m still waiting for someone to show me chapter and verse on that one.)
To the contrary, I think grace preachers take sin more seriously. Rules only address external behaviors; grace applies to motives, thoughts, and attitudes as well. The rules may say “drive 55″, but my heart still wants to drive 75. The rules say “drive 55 or you’ll get an expensive ticket,” while grace says “my driving affects the safety of others, so I’ll stick with the rules.”
And who decides what rules are the most important? Why am I encouraged to preach about sexual activity but forbidden to speak about corporate greed? Why can I talk all I want about drunkenness, but not about our attitudes toward immigrants and the poor? Why are the Ten Commandments more important than the message of the prophets? Why don’t we have bumper stickers that say “Keep the Sermon on the Mount”?
The life of grace calls for me (and us) to submit ALL of life (personal and public) to the teachings and leadership of Jesus, not just the parts others see, and not just the parts that are convenient for me. That’s not to say rules and law are bad. I’m saying that we must use rules and law as God intended and not use them as a short-cut to avoid the total surrender God asks for.
What am I basing this on? Notice that God was “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” long before there was a Law of Moses. Notice that the Hebrews were God’s people long before they left Egypt and came to Sinai. The Law of Moses was given to help the Hebrews learn how to live as God’s own people. The Hebrews weren’t God’s people because they kept the Law; they kept the Law because they were already God’s people.
Rules can help me understand the disciplined life of the Spirit better. They can help me avoid mistreating others. But I must allow the rules to push me toward God. I understand God’s character better when I ask, “Why does God care about this?” Rules help me understand that my choices and actions have consequences, and that others are affected by my choices and actions. Rules help me understand that God hates sin, not because it’s a legal offense to God, but because sin harms myself and others.
But rules are no substitute for grace. Grace invites me into deeper relationship with God, while rules tempt me to stay distant and aloof. I refuse to give up the richness of the life of grace to settle for superficial religion. I am who I am because of the grace of God, and I am not ashamed to preach the life of grace!
Erasing Hell or Erasing Grace? Francis Chan
I was eager to read Francis Chan’s “Erasing Hell”, having read and appreciated “Crazy Love” and “Forgotten God” (both of which I highly recommend). Chan writes in response to Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” (see last blog post), the book at the center of a recent firestorm of controversy.
Chan should be commended for his introduction. Discussing hell shouldn’t be enjoyable. We shouldn’t relish the idea that some will reject God and choose hell over grace. We cannot put ourselves in the role of “Holy Bouncer” and decide who gets in and who doesn’t.
Somehow I never knew that Chan was a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s College and Seminary, institutions firmly rooted in the Reformed (Zwingli/Calvin/Knox/Beza, frequently mislabeled “Calvinist”) tradition. This tradition is known for academic discipline and an emphasis on God’s sovereignty over all else.
(Ironically, this same Reformed tradition also gave us the universalist movement Chan is writing against. The progression of early universalist logic: if God’s will is always done, and God’s will is that all be saved, then all will be saved.)
Herein lies, for me, the disappointment in Chan’s arguments. Objective truth as a system of logic seems to be primary, and a sense of loving relationship with God comes across as secondary. Having read Chan’s other books (again, which I highly recommend), I know this is not what he believes.
The dividing question I see here is “What is your dominant image of God?” For many, the dominant image is a judge in a courtroom. God has decreed a law, and is now honor-bound to see that that law is enforced. Everything therefore revolves around guilt and punishment. Jesus takes our punishment for us.
The problem with that view? In what human court would a judge allow me to accept the death penalty for someone else? While most courts wouldn’t care who pays a fine, no court will allow a substitute for jail time or execution. That would defeat the purpose of punishment.
A perhaps bigger problem with that view? The image of a courtroom comes primarily from Paul’s sermon illustrations of justification (“pardon”). (Never base all your theology on one sermon illustration!) From Jesus’ teachings we see a picture of God as “Abba” (“Daddy”), the loving father of the lost sons in Luke 15, as the one we pray to in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).
Bell gravitates toward the loving parent image, while Chan relies heavily on the courtroom. These are two diverging perspectives. The courtroom image emphasizes law and punishment; the parent image emphasizes restoration and relationship.
My conclusion? No one theological system has all the answers. Theological systems are human attempts to understand what the scriptures describe as a “mystery.” “Mystery” doesn’t mean “hidden secrets waiting to be found,” but “this is beyond what you can fully understand.” God’s love and grace are truly beyond description.
If I have to choose between these two options, I’m going with the Prodigal God every time! If God is love (1 John 4:8), then God doesn’t remained detached and objective; God is personal and involved. Therefore, more is going on than Chan’s book allows for. Bell’s book doesn’t have all the answers, but at least he’s willing to ask the questions.
Next time: Balancing love and law, because I know someone will tell me I’m not taking sin seriously
Heaven, Hell, and Rob Bell
It seems impossible to avoid the controversy stirred by reactions to Rob Bell’s latest book, Love Wins. Notice my careful (for once) choice of wording: the controversy that’s been getting attention has been stirred by reactions to the book. We’ve done Rob Bell a great disservice by not engaging the questions he is raising.
Bell wants us to address one of the oldest questions of evangelical theology: How can a loving God send people to hell? This can only be fully explored by asking “What is the nature of the salvation Jesus proclaimed? What is the nature of sin? What is the nature of God’s love for us?” The controversy has been over “Does Rob Bell believe in hell?” and “Is Rob Bell a universalist?” Sadly, commentators have focused so much on the latter questions that we’ve yet again avoided the former, essential questions.
Bell’s detractors are right on one point: it’s quite difficult to discern from Love Wins what Bell actually believes about hell. To Bell’s credit, he never says that this is a book of systematic theology. It’s a book about God’s desire for each of us, a desire rooted in the unconditional love God has for all persons. God already loves each of us, and nothing we ever do (or don’t do) will change that!
(By the way, who picks up a Rob Bell book or video for an exposition of systematic theology? Bell is first and foremost a story-teller, and he relies heavily on those skills in Love Wins. Systematic theology comes from philosophers and academicians. Bell never claims to be presenting a formal theological system.)
Bell and his publisher can be faulted for not addressing anticipated reactions to this book. Given the potential for misunderstanding his intentions and/or conclusions, I would’ve appreciated at least a chapter with some formal statements to reduce chances for confusion. Readers who aren’t accustomed to a story-telling format could be too easily swayed by Bell’s detractors into missing his points.
For me, Bell’s conclusion is that God wants nothing more in the whole universe than to love each one of us. We can either decide to come home to God or we can choose to refuse God’s love. Salvation isn’t about religious formalities and rituals, but about a restored relationship. This is much deeper and much more significant than merely “getting into heaven.”
One cannot understand Bell’s argument without taking note of his choice of a Biblical narrative framework, that of the older son in the story of the lost sons (Luke 15:25-32). The younger son, who by every religious guideline should have been condemned to hell, turns away from his rejection of his father and comes back home. The older son refuses to take part in the celebration for his brother. We can tell from the older son’s comments that, even though he never geographically left home, he had also rejected their father’s love. The father left the invitation open for the older son; the choice was his.
The story of the lost sons has no end. What did the older son ultimately do? Jesus was speaking to religious leaders who were rejecting his message of love and reconciliation (Luke 15:1-2). Were they too in danger of choosing to stand outside the party, choosing self and hell over God’s unconditional love? What did they ultimately do? What will we ultimately do?
My thoughts now (so don’t blame Bell for what follows):
We tend to limit salvation to “what do you believe with your head about Jesus?” There’s gotta be more to it that this. If that’s all there is to salvation, then what was the point of the cross and resurrection? What was the point of incarnation? We insult the life-transforming Good News of Jesus when we water it down to a few points of dogma.
Is salvation really about surrendering all of life to the radical love of God? Can one really say “Yes” to God’s radical love without being transformed by that same love?
What if God chooses to welcome home some (or even many) who have not formally assented to the religion we have created around Jesus but have responded to God’s love? What if some who have formally assented to the religion we have created around Jesus choose to stand outside the celebration, refusing to be transformed by the love of God?
I’m not saying at all that we come to God on our own terms, according to whatever religious system (or lack thereof) we prefer. I am saying that God is not limited to the framework of our own favorite religious system. Hell is about rejecting God’s love, not about rejecting a religious system.
Psalm 84:10 (NRSV) says, “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than live in the tents of wickedness.” Many of us want to be “bouncers” in the house of God, choosing who gets in and who doesn’t. That’s not what a doorkeeper at the temple (the house of God) did. The doorkeeper kept things ready for worship, making sure all the supplies and tools were ready. The doorkeeper also made sure the people were ready for honoring God. The doorkeepers facilitated worship, helping the people come to God.
How can we, those who live our lives after the teachings and example of Jesus, help connect people to this live-giving, life-transforming love of God as revealed in Jesus? This is what should be driving us as God’s church.
Next up: Francis Chan disappointingly misses the point.
Using My Bible for Spiritual Formation – Questions to Ask
A couple of Sunday nights ago I presented these questions as ways to use the Bible for spiritual formation. This is quite different from using the Bible to "defend the faith" or trying to prove the Bible’s historical and scientific truthfulness. These questions will help us get at what God is saying to us here and now through the scriptures, with a focus on making my everyday life reflect Jesus better every day.
1. PRAY! OK, that’s not a question, but no serious use of the scriptures can begin without an openness to God’s Spirit as we read, study, and meditate. Pray for "ears to hear" what God is saying. And remember that prayer is primarily about us opening up to the life-changing work of God’s Spirit, not us getting what we want from God.
2. How did the original audience understand this passage? Historical events, cultural habits, and common imagery of the language would all have had an impact on how the first hearers (notice I didn’t say "readers") would have understood this. A warning: never let understanding the historical, cultural, or linguistic background of the scriptures be the goal of study. It is an important tool, but no substitute for listening to God through the scriptures.
3. What was God saying to the original audiences? This is a dual question– what was God saying to the people involved in the passage, and what was God saying to the people who first heard the stories told? Listen for core principles that can serve as foundations for Christ-like living.
4. Why did God say that? For example, many of the prohibitions in the Law of Moses that seem a bit excessive to us were addressing the religious practices of the Canaanites (especially the sexual warnings). Most of Israel’s neighbors sought to manipulate (or at least convince) their gods to do what they people wanted. Israel was to trust that God is looking out for them, and that God will guide them and provide for their needs. Again, listen for core principles that can serve as foundations for Christ-like living.
5. How does what God said back then translate into my world now? Is there a similar situation this applies to? How do the core principles from this passage apply to other situations?
6. What is God saying to me now? Is God calling me to a particular task? To abandon a sinful habit or attitude? To what is God calling me? There’s no "if" here; God is calling each of us to something, to serve God and others, and to live more like Jesus.
7. The most important question: What am I going to do about what God is saying to me now? All of this is a useless exercise unless I act upon God’s call (James 1:22-25).
I’m sure there are questions that could be added to this list. These are the questions I use in preparing Bible studies and sermons, and I present them as merely a starting point for discussion.
Using My Bible More Effectively: Stories and Poems
The Bible is a collection of stories and poems that grew out of the interaction between God and humanity. The Bible is the story of the relationships between God and people, and of the relationships among God’s people. (Even all those "thou shalt nots" of the books of Moses were given to help the Hebrews live out their relationship with God as God’s covenant people.)
This makes the Bible different from a "technical manual" such as we would use to work on a car or computer, and different from a "set of instructions" like a recipe. The Bible’s stories and poems help us see into the character of God, and help us see who we are in light of who God is.
The ancient world had a very different view of history and authorship than we do. We look for technical journalistic precision in reporting events, and a clear "paper trail" connecting exact quotes to their original speakers or writers. The scriptures come out of a very different world. Instead of merely reporting events and quotations, the scriptures seek to interpret those events and sayings to help us in our lives with God. The value of the scriptures lies in their ability through ancient voices to help us hear the voice of God’s Spirit today.
Therefore, interpreting the scriptures involves going beyond history and culture to listen to the voice of God’s Spirit (2 Peter 1:19-21). Historical and cultural facts help enlighten the listening process, but historical and cultural knowledge is not the goal of Bible reading. The purpose of the scriptures is transforming our lives into lives that reflect the character of God as revealed in Jesus (Romans 12:1-2, 2 Timothy 3:14-17).
Next post: questions I use in reading the scriptures for spiritual formation.
Using My Bible More Effectively
On Sunday nights, I have begun a teaching series on Using Your Bible More Effectively. (Can you call it a “series” when we’re out most of the next month?) We started last night (June 27) with an overview, and will continue on July 25 with a deeper look at the Old Testament.
We are going to focus on using the Bible as a tool for personal spiritual formation, rather than on using the Bible as a tool for defending the faith, or trying to prove that the Bible is scientifically and historically reliable. (Using “My” Bible rather than Using “The” Bible.)
Why this particular focus? Because I believe that the Bible’s own job description says that God gave us the scriptures to help us move toward God, to make us more like Jesus, and to prepare us for living out God’s calling in our lives. (2 Timothy 3:14-17).
Let’s start with how the scriptures came to us. 2 Kings 22 records the discovery of a scroll in the Temple at Jerusalem during Temple renovations. We find almost no record of a written scripture before this time. In fact, we have almost no mention of the Law of Moses being kept after the time of Joshua. There is no mention of Passover in the books of Judges, Samuel, or Kings until this point.
Why is this important for studying the written scriptures? It tells me that the Bible didn’t come to us as “golden tablets” mysteriously appearing in their complete form, nor were the scriptures dictated with exact wordings. The scriptures were born out of the interaction between God and God’s people, out of the movement of God’s Holy Spirit among humanity. The Bible was given to us over centuries of time as a signpost pointing the way to God.
If the Bible came to us out of the activity of God’s Spirit among humanity, then that is also how it must be interpreted (2 Peter 1:19-21) . God’s Holy Spirit guides our interpretation of the scriptures to help us discern what God is saying to our world.
I am convinced that God is speaking to our world, and that the scriptures are an important part of that process.
I hope to expand upon these ideas in the next few blog posts. Questions and/or suggestions are always welcome.
