Archive for the ‘ Mission ’ Category

G.K. Chesterton, David Bazan, and All of My Atheist Friends

“When Job asked you a question,
You responded, “Who are you to challenge your creator?”
Well if that one part is true
It makes you sound defensive
Like you had not thought it through
Like you didn’t have an answer
Like you bit off more than you could chew”

David Bazan, “In Stitches”

This powerful song (posted below) encapsulates the seemingly betrayed demeanor of the apostate. The question, “Where was God when….” has haunted humanity for thousands of years. Philosophers have worked God into either a clockmaker that has left the world ticking till the battery runs out while he stands idly by, or as the intimately personal God who has no real claim to the events that reshape the world, neither beneficial or tragic. In all honesty, it’s hard to blend both ideas.

The abysmal dichotomy between both theological and cosmological perspectives is confronted really just a few times throughout the scriptures. David writes songs about being abandoned by the divine, Solomon writes of the purposelessness of existence, Jesus cries out to the one he called father but is left hanging on a cross. But neither seemed to confront God so bluntly as Job.

 

Why then do you not pardon my transgression,
And take away my iniquity?
For now I will lie down in the dust,
And you will seek me diligently,
But I will no longer be.”

Job 7:21, NKJV

Job was the idealist. He was the barefaced evangelical passion, naive to the gritty questions of life. The blessed life he lived caused him a disservice; he did not truly know suffering on the inside. And once experienced, his perception of a loving God, a divine Friend even, was shattered. In reality, the prayers of Job riddled throughout the story sound a lot like a break up letter. God is angry, and I don’t know why. Job tries to hang on to a fleeting perspective of God as friend, when, as the story is narrated, God ruined and rebuilt the life of Job on a bet with an evil spirit. Job’s theology begins to turn from an intimate friendship with the divine to an irrational, insecure ruler of the cosmos that does what it wills without a second thought to the plight of humanity. In essence he’s defending God, although Job knows that he had done nothing wrong. His last rant lists off all the righteous things he’d done, and all the righteous acts he would continue to do as a last pleading for mercy to the divine.

As G.K Chesterton put it, Job may easily be categorized as a pessimist, but his desire to hold on to a quickly crumbling paradigm may rightfully place him as the ultimate optimist: “[Job] shakes the pillars of the world and strikes insanely at the heavens; he lashes the stars, but it is not to silence them; it is to make them speak.” And God comes onto the stage with not much to answer by. Rather, in true Socratic form, he answers with more questions, pointing to mysteries maybe deeper than why suffering exists, like who hung the stars in their place? God does not answer the question, rather he stirs more doubt. In essence God does not prove a thing, but rather “becomes for an instant an atheist.” He gives grounds to the questions.

This is the basis of the doubter. Of many people that ask the unanswerable questions. Sometimes there are no answers, otherwise I think the book of Job would have ended a little less frustratingly. And silence or more questions is not satisfying. You begin to doubt any altruistic motive, you begin to doubt the very existence of the divine, you begin to doubt the foundations of society, and then finally you begin to doubt yourself. And maybe that is the point God drowns humanity with questions; is to end up not believing yourself.

I’m going to get a little personal now. I don’t know, but this is the reason it’s frustrating to me when “friends” tell me not to hang out or indulge in conversation with “doubters.” Many of my Christian friends speak of the atheist or the agnostic like a plague, to be avoided because they may be “intelligent” but that “intelligence has gotten the best of them.” It’s demeaning and patronizes the very questions God himself continued to ask right back at Job. Rather, I say to my dear atheist and agnostic friends: “I don’t have an answer. I just have a hope. And I think that’s the point. I hope things are going to be made right one day. I hope that the life lived like Jesus, after all the death and destruction this body may suffer, will be resurrected again. The good news is that there is hope. And that hope is being made here on earth slowly, sometimes painfully slowly. I’m sorry for ignoring your questions, because I ask myself those same questions everyday. I think you are closer to the kingdom of God than many of my “Christian friends.” And I think my “Christian” friends really do ask these same questions. They play the atheist in the secret conversations in their heads, trying to dilute them with mystic notions of “blind faith…” I say let’s not hide the questions, but rather taking God’s example, let’s continue to ask.

 

 

Share

Sudan-Out Of Great Tragedy A Budding Hope For Peace

One of the greatest tragedies of the 21st century and the last decade erupted from the cradle of civilization. The release of Britain’s colonial grip on Sudan 55 years ago initiated a gruesome religious take-over of the country, incited by the Muslims of the north in attempts to cover both the north and the typically Christian south with Sharia law. This week though, after several breakthroughs and frustrations during the turn of the new century, the nearly autonomous south is getting what it’s waited half a century for; a vote for independence from the northern government based in the capital, Khartoum.

Sudan’s economy is built on oil. With rich oil fields in the south and massive ports leading into the Red Sea in the northeastern part of the country, Sudan has experienced some of the highest GDP growth rates since it started exporting crude oil in 1999, with little help (besides aid) from the west, mostly due to business sanctions imposed by the United States. GDP growth has found itself booming with rates between 4% and over 10% since 2005. With 95% of exports consisting of mineral fuels, oils, distillation products, etc., and nearly 50% of those exports going to China, it’s easy to see that effects of U.S. sanctions have been null, although it can’t be exaggerated enough that wealth in Sudan is concentrated in very small pockets of the populace.

Mixing this information leads to some complications. Southern Sudan holds many of the oil fields whereas northern Sudan has the ports and fuel lines. These are but some of the complications facing the soon-to-be split country, along with issues of dividing the debt, armed forces, and some tribes that roam between north and south that don’t want to single out a particular side as their own, as evidenced by recent clashes between these violent nomads. Dozens of rebel factions still roam the country with no particular allegiance to either side, and the north has ramped up imports of weapons, especially aircraft and aircraft parts (consisting of nearly 40% of imports).

And the often looked over Darfur region, isolated nearly 600 miles west of Khartoum, has seen recent spikes in violence. Although the first few days of the referendum in Darfur have been seemingly calm, overall reports from the past several months have seen a significant rise in violence in the region. Even Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, a man riddled with human rights violations, has called for peace in the Darfur region, ironically as the Khartoum delegates recently withdrew from peace talks.

But with such high stakes, some are hopeful that this move towards independence will proceed pragmatically and peacefully despite the many complications. It’s an incredible feat to feel jubilant, especially after an estimated 2 million casualties and over 4 million displaced, not including estimates for the conflict in Darfur. A continued prayer goes out that this process would be smooth, and that peace would finally be secured for these people and this country. Like a budding flower from ashes, so we hope this vote will be for Sudan.

Share

A Theological Norm for Taking Care of the Environment

“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” I have always found this passage intriguing, yet almost contradictory in its nature, until around two years ago. Growing up in Christian fundamentalism, I had an inadequate view of biblical eschatology; due to this view of eschatology, I never found a reason to take care of the environment. Everything that I was taught on biblical eschatology was interpreted through the framework of Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind dispensationalist views, which of course included some kind of nuclear missiles, huge machine guns, and the death of trillions (okay, maybe only billions) of people and animals. After this, God will one day blow up the entire cosmos, just as He spoke it into existence. I remember vividly leaving my youth group one Wednesday night when I was 15 years old, the youth pastor talked about trying to lead people to Christ, to make the world a better place, and so on, but it never made sense in my head. “Why if this world is getting dramatically worst day by day (as his theology taught) would I labor to bring a difference here and now, if it will ultimately do nothing”, I said to myself. So when Jesus said He feeds the birds of the air, I could never make sense to why He does. The only reason it could be, was of course, for me.

Things have changed; through much study and tedious laboring in the area of biblical theology as a narrative, I have adopted an eschatological view that makes sense with the whole of Scripture as a story. My theological indicative, now, is that God is not laying this world to waste; God loves this world, and one day, in the words of the prophet Habakkuk “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.”    From this verse and the context, an adequate description of what one day, the Lord will do to the earth, is where I have derived a lot of my eschatological views (also, of course, because of themes presented in Isaiah, Daniel, Matthew, Colossians, and Revelation); this, is a theology of restoration, hope, and renewal. How do the waters cover the sea? The waters are the sea. God, speaking through His oracle Habakkuk is saying that one day, He will be all in all, yet other than the all. God is saying that He is restoring the world not through a third party means, but by the radiance of His glory. Because of this ethic of the renewal of the heavens and the earth, I strive now by God’s Holy Spirit in preparation of the full manifestation of God’s kingdom. Due to this theological indicative, I think that we, as God’s image bearer’s, have a duty to take care of the environment and furthermore, I find this to be consistent and harmonious with a biblical view of what is called a narrative-covenantal eschatology.

Stassen and Gushee in their book, Kingdom Ethics, present statistics regarding the degradation of the environment, different ethical approaches to taking care of the environment, and lastly, their theological position.

To begin, Stassen and Gushee present the reality of the problem. We, though we are called to be God’s stewards in the world, are not doing a grand job at it. The degradation of the environment is so terrible that “every day the worldwide economy burns an amount of energy the planet required 10,000 days to create.” Furthermore, because of the backlash of the mechanical industry “several forms of childhood cancers have risen sharply in the last fifteen years in the United States: brain tumors are up more than 30 percent, leukemia is up 10 percent, and testicular cancer is up 60 percent. Cancer is now the second leading cause of childhood death.”  Our lack of stewardship, greed, and selfishness (which Jesus clearly condemns in Matthew 6) has caused a cancer in the planet, that we, as God’s image bearers, are responsible for.

The creation ethics presented by Stassen and Gushee were intriguing in, Kingdom Ethics. The authors present different normative ethical approaches to this matter. I will list these and briefly explain them.

The first creation ethic presented in their book is the anthropocentric approach. The anthropocentric approach places humans at the center of concern; this view is explicit and  thoroughgoing in its logic in stating that God created the universe for us, and we have dominion over it. The only passion and drive for maintaining creation is for us presently and furthermore,  future generations. This view states that only humans have intrinsic value and utilities such as land, air, and water, only have worth according to their utilitarian value in relation to serving human good.

The second view presented is the biocentric approach. The biocentric approach affirms that not only do creatures have intrinsic value, but also affirms they have equal value to humans. People who hold to this creation ethic normally hold to a Buddhistic, Daoistic, or Hindu worldview. This philosophy undermines biblical theism because it explicitly states that God is creation (which seems to be quite the vocabulary contradiction). This view proposes a philosophy that states God is not other-than us, rather, he is us. People with this ethic normally worship the creation, rather than the creator.

The third approach mentioned, is the theocentric approach. This view rejects both the anthropocentric and biocentric approaches. The theocentric approach puts an explicit emphasis on all of creation finding its worth and value by being within God’s community. Furthermore, it teaches that God is not just creator, but He is also sustainer, which shows that He thoroughly cares for creation. Interestingly, certain proponents of this view hold to a theological indicative which is contra revelation in Holy Writ, by stating that the earth will one day be destroyed; this conviction is derived by the second law of thermodynamics.

The fourth view presented is the process and feminist approach. This view, briefly, puts an emphasis on the transcendence of God (in the sense that He’s greater than and sovereign over the creation), but that God, is also dynamically involved in creation by developing and caring for it by moving it towards its future. It puts a thorough emphasis humans being mandated by God to care for creation.

The fifth and last view presented, is the view that Stassen and Gushee hold to, and I, furthermore, would agree with them in it. This view is entitled the covenantal perspective. This perspective, which is endorsed by scholars such as N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, and Jurgen Moltmann puts an emphasis on the covenant God made with all creation after the flood (the sign being the rainbow) and that Israel’s covenant with God includes duties (as the true humanity) to maintaining the non-human creation. It states that we are participants with God in the taking care of the environment and that we, being apart of God’s stewards within the world, are supposed to be a reflection of His nature in the world, which includes His care for the creation.

In conclusion, a video that I watched, New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, proposes a thought. He gives the example of a person moving into a far away country, this person does not learn the language when we he/she is already there, the person is supposed to learn it now, so that upon arrival this person is already at home. It is so with the kingdom of God. We are now living and preparing for the full manifestation of God’s kingdom. Therefore, let us, as the people who are living by the ethic of the living Triune God, radiate with His love for His creation, by the Spirit, through the Son, and to the glory of the Father.  So that in this action, people will see who He is through us, and lastly, so that we will be at home when the time comes that God’s oracle foresaw; the time when “the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea.”

What do you think? Is it important to take care of the environment? Join the discussion.

Grace and peace,

Daniel.


Bibliography
Stassen, Glen, and David Gushee. Kingdom ethics: following Jesus in contemporary context. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003. Print.

Daniel James Levy’s home blog is www.christmyredeemer.wordpress.com

Share