Sunday, April 27, 2008
creative pieces
This is a link to a blog with some creative pieces that my friends and I put together: http://wordsonaline.wordpress.com/
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Church amidst Earthly Authorities
I just finished an essay called "A Vision of Reality: The Redemptive Task of the Church amidst Earthly Authorities." I set out to research and write about how a Christian should view the War in Iraq, and after I began my research I realized 1) There is so much theological grounding on the role of government that I need before I can have something helpful to say about the war, and 2) The political complexities in Iraq are way out of my league. So I decided to do some further research on the role of the government and its use of force in the Bible and write a paper about that. I think this was an important thing to realize - if Christians do not have their theological convictions in place before talking about politics, they can end up making either careless theological misjudgments or ignorant political statements. I've been quite guilty of both.
After looking at the role of government in the Biblical story, and reading books and articles by some of the major just war theorists and pacifists, it seems to me that Christian engagement in warfare detracts from the redemptive task of the Church, which is to witness in word and deed to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Governments are instituted by God as ministers and servants to preserve peace and administer wrath to everyone. As such, the purpose of government is to grant common grace to everyone in the same way that God allows all people to taste chocolate chip cookies and bask in the sun. The most fundamental response for the Christian is to submit to these authorities. Most just war theorists say in one way or another that since governments are ordained by God, Christians are permitted - and in some cases are morally obligated - to take up arms. But the Bible in no way indicates this next step. And in fact, when a Christian uses force - even in war - he or she fails to demonstrate the submissive nature of Christ. Force and submission cannot happen at the same time. The Church's number one purpose is to witness to the redemption that happened when Christ chose not to raise the sword and submitted to the cross. And this has a power far beyond armies, which the world doesn't understand. If we fail to do bear this witness in both word and deed, the hope of eternal peace will remain an illusion to the world.
This is nothing new - it is essentially what people like Yoder and Hauerwas say. But distinguishing between the common grace function of government and special redemptive task for the Church is a helpful way for me to understand how they fit together.
After looking at the role of government in the Biblical story, and reading books and articles by some of the major just war theorists and pacifists, it seems to me that Christian engagement in warfare detracts from the redemptive task of the Church, which is to witness in word and deed to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Governments are instituted by God as ministers and servants to preserve peace and administer wrath to everyone. As such, the purpose of government is to grant common grace to everyone in the same way that God allows all people to taste chocolate chip cookies and bask in the sun. The most fundamental response for the Christian is to submit to these authorities. Most just war theorists say in one way or another that since governments are ordained by God, Christians are permitted - and in some cases are morally obligated - to take up arms. But the Bible in no way indicates this next step. And in fact, when a Christian uses force - even in war - he or she fails to demonstrate the submissive nature of Christ. Force and submission cannot happen at the same time. The Church's number one purpose is to witness to the redemption that happened when Christ chose not to raise the sword and submitted to the cross. And this has a power far beyond armies, which the world doesn't understand. If we fail to do bear this witness in both word and deed, the hope of eternal peace will remain an illusion to the world.
This is nothing new - it is essentially what people like Yoder and Hauerwas say. But distinguishing between the common grace function of government and special redemptive task for the Church is a helpful way for me to understand how they fit together.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Hauerwas, Narrative, and Adventure
In one of my classes I've been writing a paper that has given me the opportunity to read a lot of Stanley Hauerwas, and I'm realizing that a lot of his insight has indirectly helped in many ways. I've read articles by Hauerwas before, but as I'm reading him more in depth now, I'm starting to gain the ability to better interpret a lot of what I've been learning over the past 1-2 years.
The main concept that I've been contemplating for the past few weeks is narrative theology, an idea to which Hauerwas has been one of the primary contributors. At first sight the idea of story in theology may seem trendy, but I'm realizing its foundation is stronger and more historical than modern ways of looking at scriptures like systematic theology (Hauerwas would say that systematic theology has its benefits, but I'll get to that in a little bit). I'll try to summarize Hauerwas' contentions as simply as possible, but since I've only scratched the surface, please forgive me if I am either confusing or do Hauerwas an injustice.
The first acknowledgment is that we live in a fragmented world where we are fed so many ideas in bits and pieces - some seem to have truth to them, and some do not. What modernity has done, according to Hauerwas, is condemn us to freedom. In a talk given by him he says that what modernity has done is tell us "You have no story, except the story which you chose when you had no story." In other words, modernity said that since freedom and authenticity is of primary importance, we must go alone on this personal search for truth. Postmodernity, a reaction to modernity, has said that none of us can be truly authentic. We are created by our surroundings, we all have an agenda, and there is no way to find the truth because it's all relative to our own experience. We must be wary of anything that sets itself up as an absolute truth. So now we live in a world where people are either trying to as objective and authentic as possible, and at the same time can't be sure of anything because they know their own human limitations.
When I became a Christian, I learned about Jesus from a very modern perspective, and that framework worked for me - and by "worked," I mean that I truly believed in Jesus the way it was explained. I didn't realize it had modern cultural attachments to it, but it was OK because nothing questioned it. But when I spent a semester in Cape Town as a junior in college, my modern framework was challenged both by ideas and experience. I learned about postmodernity in my classes and by talking to my friends, and I was in a place that was less Western than America, thus making modernity less of the norm. I was challenged by this question: Do I believe in Christianity simply because that is the background from which I come? Is my faith cultural? Christianity has only been in Cape Town for 400 years - if life is really about following Jesus, how come this area of the world has never heard about Jesus until 400 years ago?
These questions were very challenging, and they've been (at least partially) resolved in various ways, but what Hauerwas has done has really grounded me back in Jesus and the Church. This is how: As I said before, we've been condemned to freedom, but the "story" we choose in that freedom, according to postmodernity, is just relative to our experience. In this fragmented situation, Hauerwas says that we must see Christianity as the story of God's people, which trancends cultural and philosophical trends like modernity, postmodernity, and everything that came before and will come after. We see the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as true, and then become a part of the Church, which is the present manifestation of God's story. When we believe in Jesus, we become part of a community with a history, a significant present, and a future hope. It is this community, not our own autonomous search, that teaches us truth and trains us to be the people we want to be. This rejects modern notions of freedom, and it also provides much more hope than the nihilism of postmodernity.
Postmodern thinkers may object and say "Yes, but you're submitting to a totalizing metanarrative that has caused oppression and will continue to oppress." I (based on much of Hauerwas has said) have two responses: 1) The only other alternative is to try to find truth on your own by choosing a little bit from one place and a little bit from another, meanwhile questioning your own motives and never really being sure of anything for your whole life. And 2) The Christian metanarrative (which John Cunningham, my professor last semester, said is "normative, but non-totalizing") is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The life of Jesus was entirely guided by servanthood, humility, and love. His death was the ultimate expression of these things, and his resurrection was the assurance that these things are true. Jesus was a much better man than I am, and he is a much better man than I'll ever be. I would rather be a part of a community where I'm going to be trained to be like Jesus than try to discover truth in bits and pieces. Furthermore, Jesus, being God in the flesh, is the one who has shown me that God is real. I am part of the story of God's people, and as part of that community I have a history, a present significance, and a future hope grounded in Jesus.
One of the most exciting things about being a Christian is the adventure. I am learning to discover my place in the story, and it is exciting to discover and learn every day how to be like Jesus, and where God is leading the world around me. And I celebrate that Jesus has given me people with whom I can share this journey who love me, and whom I love.
Here's a verse where Paul tells of the adventure:
"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:10-14
The main concept that I've been contemplating for the past few weeks is narrative theology, an idea to which Hauerwas has been one of the primary contributors. At first sight the idea of story in theology may seem trendy, but I'm realizing its foundation is stronger and more historical than modern ways of looking at scriptures like systematic theology (Hauerwas would say that systematic theology has its benefits, but I'll get to that in a little bit). I'll try to summarize Hauerwas' contentions as simply as possible, but since I've only scratched the surface, please forgive me if I am either confusing or do Hauerwas an injustice.
The first acknowledgment is that we live in a fragmented world where we are fed so many ideas in bits and pieces - some seem to have truth to them, and some do not. What modernity has done, according to Hauerwas, is condemn us to freedom. In a talk given by him he says that what modernity has done is tell us "You have no story, except the story which you chose when you had no story." In other words, modernity said that since freedom and authenticity is of primary importance, we must go alone on this personal search for truth. Postmodernity, a reaction to modernity, has said that none of us can be truly authentic. We are created by our surroundings, we all have an agenda, and there is no way to find the truth because it's all relative to our own experience. We must be wary of anything that sets itself up as an absolute truth. So now we live in a world where people are either trying to as objective and authentic as possible, and at the same time can't be sure of anything because they know their own human limitations.
When I became a Christian, I learned about Jesus from a very modern perspective, and that framework worked for me - and by "worked," I mean that I truly believed in Jesus the way it was explained. I didn't realize it had modern cultural attachments to it, but it was OK because nothing questioned it. But when I spent a semester in Cape Town as a junior in college, my modern framework was challenged both by ideas and experience. I learned about postmodernity in my classes and by talking to my friends, and I was in a place that was less Western than America, thus making modernity less of the norm. I was challenged by this question: Do I believe in Christianity simply because that is the background from which I come? Is my faith cultural? Christianity has only been in Cape Town for 400 years - if life is really about following Jesus, how come this area of the world has never heard about Jesus until 400 years ago?
These questions were very challenging, and they've been (at least partially) resolved in various ways, but what Hauerwas has done has really grounded me back in Jesus and the Church. This is how: As I said before, we've been condemned to freedom, but the "story" we choose in that freedom, according to postmodernity, is just relative to our experience. In this fragmented situation, Hauerwas says that we must see Christianity as the story of God's people, which trancends cultural and philosophical trends like modernity, postmodernity, and everything that came before and will come after. We see the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as true, and then become a part of the Church, which is the present manifestation of God's story. When we believe in Jesus, we become part of a community with a history, a significant present, and a future hope. It is this community, not our own autonomous search, that teaches us truth and trains us to be the people we want to be. This rejects modern notions of freedom, and it also provides much more hope than the nihilism of postmodernity.
Postmodern thinkers may object and say "Yes, but you're submitting to a totalizing metanarrative that has caused oppression and will continue to oppress." I (based on much of Hauerwas has said) have two responses: 1) The only other alternative is to try to find truth on your own by choosing a little bit from one place and a little bit from another, meanwhile questioning your own motives and never really being sure of anything for your whole life. And 2) The Christian metanarrative (which John Cunningham, my professor last semester, said is "normative, but non-totalizing") is based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The life of Jesus was entirely guided by servanthood, humility, and love. His death was the ultimate expression of these things, and his resurrection was the assurance that these things are true. Jesus was a much better man than I am, and he is a much better man than I'll ever be. I would rather be a part of a community where I'm going to be trained to be like Jesus than try to discover truth in bits and pieces. Furthermore, Jesus, being God in the flesh, is the one who has shown me that God is real. I am part of the story of God's people, and as part of that community I have a history, a present significance, and a future hope grounded in Jesus.
One of the most exciting things about being a Christian is the adventure. I am learning to discover my place in the story, and it is exciting to discover and learn every day how to be like Jesus, and where God is leading the world around me. And I celebrate that Jesus has given me people with whom I can share this journey who love me, and whom I love.
Here's a verse where Paul tells of the adventure:
"I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:10-14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
