We are now arriving at the real heart of my cognitive meanderings on this subject. My question is this: ‘what is the role of faith in the process of being ‘born-again?’ The conservative formula is something like this: “If you have faith in the Gospel, then you will be born-again.” In the next three weeks, I want to identify some passages which destabilize this interpretation of the New Testament, and perhaps lay a path for my own interpretation. I believe that a more coherent way to read New Testament texts yields a formula that is more like this: “If you are born-again, then it is likely that the Gospel will appeal to you.” I am aware that Romans and Acts have some passages which are considered “slam-dunk” passages (read: no interpretation required). But let’s hold off judgment for a couple of weeks so that we can approach this issue with an open mind. Here are three examples that I have in mind:
1) We get some straightforward theology from the mouth of Jesus from a much-quoted passage in John 10: “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me” (v.14). What is not so well-known is verse 16: “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” Here Jesus characterizes a group of people who are unaware of who he is, since they are not of the fold that is marked out by their knowledge of him. But despite the ignorance of the second flock, they join the original flock, so that the flock is one. Apparently then, they did not know God, but God knew them.
2) And speaking of sheep, who can forget the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46? Why were some sheep, destined for eternal glory, and why were some goats? Jesus says that the reason for the declaration that some were sheep was their willingness to provide for the physical needs of the have-nots (vs. 35, 42). So according to Matthew 25, it seems that some are born-again without even being aware of this fact! The sheep actually seem to be surprised that they are the objects of God’s mercy (v. 37).
3) We know that Jesus says “I am the way, truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” But we never stop hearing the conservative interpretation of the passage: only those who know and approve of the Gospel are “getting in.” (I heard this interpretation yesterday in church, in fact, with sarcasm that there could be any disagreement). However, what can be called “the Old Testament problem” poses a serious dilemma for this interpretation. We know that Abraham, for example, was justified by taking God at his word, but he certainly did not believe in Jesus, and thus not in the Gospel (the whole time-space continuum made sure of that). So Abraham was saved through Christ (we know this because he is part of “no man”), but he had no knowledge of this fact! All he knew was God’s voice. This same thinking applies to anyone that was saved before, say, A.D. 33. Conservatives seem to believe that God used to have this power to use Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of those who did not know, but now he has lost it.
In this vein, I will single out one of my favorite passages of Scripture, which is the extremely brief account of Zaccheus’ meeting with Jesus in Luke 19. Zaccheus, for some unknown reason, was intrigued by Jesus, and so Jesus invited himself over. This was all it took for Zaccheus to realize that his life of injustice was no good, and that it had to change fast: “if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold” (v. 8). What was Jesus’ response to this? Surely he laid out a theology lesson, or at least pulled out a four laws booklet? No need: “Today salvation has come to this house.” That day, Zaccheus was turned from a tax collector who inevitably defrauded the have-nots, into a lover (I John 4:7,8). What a salvation experience! Zaccheus was clearly born for the second time. He didn’t know about the Gospel, or about propitiation, or about redemption (time-space, remember?). But he was saved. I’m sure that once he learned some real theology in say, A.D. 34, he was much better off in his understanding of his own salvation. But that came after his real transformation.
6.30.2008
6.25.2008
A Theology of Love, Part IV
Last week I suggested that faith is not the product of some kind of rational choice. The larger point I am trying to make is that the causal relationship between faith and the presence of the Holy Spirit has been thought of wrongly. People often believe that one’s faith decision is the cause of the presence of the Holy Spirit: “if you believe the right things, then you will receive the Holy Spirit.” But this is the height of arrogance. This is no better than those who believe that if they pull themselves up by their bootstraps and do enough “good works,” then they have earned the right to God's favor.
Instead, in Galatians 5, Paul describes faith as one manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit. That is to say, having the Spirit is the cause of one having faith, rather than the other way around. This seems odd, but think about what else is on that list: self-control! Yes, that means that Paul believes that the ability to control yourself is not the product of your own efforts.
This shows us that faith and love are have the same origins: they are both part of the fruit of the Spirit. This, however, does not imply that they are equally as valuable. In I Corinthians 13, Paul makes an astonishing comparison. He directly compares love, hope and faith and says very simply that “the greatest of these is love.”
We are perhaps starting to see a pattern, and some Pauline support for John’s radical claim that only those who love are born of God. Perhaps John’s claim isn’t as unusual as it first appeared. I want to give more support to this claim over the next two weeks by pulling out passages which state that either 1) that faith is not necessary part of the “born-again” process, or 2) that faith is not sufficient to account for being “born-again.”
Instead, in Galatians 5, Paul describes faith as one manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit. That is to say, having the Spirit is the cause of one having faith, rather than the other way around. This seems odd, but think about what else is on that list: self-control! Yes, that means that Paul believes that the ability to control yourself is not the product of your own efforts.
This shows us that faith and love are have the same origins: they are both part of the fruit of the Spirit. This, however, does not imply that they are equally as valuable. In I Corinthians 13, Paul makes an astonishing comparison. He directly compares love, hope and faith and says very simply that “the greatest of these is love.”
We are perhaps starting to see a pattern, and some Pauline support for John’s radical claim that only those who love are born of God. Perhaps John’s claim isn’t as unusual as it first appeared. I want to give more support to this claim over the next two weeks by pulling out passages which state that either 1) that faith is not necessary part of the “born-again” process, or 2) that faith is not sufficient to account for being “born-again.”
6.15.2008
A Theology of Love, Part III
One initial worry that the conservative will have is that I John 4:7,8, which I have characterized as fundamental for understanding salvation, doesn’t mention “faith” or “belief” (although they are implied later on in the passage). We need to get clear on the relationship between faith and love. But before that, we should talk about one thing that faith is not.
The first important realization concerning faith is that we must admit that it is not the product of some kind of objective analysis that comes from our own thought process. This is a common misconception in the evangelical world, as evidenced by such apologetics book titles as The Case for Faith, or Evidence that Demands a Verdict. These books make it sound that all that is required to acquire Christian faith is an open, honest, and dispassionate examination of the evidence. But this is simply not how human reason works. Nietzsche, whom I consider backwards a lot of the time, does make an accurate analysis of reason. He says that objectivity is a myth. Instead, we acquire certain beliefs – be they religious, moral, or otherwise – and then use reason to make our beliefs seem appealing.
Those who believe that our beliefs are formed by our objective use of reason have the formula exactly backwards; it is rather that we brandish reason like a club in an effort to defend the beliefs that we already find ourselves with. If you have much contact with philosophy, you will see this point immediately. For example, if someone wants to prove the existence of God, or that people have a free will, etc., they will likely be able to do it! And if someone wants to disprove the existence of God, or that people are determined, etc., they can also always succeed! On issues such as these (we philosophers call them metaphysical issues) the person that wins the argument is the person who talks last.
This point is seconded all throughout the Scriptures, where we find constant examples of “God hardening” someone’s heart (Exodus 14:4), or Jesus speaking in parables with the intention of not being understood (because they wouldn’t understand anyway, he says; for another sort of example, see Luke 16:31). Why is the message of the cross foolishness to some, while it makes a lot of sense to others? Is it intelligence? No. There are geniuses on both sides of this debate, and we certainly know that both sides have their morons. The truth is that no one has any idea why some believe and some don’t. This is a difficult teaching – for my money, the most difficult for any Christian, but it doesn’t stop it from being right. The origins of religious faith are unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable.
The first important realization concerning faith is that we must admit that it is not the product of some kind of objective analysis that comes from our own thought process. This is a common misconception in the evangelical world, as evidenced by such apologetics book titles as The Case for Faith, or Evidence that Demands a Verdict. These books make it sound that all that is required to acquire Christian faith is an open, honest, and dispassionate examination of the evidence. But this is simply not how human reason works. Nietzsche, whom I consider backwards a lot of the time, does make an accurate analysis of reason. He says that objectivity is a myth. Instead, we acquire certain beliefs – be they religious, moral, or otherwise – and then use reason to make our beliefs seem appealing.
Those who believe that our beliefs are formed by our objective use of reason have the formula exactly backwards; it is rather that we brandish reason like a club in an effort to defend the beliefs that we already find ourselves with. If you have much contact with philosophy, you will see this point immediately. For example, if someone wants to prove the existence of God, or that people have a free will, etc., they will likely be able to do it! And if someone wants to disprove the existence of God, or that people are determined, etc., they can also always succeed! On issues such as these (we philosophers call them metaphysical issues) the person that wins the argument is the person who talks last.
This point is seconded all throughout the Scriptures, where we find constant examples of “God hardening” someone’s heart (Exodus 14:4), or Jesus speaking in parables with the intention of not being understood (because they wouldn’t understand anyway, he says; for another sort of example, see Luke 16:31). Why is the message of the cross foolishness to some, while it makes a lot of sense to others? Is it intelligence? No. There are geniuses on both sides of this debate, and we certainly know that both sides have their morons. The truth is that no one has any idea why some believe and some don’t. This is a difficult teaching – for my money, the most difficult for any Christian, but it doesn’t stop it from being right. The origins of religious faith are unexplained, and perhaps unexplainable.
6.10.2008
A Theology of Love, Part II
Last week I made the heretically orthodox claim that I John 4:7,8 was the key to understanding the whole New Testament. Before delving into a defense of my position, I’ll attempt to cut off a potential misunderstanding. Someone may think be tempted to think of this verse as meaningless, since everyone loves – even people who are often evil. So it is important to make some comments about the meaning of “love” itself. As one with a vague familiarity of Christianity might expect, John uses the Greek word “agape” in this passage. There are several common words that are used to grasp the meaning of agape-love, such as “unconditional” or “self-giving.” I don’t want to go so far as to say that these characterizations are misleading, but they are certainly not as helpful as they could be. What is more interesting is agape’s relationship to the other two main Greek words for love – “eros,” and “philia.”
Eros, of course, is where our word erotic comes from, which accurately indicates sexuality. Philia describes the kind of love in a friendship, or perhaps in some family relationships. These two loves are both based in desire. The lover desires the beloved in some way, because the lover lacks something that can be provided by the beloved. I get the feeling that we are expected to think of agape-love as essentially different from these first two forms of love, in that desire is not the central element in the agape-love relationship; the agape lover supposedly loves the beloved in a non-desiring way.
I don’t think that this is right. It seems to be that desire is the central feature in all kinds of love. The difference is merely in what is desired, and who benefits. The lover obviously benefits in some way in eros and philia love when the desire is fulfilled – be it sexually, or by acquiring a friend. And since the lover benefits (even if someone else does as well), these first two kinds of love are essentially selfish. Of course selfishness may be a bad thing, but it is certainly not bad all the time. We desire friends because we don’t want to be lonely, so in a sense we are using them for our own selfish purposes. We desire our mates erotically, as so we are using them to satisfy our selfish desires. But what’s wrong with that? Nothing at all!
But agape-love is rooted in a different sort of desiring. It is a desire, to be sure, but a desire to benefit someone else without concern about whether that kindness is ever reciprocated. This is quite different from friendship love. If I had a “friend” that never reciprocated my friendly actions, I would simply find a new friend.
John then is saying that “Everyone who agapes is born of God and knows God.” The truth is that eros-love and philia-love are natural, humanly ways to love. The presence of them in your life indicates nothing except perhaps that you are a normal, rational human being. But agape-love? That is divine, since it is unnatural.
And let’s not be confused – agape-love does exist, despite what the skeptics say. A skeptical argument runs like this: “But when you help someone, you feel better, and so you are benefited. Therefore even what the Christians call agape-love is selfish, in the end” (there actually was a pretty good Friends episode about this – Phoebe was unable to find any good works to do that did not make her feel good). To the skeptics, I point out that they are missing the point. What is interesting is not that someone feels good about being a Good Samaritan (for they do); what is interesting is that they desire to be a Good Samaritan in the first place! We are all satisfying our desires when we love. Its just that some have desires that are born of God. Those are the people that are born again.
Eros, of course, is where our word erotic comes from, which accurately indicates sexuality. Philia describes the kind of love in a friendship, or perhaps in some family relationships. These two loves are both based in desire. The lover desires the beloved in some way, because the lover lacks something that can be provided by the beloved. I get the feeling that we are expected to think of agape-love as essentially different from these first two forms of love, in that desire is not the central element in the agape-love relationship; the agape lover supposedly loves the beloved in a non-desiring way.
I don’t think that this is right. It seems to be that desire is the central feature in all kinds of love. The difference is merely in what is desired, and who benefits. The lover obviously benefits in some way in eros and philia love when the desire is fulfilled – be it sexually, or by acquiring a friend. And since the lover benefits (even if someone else does as well), these first two kinds of love are essentially selfish. Of course selfishness may be a bad thing, but it is certainly not bad all the time. We desire friends because we don’t want to be lonely, so in a sense we are using them for our own selfish purposes. We desire our mates erotically, as so we are using them to satisfy our selfish desires. But what’s wrong with that? Nothing at all!
But agape-love is rooted in a different sort of desiring. It is a desire, to be sure, but a desire to benefit someone else without concern about whether that kindness is ever reciprocated. This is quite different from friendship love. If I had a “friend” that never reciprocated my friendly actions, I would simply find a new friend.
John then is saying that “Everyone who agapes is born of God and knows God.” The truth is that eros-love and philia-love are natural, humanly ways to love. The presence of them in your life indicates nothing except perhaps that you are a normal, rational human being. But agape-love? That is divine, since it is unnatural.
And let’s not be confused – agape-love does exist, despite what the skeptics say. A skeptical argument runs like this: “But when you help someone, you feel better, and so you are benefited. Therefore even what the Christians call agape-love is selfish, in the end” (there actually was a pretty good Friends episode about this – Phoebe was unable to find any good works to do that did not make her feel good). To the skeptics, I point out that they are missing the point. What is interesting is not that someone feels good about being a Good Samaritan (for they do); what is interesting is that they desire to be a Good Samaritan in the first place! We are all satisfying our desires when we love. Its just that some have desires that are born of God. Those are the people that are born again.
6.02.2008
A Theology of Love, Part I
I was going to do one more blog about health care, but I was getting bored. Also, my mind keeps wondering off to I John 4, and so that what I want to talk about that for a while. Here are verses 7 & 8 in the English Standard Version:
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
The question I want to pursue for the next several weeks is simple: “Could this verse mean what it seems to mean?” Because it seems to say that whoever loves is a born-again Christian. This brings some very difficult questions to mind, such as “What about faith?” Since the rest of the New Testament places so much emphasis on faith, and since this passage seems to foist love in the place of faith, aren't we obligated to reinterpret this passage so that what it seems to mean on the surface is not what it actually means? Another obvious issue: “Doesn’t everyone love?” I mean, after all, we can all think of evil people who love their mothers. So doesn’t that make this verse irrelevant at best, and absurd at worst?
I’ll say two things by way of introduction. First, I do believe that it does indeed mean exactly what it seems to mean: those who love are born again, and those who don’t love are not born again. One way I will try to establish this conviction is by showing that this is not some renegade verse in the context of the New Testament. Rather, it helps us make sense of every other statement in the New Testament – perhaps for the first time! I love verse 8 because I can picture John sitting there after writing verse 7: “whoever loves has been born of God…” He twirls his quill pen for a minute, and then realizes that his future commentators might screw up his meaning, so he adds verse 8: “Anyone who does not love does not know God…” By expressing this same idea in the negative, he has covered all his logical bases.
Second, I will admit that it is not immediately obvious how this verse is reconcilable with the “football game verses.” For instance, John 3:16 seems to say that belief or faith is fundamental to the “born again” formula. I, however, believe that John 3:16, among many other passages, has not been interpreted correctly by those who refer to themselves as “born-again Christians.” So in the next few weeks, I want to show how I John 4 is the key to opening up the New Testament, and why the New Testament as a whole supports the message that only lovers are born again. So get ready for plenty of heresy the next few weeks!
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
The question I want to pursue for the next several weeks is simple: “Could this verse mean what it seems to mean?” Because it seems to say that whoever loves is a born-again Christian. This brings some very difficult questions to mind, such as “What about faith?” Since the rest of the New Testament places so much emphasis on faith, and since this passage seems to foist love in the place of faith, aren't we obligated to reinterpret this passage so that what it seems to mean on the surface is not what it actually means? Another obvious issue: “Doesn’t everyone love?” I mean, after all, we can all think of evil people who love their mothers. So doesn’t that make this verse irrelevant at best, and absurd at worst?
I’ll say two things by way of introduction. First, I do believe that it does indeed mean exactly what it seems to mean: those who love are born again, and those who don’t love are not born again. One way I will try to establish this conviction is by showing that this is not some renegade verse in the context of the New Testament. Rather, it helps us make sense of every other statement in the New Testament – perhaps for the first time! I love verse 8 because I can picture John sitting there after writing verse 7: “whoever loves has been born of God…” He twirls his quill pen for a minute, and then realizes that his future commentators might screw up his meaning, so he adds verse 8: “Anyone who does not love does not know God…” By expressing this same idea in the negative, he has covered all his logical bases.
Second, I will admit that it is not immediately obvious how this verse is reconcilable with the “football game verses.” For instance, John 3:16 seems to say that belief or faith is fundamental to the “born again” formula. I, however, believe that John 3:16, among many other passages, has not been interpreted correctly by those who refer to themselves as “born-again Christians.” So in the next few weeks, I want to show how I John 4 is the key to opening up the New Testament, and why the New Testament as a whole supports the message that only lovers are born again. So get ready for plenty of heresy the next few weeks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)