OK, so I have wondered periodically about the conflicts that can be seen in Paul's letters, namely how Paul thought, or at least implied, that the end times were at hand--so much so he though people shouldn't get married. I guess I have mostly ignored that there are discprencies between what Paul thought would happen, and what actually happened. I never questioned how Paul's views on Parousia would affect his theology, which I guess is a silly assumption to make.
Honestly, this class is seriously making me doubt the absolute certainty I had in Biblical scripture. I had always grown up with the belief that scripture is perfectly inspired by God, and thus cannot be wrong.
But what I am coming to discover as we learn about the Bible from a more historical perspective and with historical context is how vulnerable the Bible is to cultural influences. I don't think this necessarily means I doubt the Bible, but I do think I have learned how important it is to read the Bible with the understanding that the people who wrote it were just that--people. They are not perfect, they were wholly susceptible to cultural influences and were completely limited in their knowledge based on their own human experiences.
And while that is not to say that Paul was not awesome, but I was struck by what (Savannah I think?) kept saying in class about how Paul would be considered a wack in today's times for thinking the end is at hand, yet we consider him an expert and inspired by God.
I can't help but wonder at the discrepancy. And I can't help but wonder how much value we should place on someone's theories, especially when that person has been proven wrong about other things.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The church community
This is going to be a short blog probably, but, as I mentioned in my discussion board, I just loved Paul's emphasis on the importance of community. I am a very community-oriented type person. And I depend on my community for a lot. I have a few close friends who I depend on for advice, mentor-ship, love, strength and just enjoyment. I have a family community, and I depend on them for much of the same.
Recently, however, I have been struggling with my church community. Well, basically since I came to Baylor I have not found a church community where I just really fit in, a place I felt was home.
And some of this, I realize is on my shoulders, but when you go to church every week and can maybe name of 5 other people who go to your church--well that is just not a very good thing. Especially since I am a very social, quite outgoing individual. But I just never felt comfortable going up and forming relationships with people in authority, people I felt like could mentor me in my life. And I believe this is one of the purposes of our community, and I think Paul would say the church community is the most important one you can be a member of.
So...guess what! I joined a new church last week, and it was awesome :) :)
I am so excited. I believe they are really living out what Paul wants in a church community. First and foremost, they LOVE everyone who walks through the door. It is so incredible. I don't think I have felt that loved by a group of strangers ever.
Second, they encourage each other. They build each other up and they are in the Word all the time--they are serious about living for God and giving it all they have got.
I am excited to join this church and hopefully live out Paul's dream for what a church is supposed to be :)
Recently, however, I have been struggling with my church community. Well, basically since I came to Baylor I have not found a church community where I just really fit in, a place I felt was home.
And some of this, I realize is on my shoulders, but when you go to church every week and can maybe name of 5 other people who go to your church--well that is just not a very good thing. Especially since I am a very social, quite outgoing individual. But I just never felt comfortable going up and forming relationships with people in authority, people I felt like could mentor me in my life. And I believe this is one of the purposes of our community, and I think Paul would say the church community is the most important one you can be a member of.
So...guess what! I joined a new church last week, and it was awesome :) :)
I am so excited. I believe they are really living out what Paul wants in a church community. First and foremost, they LOVE everyone who walks through the door. It is so incredible. I don't think I have felt that loved by a group of strangers ever.
Second, they encourage each other. They build each other up and they are in the Word all the time--they are serious about living for God and giving it all they have got.
I am excited to join this church and hopefully live out Paul's dream for what a church is supposed to be :)
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Legalizing Christianity
I don't know why, but I feel like most of my posts stem from discussion in my World Cultures V class...but last week in class Tatum brought up the legalization of Christianity under Constantine. And while we, as Christians in a Western society, tend to view the legalization of Christianity as a miracle and this amazing feat that allowed Christianity to grow--Tatum said it could very well have been the death of Christianity as Christ meant it to be.
And I can definitely see that. When we were talking about God's "chosen people" and how the Israelites typically excluded other people, it made me think of how Christians also view themselves as a "chosen people." And throughout history there have been a ridiculous number of examples of Christians in power perverting the concept of a "chosen people" and using it to persecute others. When you think about the crusades, the Catholic Inquisition, the witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Manifest Destiny, American elitism--some of the most controversial and destructive time periods in world history can trace the problem back to Christian elitist philosophy.
And it never really occured to me before to link this trend with the legalization of Christianity, although I suppose it should have. Before Christianity was a legal religion, the disciples of Christ were typically humble people willing to literally sacrifice everything for Christ's cause of love and mercy. But that humble, loving, grace-filled spirit began to change around the year 313 A.D.--the year Christians stopped making sacrifices. The year being a "Christian" became easy, became "in style."
The year 313 sees those in power attempt to use and pervert Christianity to fit their purposes. The merging of Christian ethics into government policies open the door to government sanctioned discrimination. And not only that, but it began to fundamentally change Christian ethics.
Before 313, the majority of Christians were pacifists. They were martyrs, they died for the Christ's "turn the other cheek" philosophy. But nation-states can't turn the other cheek, they cannot be pacifists. So Augustine, and others, created the "just war" theory to try and reconcile a religion of peace with worldly violence.
This might be over-simplifying the matter, but I had never before considered the ramifications of making Christianity legal. And while I always used to admire Constantine for doing it, now I am not so sure.
And I can definitely see that. When we were talking about God's "chosen people" and how the Israelites typically excluded other people, it made me think of how Christians also view themselves as a "chosen people." And throughout history there have been a ridiculous number of examples of Christians in power perverting the concept of a "chosen people" and using it to persecute others. When you think about the crusades, the Catholic Inquisition, the witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, Manifest Destiny, American elitism--some of the most controversial and destructive time periods in world history can trace the problem back to Christian elitist philosophy.
And it never really occured to me before to link this trend with the legalization of Christianity, although I suppose it should have. Before Christianity was a legal religion, the disciples of Christ were typically humble people willing to literally sacrifice everything for Christ's cause of love and mercy. But that humble, loving, grace-filled spirit began to change around the year 313 A.D.--the year Christians stopped making sacrifices. The year being a "Christian" became easy, became "in style."
The year 313 sees those in power attempt to use and pervert Christianity to fit their purposes. The merging of Christian ethics into government policies open the door to government sanctioned discrimination. And not only that, but it began to fundamentally change Christian ethics.
Before 313, the majority of Christians were pacifists. They were martyrs, they died for the Christ's "turn the other cheek" philosophy. But nation-states can't turn the other cheek, they cannot be pacifists. So Augustine, and others, created the "just war" theory to try and reconcile a religion of peace with worldly violence.
This might be over-simplifying the matter, but I had never before considered the ramifications of making Christianity legal. And while I always used to admire Constantine for doing it, now I am not so sure.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Christ's message
For World Cultures V, I am in the Middle East section and we were talking today about the conflicts between the Middle East and the West and the so called “Clash of Cultures.”
We brought up the Koran burning and how the American government (Obama, Petraeus, etc), personally requested for Terry Jones to not burn the Korans as he planned. They knew that if Terry Jones burned Korans then the tenuous relationship between the Middle East and the West would be harmed even further. And so it was, as another man (not Terry Jones), did burn Korans and took a video of it and put it online. That video is currently circulating the Middle Eastern countries via the incredible World Wide Web, and the Iran government has even made a statement that the American government was behind the burnings, inflaming anti-American thought in its people.
In the West, we like to consider ourselves the intelligent, tolerant people of the world—and we tend to see the people in the Middle East as ignorant, immoral and/or evil people whom we need to save from themselves. At the same time, the people in the Middle East tend to see Americans (Westerners in general), as immoral, ignorant and/or evil…
While the elites and the educated class of each culture may understand that really these are just misunderstandings about different cultures and different ways of life—the vast majority of people on both sides don’t understand each other and don’t understand that they don’t understand each other—they just judge each other.
Tatum said he wrote an editorial in the Trib about this very issue, and how we as Christians have been called to love (not judge) everyone in the world—especially our enemies. And while this made sense to me, and most Christians I think would agree we have this responsibility and this is what Christ would do, Tatum said the vast majority of the comments on his editorial were negative. In fact, he said all of them disagreed with his major premise (That Christians should love their Muslim neighbors), but they did not present a very arguments about why the shouldn’t. People said things like “Well they Muslims don’t love us” or “Love is a two-way street.”
But I think we are missing Christ’s fundamental message, because that is not what he said. Christ told us to LOVE our ENEMIES. And we are fine with that as long as “our enemies” remains a faceless, nameless entity. As soon as you put a name, a face, or even a group of people as the enemy, the situation changes. The great American ethics are all of a sudden gone and is replaced by a common human emotion—anger and hate. Which leaves Christianity in quite the predicament, because no we aren’t a people set apart. We aren’t the chosen people. We aren’t the city set on a hill that can’t be hid, or the salt of the Earth.
We have become just like every other person on the face of the planet—as ignorant and evil as we claim everyone else is.
I hope we get the message someday. We’ve only had 2,000 years to get it right.
We brought up the Koran burning and how the American government (Obama, Petraeus, etc), personally requested for Terry Jones to not burn the Korans as he planned. They knew that if Terry Jones burned Korans then the tenuous relationship between the Middle East and the West would be harmed even further. And so it was, as another man (not Terry Jones), did burn Korans and took a video of it and put it online. That video is currently circulating the Middle Eastern countries via the incredible World Wide Web, and the Iran government has even made a statement that the American government was behind the burnings, inflaming anti-American thought in its people.
In the West, we like to consider ourselves the intelligent, tolerant people of the world—and we tend to see the people in the Middle East as ignorant, immoral and/or evil people whom we need to save from themselves. At the same time, the people in the Middle East tend to see Americans (Westerners in general), as immoral, ignorant and/or evil…
While the elites and the educated class of each culture may understand that really these are just misunderstandings about different cultures and different ways of life—the vast majority of people on both sides don’t understand each other and don’t understand that they don’t understand each other—they just judge each other.
Tatum said he wrote an editorial in the Trib about this very issue, and how we as Christians have been called to love (not judge) everyone in the world—especially our enemies. And while this made sense to me, and most Christians I think would agree we have this responsibility and this is what Christ would do, Tatum said the vast majority of the comments on his editorial were negative. In fact, he said all of them disagreed with his major premise (That Christians should love their Muslim neighbors), but they did not present a very arguments about why the shouldn’t. People said things like “Well they Muslims don’t love us” or “Love is a two-way street.”
But I think we are missing Christ’s fundamental message, because that is not what he said. Christ told us to LOVE our ENEMIES. And we are fine with that as long as “our enemies” remains a faceless, nameless entity. As soon as you put a name, a face, or even a group of people as the enemy, the situation changes. The great American ethics are all of a sudden gone and is replaced by a common human emotion—anger and hate. Which leaves Christianity in quite the predicament, because no we aren’t a people set apart. We aren’t the chosen people. We aren’t the city set on a hill that can’t be hid, or the salt of the Earth.
We have become just like every other person on the face of the planet—as ignorant and evil as we claim everyone else is.
I hope we get the message someday. We’ve only had 2,000 years to get it right.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Making time for God
Today in World Cultures V, Dr. Tatum gave an interesting lecture. Part of the lecture was about how Western civilization is so science/naturally based, whereas other cultures are very religious/spiritual based.
At one point, he asked how much time people spend preparing for the spiritual world and how much time we spend spending for the natural world. The vast majority of the class said 25% (or less) of their time is spent preparing themselves for the spiritual world, while 75%-100% of their time is spent preparing themselves for the natural world. And I was so shocked--not just by how little time my class spends preparing for the spiritual world, but by how little time I spend preparing for the spiritual world. I would say I am definitely in the 25% or less section (only 3 people said they spend 50% of their time in spiritual contemplation/preparation and no one was above that).
Tatum made the point that most other cultures/religions, especially Islam/Middle East, spend 75% or more of their time in spiritual preparation. Even their occupation with the natural world, such as getting a job or having a family, is ultimately done out of a subservient attitude toward the spiritual and a desire to fulfill God's will.
This made me think of Judaism especially. In the Old Testament, as I understand it, there really isn't a breakdown between the spiritual and secular worlds. The spiritual life of the Jew carried over into every other aspect of life: profession, family, social, etc. There wasn't really a breakdown.
And I think that is where our society messed up--in creating a division between secular life and spiritual life, because, I mean let's face it, who has time to dedicate 100% of their time to the natural world and 100% of their time to the spiritual world? Nobody, but that is what we should be doing, and I think it is easier to do if their is overlap.
I spend maybe 30 mins to an hour preparing for the spiritual world. Which comes out to about 2% of my day. A lousy 2%. That is scary. And I thought I was doing good reading my Bible and devo and saying a prayer when I wake up and a prayer at night--if we count the worship music I listen to and the prayers I say throughout the day we might get up to 4%. Maybe.
I spend at least 4% of my time getting ready in the morning--more if you count getting ready for bed. About 6% of my day is spent getting ready physically for the day--just putting make up on and taking it off, picking out earrings, and putting up my hair. A high estimate says 4% of my day is spent in spiritual reflection.
That is a sobering thought.
At one point, he asked how much time people spend preparing for the spiritual world and how much time we spend spending for the natural world. The vast majority of the class said 25% (or less) of their time is spent preparing themselves for the spiritual world, while 75%-100% of their time is spent preparing themselves for the natural world. And I was so shocked--not just by how little time my class spends preparing for the spiritual world, but by how little time I spend preparing for the spiritual world. I would say I am definitely in the 25% or less section (only 3 people said they spend 50% of their time in spiritual contemplation/preparation and no one was above that).
Tatum made the point that most other cultures/religions, especially Islam/Middle East, spend 75% or more of their time in spiritual preparation. Even their occupation with the natural world, such as getting a job or having a family, is ultimately done out of a subservient attitude toward the spiritual and a desire to fulfill God's will.
This made me think of Judaism especially. In the Old Testament, as I understand it, there really isn't a breakdown between the spiritual and secular worlds. The spiritual life of the Jew carried over into every other aspect of life: profession, family, social, etc. There wasn't really a breakdown.
And I think that is where our society messed up--in creating a division between secular life and spiritual life, because, I mean let's face it, who has time to dedicate 100% of their time to the natural world and 100% of their time to the spiritual world? Nobody, but that is what we should be doing, and I think it is easier to do if their is overlap.
I spend maybe 30 mins to an hour preparing for the spiritual world. Which comes out to about 2% of my day. A lousy 2%. That is scary. And I thought I was doing good reading my Bible and devo and saying a prayer when I wake up and a prayer at night--if we count the worship music I listen to and the prayers I say throughout the day we might get up to 4%. Maybe.
I spend at least 4% of my time getting ready in the morning--more if you count getting ready for bed. About 6% of my day is spent getting ready physically for the day--just putting make up on and taking it off, picking out earrings, and putting up my hair. A high estimate says 4% of my day is spent in spiritual reflection.
That is a sobering thought.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Reading Genesis
Coming from a Christian household, I never really read Genesis as anything other than a holy text--I never took into consideration that it was a historical text. Even if I logically knew it, I never read it that way.
I also never read the Bible as a work of literature written by humans that could be influenced by other cultures, traditions, what the people were facing at the time, etc. I have always seen it as a God-inspired, and therefore completely unbiased and perfect text.
However, the class lectures over the past few days have really opened my eyes to how the Bible, at least in part, should be read. I was really amazed by how much that affected my view of scritpure.
Genesis made way more sense to me and in so many different ways. For example, the idea of Jews trying to separate themselves from the surrounding cultures and make their religion different and completely unique--such as by giving God characteristics uncommon to any other culture in the vicinity.
While I can see how the surrounding ancient cultures and world events shaped the Bible, it makes me wonder how valid it is as holy scripture. If you are thinking about a text that can be influenced by people's life expereinces, a text that is subject to the bias of the culture, a text that can be redirected by cultural conflicts--does that mean it is still God-inspired and completely perfect? Is the Bible less God-driven than I had thought?
Or does it just mean that God directed the Bible through people's experiences, biases and situations.
Any suggestions?
I also never read the Bible as a work of literature written by humans that could be influenced by other cultures, traditions, what the people were facing at the time, etc. I have always seen it as a God-inspired, and therefore completely unbiased and perfect text.
However, the class lectures over the past few days have really opened my eyes to how the Bible, at least in part, should be read. I was really amazed by how much that affected my view of scritpure.
Genesis made way more sense to me and in so many different ways. For example, the idea of Jews trying to separate themselves from the surrounding cultures and make their religion different and completely unique--such as by giving God characteristics uncommon to any other culture in the vicinity.
While I can see how the surrounding ancient cultures and world events shaped the Bible, it makes me wonder how valid it is as holy scripture. If you are thinking about a text that can be influenced by people's life expereinces, a text that is subject to the bias of the culture, a text that can be redirected by cultural conflicts--does that mean it is still God-inspired and completely perfect? Is the Bible less God-driven than I had thought?
Or does it just mean that God directed the Bible through people's experiences, biases and situations.
Any suggestions?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Conflicting thoughts on Biblical truth
I have been struggling recently with the concept of Biblical truth. I grew up in a VERY protestant household and went to a very modern (non-denominational) church. My parents firmly believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, the Bible is literal truth and that it is infallible, and evolution cannot possibly be true.
I went the majority of my life believing the validity of these beliefs and others inherent in the Protestant religion. I first began to doubt them, however, in 9th grade. I joined my high school Lincoln-Douglas debate team, which is steeped in philosophy and is based on debating ethical issues. This forced me to research and even defend point of views I had never considered possible.
My journey of doubt only continued when I came to college. I left my little rural town in Oklahoma and faced people from different religions, cultures, and world views. BIC definitely perpetuated the doubt I was feeling, not necessarily in Protestantism, but in the adamant beliefs my parents held.
So I began to try and reconcile Protestant believes with "worldy" beliefs.
My freshman year I revisited many places in the Bible, explored scientific theories and talked to some mentors about issues like evolution, and, while I now believe I can reconcile believing in evolution and being a Christian, the most life-changing conclusion I came to was that NO ONE KNOWS. I don't know if evolution is true, and I probably never will. I don't know if stories like the creation story are meant to be a literal truth or a spiritual truth. I just don't know. That uncertainty is frustrating, but just when I thought I was starting to figure things out, I got confused again.
Most recently I have been trying to reconcile different Christian faiths. I have been struggling most especially with the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. At first, I was confused that so many people believed in a faith that didn't seem to line up with the Bible (for example, I never understood where the Biblical backing for purgatory came from). But then I researched some of the differences (such as a belief in purgatory and infant baptism) and I can see where some scriptures can be interpreted to support these beliefs. I think this confusion is what Hays means when he says, "appeals to Scripture are suspect for at least two reasons: the Bible itself contains diverse points of view, and diverse interpretive methods can yield diverse readings of any given text."
In conclusion to this blog post, I don't really have a conclusion. I feel like there are no definitive answers (otherwise two large groups made up of very very intelligent scholars/experts would have reached an understanding between Catholicism and Protestantism after the first few hundreds years). This is frustrating. I just want an ANSWER, like a true/false question. The statement is either true or false; the belief is either true or false. I don't want an essay question where I am supposed to fill in my own answers and opinions. Most importantly, I don't want to get the answer wrong. It would be the worst essay failure EVER.
I went the majority of my life believing the validity of these beliefs and others inherent in the Protestant religion. I first began to doubt them, however, in 9th grade. I joined my high school Lincoln-Douglas debate team, which is steeped in philosophy and is based on debating ethical issues. This forced me to research and even defend point of views I had never considered possible.
My journey of doubt only continued when I came to college. I left my little rural town in Oklahoma and faced people from different religions, cultures, and world views. BIC definitely perpetuated the doubt I was feeling, not necessarily in Protestantism, but in the adamant beliefs my parents held.
So I began to try and reconcile Protestant believes with "worldy" beliefs.
My freshman year I revisited many places in the Bible, explored scientific theories and talked to some mentors about issues like evolution, and, while I now believe I can reconcile believing in evolution and being a Christian, the most life-changing conclusion I came to was that NO ONE KNOWS. I don't know if evolution is true, and I probably never will. I don't know if stories like the creation story are meant to be a literal truth or a spiritual truth. I just don't know. That uncertainty is frustrating, but just when I thought I was starting to figure things out, I got confused again.
Most recently I have been trying to reconcile different Christian faiths. I have been struggling most especially with the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. At first, I was confused that so many people believed in a faith that didn't seem to line up with the Bible (for example, I never understood where the Biblical backing for purgatory came from). But then I researched some of the differences (such as a belief in purgatory and infant baptism) and I can see where some scriptures can be interpreted to support these beliefs. I think this confusion is what Hays means when he says, "appeals to Scripture are suspect for at least two reasons: the Bible itself contains diverse points of view, and diverse interpretive methods can yield diverse readings of any given text."
In conclusion to this blog post, I don't really have a conclusion. I feel like there are no definitive answers (otherwise two large groups made up of very very intelligent scholars/experts would have reached an understanding between Catholicism and Protestantism after the first few hundreds years). This is frustrating. I just want an ANSWER, like a true/false question. The statement is either true or false; the belief is either true or false. I don't want an essay question where I am supposed to fill in my own answers and opinions. Most importantly, I don't want to get the answer wrong. It would be the worst essay failure EVER.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)