It’s been almost three months since I posted. The explanation is not that I gave up blogging for Lent (at least not intentionally), but I have been working on other things. Like learning a new language. (Okay, a *very* old language.) And inwardly grumbling about my work. (Not healthy.) And various other things. In time there will be new posts in a couple new directions. In the meantime I am busy repenting of my sins.
But God forgives us and saves us from even ourselves, as we see most powerfully in the death of the Son of God on a Roman cross, followed by his vindication on the third day because death could not hold him. Jesus died for our forgiveness and rose for our redemption. Because he dies, our sins our dead; because he lives, we live even if we physically die.
Christ is Risen! Happy Easter! Forever and ever, amen!
Sometimes it is useful to look back to a time before the heated debates of the present were kindled, and see how cooler heads then discussed those issues. One of the heated public arguments of our time is the place of gender and gender expression in our society, and the degree to which those are God-given, naturally determined, socially constructed, or individually chosen. This past week the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) published a “Nashville Statement” outlining what they regard as necessary Christian teaching on homosexuality and transgenderism. Reactions to the statement were covered in all the major and most of the minor media outlets. And this is only the latest flurry in a discussion which already goes back several years.
I recently read Margaret Widdemer’s 1915 novel Why Not?, written long before the current cultural uproar regarding transgender identity and gender expression. It includes, solely for entertainment value, a subplot surrounding a woman who wants to be a man, and how that turns out. In doing so, it raises possibilities that our modern gender pugilists do not consider, or even wish to foreclose. Let us examine those, looking for an alternative to a renewed culture war.
Now that I have written fivethousandwords about why I think the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a true and biblical description of the One God, someone might wish to ask me, “What difference does it make?” Sure, traditional Christian orthodoxy (held today by evangelical and conservative Protestants of all denominations, traditional Roman Catholics, and most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox) believes in the Trinity, while Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, liberals (both Protestant and Roman Catholic), and Muslims do not. But is that just an interesting and incidental detail, along the lines of different traditions of church decoration? Or is it relevant to how Christians live out their faith in practice? Does this Trinitarian theology matter?
I think it does matter, and it matters a lot. Now, I will readily grant up front that it does not seem to matter to many Christians, who live out their lives with scarcely a thought regarding Trinitarian vs. Unitarian doctrine. But I think it does matter, and ought to matter a great deal to Christian life and faith. (more…)
The problem with prolegomena is that they are out of place.
Prolegomena are the things that must be said at the very beginning, before anything else. They are the intellectual throat-clearing before meat of the matter, the logical foundations upon which later assertions will be based. Karl Barth defined prolegomena as the explanation of the path to knowledge (in his case, in the field of dogmatic theology, but it could be taken more generally). The prolegomena explain how the study of a subject ought to proceed, with what method, on what assumptions, in order to succeed at its intended task. But the problem, with due apologies to Rodgers and Hammerstein, is that we never do start at the very beginning. (more…)
Judgmentalism is unattractive in modern, liberal, western culture. After the accusation that all Christians are hypocritical, the notion that Christians are judgmental (and its frequent companion, closed-minded) is one of the reasons I have most frequently heard for why non-Christians have no interest in Christianity. Some of the cleverer non-Christians, and many of the more liberal Christians, have even learned to cite Jesus himself, who said, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1). So judging is always wrong, right?
The issue of Christians exercising judgment is not so simple. While the criticism that (most) Christians are too judgmental has merit, I think it is rather that Christians sin by judging in the wrong direction. Jesus also said, “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly” (John 7:24). Not only does Jesus command not to judge, he also commands Christians to exercise judgment correctly. Hateful judgmentalism makes obvious a lack of love, but what judgment’s “cultured despisers” often fail to realize is that refusal to condemn sin can itself be a failure to love fully. But what does it mean to judge “correctly”?(more…)
My last post suggested that part of the difficulty in adjudicating the debate whether or not Muslims and Christians worship the same God is that we mean so many different things when we say “worship.” But there is another problem: how do we know what someone worships? In grammatical terms, “worship” is a transitive verb; it takes a direct object. But how do we know what the actual direct object is of any particular act of worship? The first answer would seem to be that someone is worshiping whom or what they claim to be worshiping. And in cases of frank idolatry, that is undoubtedly sufficient. When an ancient Greek claimed to be worshiping Aphrodite, or a modern Vaishnava Hindu worships Vishnu, there is no reason to doubt them. The greater difficulty is determining the object of worship when people of different religions claim to be worshiping simply “God,” or even “the God.” This question takes us to the center of some tricky problems about meaning and language, especially the meaning of language describing non-physical realities. (more…)
My last post mentioned the dispute as to whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and suggested some reasons why the answer is not obvious. These in particular have to do with the range of meanings given to the verb “to worship,” and the difficulty of determining precisely the object of worship when that object is unseen. I think the result is that Christians who believe the same theology may nevertheless answer the question differently, depending on the contextual meanings of the words and the philosophical underpinnings. Therefore I suggest we should avoid being dogmatic on this question. I am not opposed to dogma on other questions, such as the “three-ness” (Trinity) of God or the deity of Christ, but it seems to me that whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God is not a question which admits of a single correct answer, nor is it a question whose answer is essential to the maintenance of Christian faith. (more…)
Earlier this month a collection of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis published a manifesto of sorts “toward a partnership between Jews and Christians,” as the document’s subtitle states, on the website of the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation. In doing so they were, they say, “accepting the hand offered to us by our Christian brothers and sisters.”
Now I’m all in favor increased mutual understanding, and indeed of partnership toward shared goals, such as peace. But I found the document disheartening, and in one place misleading. I thought I would discuss it here, and through it, how Christians might best serve their Jewish neighbors in Christ-like love. (more…)
Teleology is both the hope of Christians and the bane of historians. As a professional historian, I have publicly railed against teleology for the edification of my students. As a practicing Christian, I have publicly thanked God for his teleology and used it to comfort those who are hurting. That sure looks like a contradiction. It struck me as odd recently, as I was buried under a mountain of undergraduate papers and final exams to grade. I don’t think it’s a contradiction, but exploring why not has clarified for me what historians are trying to accomplish, and the basis on which Christians formulate their understandings. (more…)
In any contentious debate, it is useful to reconsider the views that are taken for granted in order to facilitate dialogue. This is especially important for views that are shared by both sides, which may by their falsity enforce a sterile debate. One key tenet in much of the “gay marriage” debates, held by “liberals” and “conservatives” alike, is that each person’s sexuality defines them as a person. Your “sexual orientation” is an essential trait, perhaps the most essential trait, to your human personhood. On reflection, this is preposterous, and both conservatives and liberals should jettison the notion. This will enable much more fruitful discussion on contentious issues.