Three Down and One to Go!!!

For all three of you who actually check in on my blog every once in a while, you might have noticed a conspicious lack of posting over the last month or so. This is due to the fact that we now are smack-dab in the middle of what the ancients called "crunch time." I just turned my third paper out of four, all due within a span of three weeks...which, of course, accounts for the clever title of this post. While I'm afraid that I'm all out of useful insight, I would like to float a theory: the current, newfound prevalence of the cell phone has taken away our ability to distinguish between crazy people, and other people using a wireless, bluetooth headset. This reality struck me just yesterday as my wife and I sat in a local Einstein's Bagels, where I watched across the room as some guy sat by himself and apparently had a lively conversation with someone. As I could see only his profile, I had to assume that his "bluetooth" was in his opposite ear. It was only when he got up and started ranting to one of the store employees that I realized that he had no phone! So now, let it be known to all you crazy people out there: you're going to have to get more creative if you want to be noticed; your ranting to invisible people has been rendered inaffectual by the cell phone...

Why is it so hard?

Why? The question resounds. For what purpose has God made it so difficult for us to wrap our minds around Him? As far back as the collective memory of humanity goes, we have argued about what He is “like.” So, why doesn’t He just manifest Himself to each one of us and give us the final verdict? Wouldn’t that be easier? Wouldn’t it be cleaner? I have often wondered about such things…

Some would suggest that God arranged our world like this in order to allow for us to develop “faith.” The argument follows that if He simply showed Himself to us, there would be no need for faith, at least not of the Hebrews 11:1 variety (“Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”). While there may be some merit to this view, I wonder if it’s the primary reason…

I just can’t seem to get away from the notion that, perhaps, God chose to reveal Himself to us in such mysterious ways for another reason. I’m deeply convinced that universally embedded within the human condition, there is a deep longing to know our Creator…but we can’t see Him! However, when we look around, we find ourselves immersed in the midst of people that somehow bear His image! It seems, then, that one of the main ways in which God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind is through the encounter with his image-bearing creation: man. In some sense, we find it impossible to know God outside of this encounter. This is how God has set it up: He has forced us to seek Him in community! And while man constantly betrays that image, one man, Jesus Christ, was able to fully and accurately represent it. As a result, our search for God must be both centered around Jesus, following his example, and done in community.

Maybe God has given us this deep-seeded, yet unfulfilled longing, so that we would never be fully satisfied (at least not in this world), so that we would continue to seek after Him with all that we are; to obsess over knowing Him. A man who has eaten his fill does not often obsess over seeking more food. Sometimes it is only in the lacking that we earnestly seek to be satisfied. Maybe that’s why it seems so hard sometimes. Maybe it's by design, just as hunger is by design. Maybe God knows what He’s doing after all…

Ranting/Reflections on A Theology of Liberation, by Gustavo Gutiérrez

Those of us living in the context of North American wealth sometimes find it difficult to understand the perspectives of those living in other parts of the world. Because of our relative isolation from poverty, it is easier to pretend that the everyday realities we face are the same for everyone else in the world. The context in which we live our lives effects the questions we ask when we think about God and our role in the world He created. Perhaps this accounts for the uneasy cramps I feel in the pit of my stomach after reading A Theology of Liberation, by Gustavo Gutiérrez.

I think part of my difficulty lies in the fact that I both agree and disagree so strongly with Gutiérrez. For example, maybe it’s my capitalist upbringing, but whenever someone starts quoting Marx, and shaping his ideology (and theology!) based on Marxist ideals I want to scream! People are both selfish and corrupt and Marxism doesn’t adequately address either of those two problems…

Beyond that however, what exactly does Gutiérrez mean by social justice? He describes the situation in the Third World as being unjust due to the fact that “developed world” countries have caused the “developing world” countries to be in a position of dependence. This he sees as oppressive to these countries. I’m not a macro-economist, but I don’t really understand what Gutiérrez would suggest the Church do to remedy this situation. In a global economy, how do you give “equality” to everyone? Where does individual talent and ability fit in? Where does ingenuity fit in? Why shouldn’t someone be rewarded for his successes? And if this is taken away, what motivation remains for someone to take risk or to compete? Are these inherently bad things?

Gutiérrez advocates praxis before theological reflection, but in a world filled with fallen and sinful people, what is the motivation to do good to others?

Gutiérrez advocates for the Vatican II position of God’s “universal salvific will.” This places the question of someone’s eternal soul on the backburner in favor of his focus on their salvation in this world. The here and now.

On the other hand I agree so strongly with Gutiérrez that how we relate to our fellow man is directly linked to how we relate to God. Many of us have missed the boat in our desire to pursue a “vertical” relationship with God, by neglecting the horizontal relationships with those around us. God has surrounded us with people who bear His image, yet we often neglect community in favor of a private relationship with a God whom we’ve constructed in our minds. Jesus tells us “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it for me.” God has chosen to reveal himself to us through man. This is true of the incarnation of Christ, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. He does not often speak directly and audibly to us.

Similarly, I agree wholeheartedly with Gutiérrez in his recognition of the problem of poverty and oppression in the world. However, while he sees revolution as the solution, I am forced to disagree that this is the Christian solution to the problem. I don’t know what should be done to alleviate the poverty around the world…it seems, however, that all too often, at the root of an impoverished nation is an oppressive government. One thing is for certain: the Church in North America must take a greater interest in our brothers and sisters around the world. In our context of capitalism, profitability cannot be exalted above all else. For example, Dr. Gene Green recently discussed an instance in which a series of Hispanic Christian commentaries was cancelled in order to increase the production of Benny Hinn’s books, which were selling better in Latin America. How can this be! Examples like this make me want to cry out against the bastardization of the message of Jesus. Then again, why are these the books that are selling in Latin America? What is going on?

Lord, guide your Church! Show us what we must do to build your Kingdom…show us what we must do to bring justice to the world…show us how to live out the gospel in this world…break, shape, and mold our hearts…grant us wisdom…

What's in a name?

Recently, I was involved in a discussion about whether or not it would be appropriate for a Christian to refer to the God of Christianity as "Allah" when speaking to a Muslim. My initial reaction to this question was outright rejection. After all, I believe that the God revealed in Christianity is utterly distinct from the deity of Islam known as "Allah." Therefore, wouldn't a reference to God as "Allah" be a tacit endorsement of the relativistic point of view that sees all religions as basically worshipping the same God? It was then I came to the realization that I was referring to “God” instead of “Theos,” as I would if I were truly concerned with the actual word for “God” found in the New Testament. From there, things only got worse as I realized that the writers of the New Testament were actually using the Greek word “Theos” to refer to “Yahweh” or “Elohim” from the Hebrew Old Testament! As to the pertinent question: what did the Greek word used in the New Testament (and Septuagint) for “God” refer to before it was used with reference to “Yahweh” or “Elohim”? It referred to the “gods” of ancient Greek polytheism!

As such, it becomes clear that it wasn’t actually the word or phoneme that was uttered which was important in designating who it was they were talking about when the New Testament writers used the word “Theos.” More important was the understanding with which they “filled up” its meaning. While there were certainly similarities between the way in which the Greek speakers of the Roman Empire conceived of their “gods,” and the nature of Yahweh, they came to accept the word “Theos” based on the definition of who Yahweh revealed himself to be in the Scriptures.

Perhaps a discussion of the “True Allah” would, in fact, be an appropriate starting point for a discussion of God with a Muslim...Beyond this question, however, perhaps there is an even more important one: How do Christians “fill up” the meaning of “God” in our context, and what response does this evoke? For it was not without reason that Jesus warned, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 7:21).

The Danger of Blogging...My Disclaimer

As a neophyte blogger, before posting anything serious, I felt the need to post a disclaimer. My goal for this blog is simply to put my thought down (on paper?); to work through some of the things that I've been thinking about. None of the forthcoming posts should be assumed to hold the status of dogma in my mind...While I am confident about many of the views I hold, others change from one moment to the next. I don't plan on footnoting very often, although it must be assumed that I owe a debt of gratitude to many who have influenced my thinking. I'm not yet pretentious enough to suppose that anything I've posted will be read by anyone other than myself, which, of course, begs the question: why do I need a disclaimer? I'm not sure, but I think its probably due to the incredible vulnerability that comes with putting one's thoughts "out there". It's easy to say things when you know that nobody can prove what you said. Spoken words just sort of disappear into the air. Writing down your thoughts in a semi-public forum: that can be a dangerous endeavor...

"Lauren and I on our summer road trip out west"