01.18.08

Conservative vs. Liberal

Posted in Evangelicalism™ at 10:36 pm by eliana

Yesterday afternoon/evening, we had a couple of the teens over to our apartment to encourage and watch me finish Final Fantasy X (which I did - woohoo!). I can’t remember how we got on the subject, but at one point one of the students asked what it meant to be conservative or liberal theologically. Calvin and I both thought and thought, tried a few definitions, but it seemed like everything we came up with sounded really lame…petty…just plain ridiculous. In trying to define the two “camps” to someone not familiar with the terminology, it occurred to me just how ignorant it sounded to try to label people like that. I was astounded at how petty it seemed. I was ashamed that I even had to try to describe it.

Sure, the terms are somewhat helpful when trying to describe general political views, but when applied to religion or theology, it’s just not that easy. It’s divisive. It’s the “us” vs. “them.” Who’s to say what’s “liberal” anyways? To many people, I might seem “liberal.” To others, I’m sure I seem quite conservative. What is the usefulness of these labels?

I’ve never liked the terms applied to a person theologically, but I’ve never quite seen it from that perspective before.

07.04.07

None/All of the Above

Posted in Church, Evangelicalism™, Ministry at 3:38 pm by eliana

I just finished reading a post by iMonk, and I agree with the basic premise. I, too, feel that churches entrenched in what I would call Evangelicalism™ have lost sight of what is important. They’ve been focused on drawing people in with external issues - music, appearances, programs - ultimately things that don’t matter to the faith. While many have been successful in “church growth,” in harping on these issues as important, we have taught our children that having their “needs” and “desires” met is important for them to be able to “worship” properly. We’ve also taught new Christians who have come in initially because of these things the same thing. Not a good foundation.

In the same way, I am sure that there are those who would call themselves “emerging” and change the way they do their weekly worship gatherings for pretty much the same reasons. In the name of cultural context, candles are lit, stained glass windows are put up, the lights are dimmed, prayer stations, all sorts of things, wonderful things that resonate with lots of people in the way they “prefer” to worship, but lets be honest - ultimately empty and meaningless without Jesus Christ at the center.

At the same time, there are churches who are so bent on being “Baptist,” or sending people to hell, or never moving the pulpit, or decrying the children if they run in the church building, or would give you a dirty look if you wore a pair of jeans to church, that the chances of reaching their community is slim to none, because the love flowing in that church could fill a thimble. There is fault all around.

So yes, I agree with iMonk’s basic premise. All around, there is a loss of the gospel in the name of “cultural context” or perhaps in the name of keeping the cultural context of the church, and this is tragic. However, I am concerned with the old adage, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you read down through some of the comments on iMonk’s post, there is one that he refers to in the update, Pastor Scott Dontanville, which I took note of. Reading further down, there is another commenter who brings up my thoughts, jeremy bouma.

While I don’t pretend to know what Pastor Scott’s situation was (it could very well have been situation #2 above), sometimes I feel as though it’s an either/or. Either you are culturally relevant, perhaps what some call “emerging,” or you’re solid biblically and have the gospel. What’s the deal?

Why can’t you have a church where people can wear jeans, have pink hair and tattoos, and still have the gospel? Why can’t you have a church with a coffee bar and still have the gospel? Why can’t you have a church with candles and still have the gospel? Why is it an either/or? Why do we limit ourselves to an A) or B)? What question has only A) or B)? There are at least C) none of the above, and D) all of the above. This isn’t true or false. This is the body of Christ, unique, and diverse enough to warrant more than A) and B).

I think I know what the answer is, perhaps, and I’ll venture to say. It’s because it’s more than the loss of the gospel in our churches. It’s because we’ve lost the Church itself. We’ve lost not only the message of Christ, we’ve lost what the Church is. We don’t even know how to do church anymore. We don’t even know why we’re here. That’s evident because even as we think we’ve lost the gospel, we think that somehow the gospel is related to going back to a more traditional way of worship. Unbelievable.

We’re here to love God, and love others. Jesus Christ and his message is at the center of all that we do. We’re CHRISTians. But why do we gather? Why do we even bother having churches? I don’t think we know.

The reason situations 1, 2, and 3 are so miserable is because it’s not about us, it’s about God, and other people. We’ve taught people it’s about us, and thus we expect it to be about us. That’s just American. That’s another problem altogether, and a side trail. But you know what? You can be “pomo.” You can sing hymns. You can do whatever you want. Do you love God? Are you loving people? That might lead you to externally do some stuff a certain way, as you try to missionally live in the world and reach people. But if that “stuff” ever leads us to stop talking about Jesus, then we might as well give up. If that “stuff” ever leads us to stop loving our Christian brothers and sisters for our preferences, we might as well give up.

But the “stuff” is not evil. The “stuff” is not what causes us to lose the gospel or become sanitized. Don’t criticize the “stuff” because genuine people have lost sight in its glitter. Hymns and suits and organs are “stuff” just as much as the candles and prayer stations, just a difference kind of stuff. Let’s not get petty - or perhaps prideful in the ability to “remain pure” in the cultural tide of modern “stuff.”

It’s simple: we’ve forgotten how to be the Church. We’ve forgotten what our own faith means. We have to rethink the Church in order to reclaim the message of Christ - or maybe we should start our rethinking with reclaiming the message - that his body on earth proclaims. Only then will we truly be effective in the world around us.

05.20.07

The Wounded Healer by Henri J. M. Nouwen

Posted in Books, Evangelicalism™, Ministry at 10:11 am by eliana

This little book is short, inexpensive, but worth the read. Originally published in 1972, Nouwen was obviously writing in a slightly removed culture and to a different generation, but there were plenty of what I would deem timeless truths to be gleaned from the 100 pages of my 1979 edition.

If I rewrote the book today, I would probably use some different terminology and catch-phrases, but his emphasis on true compassion, authentic community, and especially ministering to people from our own woundedness are just as applicable today as they were in the 70’s. Growing up I know my husband as a PK often heard repeated this idea that ministers somehow needed to hide their pain from their congregations to be able to minister to them. This theory is still perpetuated today in Evangelicalism™. Nouwen blows this idea out of the water, and in fact states just the opposite.

Though I think he was aiming his book toward the audience of “the minister,” the principles will resonate with anyone seeking to “minister” to people.

04.19.07

Confession

Posted in Church, Evangelicalism™, Personal at 8:05 pm by eliana

I have been hurt by the church. I have seen and felt more than I wished. My once naive, trusting spirit is forevermore tainted. I am jaded. I am cynical.

But there is a line between cynicism and bitterness. There is a line between realism and almost an arrogance in one’s jadedness. At times I wonder if I am dangerously close to that line. Sometimes I wonder if I cross it. If I am wondering, it is time to take a step back and confess.

My heart must never grow hard and cold. I must never throw up cynicism and criticism as a wall for my own pain. That speaks of bitterness, which is my own heart problem, and no one else’s. I have been out of the fellowship of the body for far too long. I have begun to see myself as no longer a part of them, no longer one of them, and thus given myself the right to judge them, and in doing so have brought judgment upon myself.

I had dealt with my hurt long ago - only to find it manifest itself in this new way recently. I think this is a projection of my growing desperation for that missing community with the body of Christ in my life. Classic “lash out to cover your need” syndrome.

I will always be a little cynical, because of the wounds I’ve been dealt by the church thus far, and because of the vast distance I feel from Evangelicalism™. But instead of allowing myself to become calloused and harsh, I should allow my wounds to let me bleed for others, that I might not become that which I so despise. This is my confession.

04.09.07

Reminiscing

Posted in Church, Evangelicalism™ at 7:56 pm by eliana

This year was the first year in my entire life that I actually seriously considered doing Lent. Then it sort of snuck up on me in the midst of other things and I missed it. Since we don’t go to a church that advocates it (in fact, since we’re not really connected to “our” church at all) it’s hard to feel motivated to celebrate much of anything Christian in the way of holidays. It only accentuates that which I know to be true so deeply: without the body of Christ, my faith (and by my faith, I mean my religion) is only halfway complete. My starvation began a while ago just for true connection with other believers, fellowship, per say, and has grown into more. The coming and going of the Easter season has forced me into a contemplative mood of wishing I had a church to celebrate with. Even more - wishing I had a church that treated it as more than a one day event in the life of a Christian. Let me start at the beginning.

When I think of Easter and my childhood it conjures up memories of Easter baskets with chocolate bunnies, coloring hardboiled eggs, going out to buy a new Easter dress for Easter Sunday with my mother, singing Easter hymns, visiting grandma and company with ham and sweet potatoes, and getting palm branches the Sunday before. I’m sure that many can relate. Though I grew up in a Christian home, never in all my existence did anyone ever suggest to me that I might want to participate in Lent. That was that “Catholic” thing. Never did anyone ever suggest to me that the time leading up to Easter could be used as a prolonged period of worship in the church body and a time to meditate and grow closer to God myself in a different way. Never did anyone ever suggest to me that Easter might be about Christians worshiping Jesus, not evangelism.

We were alone this Easter, for the first time in our lives. We have always been with family, but this year it just didn’t work out. So we went to church. Like we’re supposed to. Like we do (most) every Sunday. I didn’t buy an Easter dress. I didn’t color Easter eggs. No chocolate. We had tacos for lunch, and ordered pizza for dinner.

My church was packed. My church is normally big, but yesterday my church had overflow seating set up, where the service was broadcast. A nice old lady greeted me with an extra big kindly smile at the door and instructed me to take a plastic cross with “He is Risen 2007!” scrawled in silver writing on it. A nice old man shook my hand ferociously with a big extra happy smile, boomed, “Happy Easter!” Understand, “my” church is far too big for anyone to know if I’m a visitor or regular attender or not. Another nice, younger lady greeted me at the sanctuary door and handed me a bulliten. Same routine. I’ve never had anyone be quite this vivaciously cheerful towards me at “my” church before.

We found our seats, and loud, contemporary, rocky music was playing. When the time ticked down, the worship leader, extra perky I felt, bounded onto stage and welcomed all of us there. We then opened with a french horn and trumpet Eastern hymn medley. We then sang some Easter hymns. I looked around. Normally we don’t sing hymns. That’s okay. I don’t mind hymns. I noticed lots more grey hairs than normal. In nice pretty Easter dresses. Then suddenly, as if we were now done placating those grey hairs who showed up just for today, we decided to say, “Now, this is what we really are!” And the music started rocking. The music was particularly loud yesterday. Contemporary “Jesus lives” praise songs bounced off the walls. I eyed the young couple standing next to me. They didn’t seem impressed. I eyed the grey haired couple in front of us. They definitely didn’t seem impressed. Hmm. They brought out a choir to sing to one of the songs, and they stayed throughout. I got all excited for a second! I thought they were gonna start dancing! At least something exciting would happen. But then I was deflated. Got a little bounce going, but just couldn’t quite get the shoulder action……Then the message. Not much to say there.

Last week was Palm Sunday. I gotta give them credit. They really tried. They did two monologue dramas, one of which was part of communion. They changed things around. Did the sermon in two parts. Stuff like that. I even felt that they were really trying to lead people in an attitude of worship. Trying to get them to contemplate Christ’s sacrifice in new way. I was even moved. This week was Easter Sunday. It was obvious what they did this week. The crowds are coming, let’s show them how cool they are. It smacked of insincerity and ingenuiness. Call me cynical, but after that service, my memories of Easter Sunday came flooding back to me in a whole new way.

Easter Sunday. The day when the heathen come flooding into church for their one day a year church spot. Unless they hit Christmas too. We’ve got them eating out of the palm of our hands, they’ve come to us, let’s get them NOW! And it turns into an evangelistic outreach, instead of a day for Christians to worship Jesus Christ, our Savior, the culmination of a great reflective, yet celebratory period of time in the Christian faith. That’s ’cause for a lot of denominations, it’s not a culmination of anything, just like I remember growing up. Heaven forbid that we evangelize by living our lives out around those same people throughout the rest of the year. Let’s just wait till they come Easter Sunday. Heaven forbid that if they should come Easter Sunday, they should see the church being the church, worshiping in spirit and in truth, instead of putting on a fake show for them so they see how “cool” we are. Even if we don’t give an altar call, if they came to our church this Sunday, they’ll be sure to know that we’re not the boring old stodgy churches down the street, no we rock Christianity! (And we can throw some hymns in for you old people too…)

I may be judging “my” church too harshly. I don’t want to judge the hearts of the people who put together the Easter Sunday worship service. I don’t want to suggest that they tried to be insincere, or that everyone even perceived it that way. Part of it is my own cynicism and my generational longings coming out for something different. But I do know that I’ve never actually been to a church that didn’t try to somehow turn Easter Sunday into an evangelistic thing (even if there was no “altar call” per say) because they knew a ton of people would be coming. I don’t know if that’s what “my” church was trying to do, because I’m no where near the leadership team, but that’s what it felt like compared to their normal services, especially compared to what they did last week.

Don’t change what you do because people might be watching. Do we want people to watch? Of course. But we want them to watch and like what they see. If you’re changing, are you afraid they won’t? Is not the message of the cross more powerful than a few loud songs? What message does that send?

04.15.06

30 Days…as a Christian?

Posted in Church, Evangelicalism™ at 9:45 pm by eliana

Calvin and I just watched (courtesy of a link on this blog) an episode of some show called “30 Days” (never heard of it before today). In this particular episode, they had a typical, white middle-class male, of the Christian persuasion, spend 30 days with a family of Muslims in a predominantly Muslim community. He followed them to the mosque, discussed stuff with them, had a Muslim teacher to help learn about Islam, etc. etc. Well anyways, aside from being an interesting and thought-provoking watch, I came away thinking several things.

The first thought that came to my mind, of course, was that why is it that every major world religion expects its followers to learn the language of its Scriptures and/or heritage except Christianity? Okay, maybe not every major religion, I really don’t know that, but I know at least orthodox Jews and Muslims do. Yet for Christians, not only is it not expected, it’s considered almost strange. Most people I’ve talked to seem to think that they don’t even have the capability to learn Hebrew and Greek, and they think it’s odd that I want to learn. Yet millions of people of other faiths around the world learn and incorporate heavily their “holy languages,” so to speak, into their everyday faith and corporate worship. I’m not saying we need to make it a requirement or something, but why is it so uncommon? Why is it viewed as so odd? Why can only the scholars, intellectuals, and a few pastors learn?

But while that was an interesting thought, and one I’d like answers to, even more important were a few other thoughts I had. The second thought that went through my mind upon conclusion of the show was, “If someone else was to spend 30 days with a Christian family and community, what would it look like?” That thought struck me, and I’m sitting here trying really hard to come up with something, and all I can think of is, “We go sing some songs on Sunday and listen to a guy yak, and then maybe do something else on Wednesday?” I am simply stunned at how much Christians look and act and live exactly like everyone else. That’s not necessarily a negative or positive thing in and of itself, because part of the reason it was so different for this guy to live with Muslims was because of the different rules and restrictions they place themselves under (the food codes, prayer 5 times a day, etc.). However, this then led me to my third thought, which was certainly more negative in nature.

Thought 3: I watched this show and I observed this Muslim community in action, their dedication and self-discipline, and I thought, “And we can’t read our Bible’s every day?” Though we don’t have regulations such as Muslims or Jews, that doesn’t mean that we should neglect spiritual disciplines. Instead, because of our “Christian freedom”, we are just lazy (and sometimes, myself included). Granted, it’s hard to tell what something is really like from watching a TV show, so I have to take what I saw with a grain of salt. But at the same time, it still begs the question of why Christians can hardly find the time to read, let alone study, their Bibles. Why we find it hard to pray daily. To become involved in church ministry. Why things like studying the languages are so foreign to us. It’s like, for most Christians, the whole of the Christian experience is wrapped up in attending church on Sunday. I mean, come on! Sometimes I wonder if we make it too easy. Not saying we should impose strict food diets on people or say they should pray in a certain direction, but at the same time, it’s almost as if by showing people the free gift of salvation, we’re also saying, “and you never have to worry about your faith again!” At least, if you look at the Church in America, that’s what we seem to be saying to people, because that’s what it sure looks like.

Somehow, we’ve got to become more devout. We need to take our faith seriously. This isn’t just some game, some free pass to heaven. I mean, by choosing a faith, you are choosing a god! That’s a serious thing! And yet we don’t seem to treat it that way.

Once again, I am just humiliated, and frustrated, at what Christianity has become in the West.

10.02.05

Church Shopping

Posted in Church, Evangelicalism™ at 11:08 am by eliana

Last week Calvin and I visited our first new church. It was okay, but not for us. The people who were “supposed” to be nice (ie. the official greeter, the man behind the information counter, and the pastor) were nice enough. The greeter gave us a tour of the building. He was friendly. But, that’s his job. I’m not really impressed by friendly greeters. No one else talked or smiled at us. Of course, in larger churches (>200 people) I’m less critical, because I realize that there are just too many people to know everyone and who’s new and who’s not (although Calvin and I, afterwards, were discussing potential ways of getting around that for the sake of visitors feeling welcome). But, if how many people they had in the service we went to (they have two) is normal, anyone who’s been there for any length of time should have known we were visitors.

At any rate, I’m not really trying to be too critical of the church; I understand that’s how most “contemporary,” modern churches are. I think it’s just the culture of the people that kind of church attracts. But, I’ve done more than my share of church shopping (due to the military life, much more than Calvin has), and there’s just something nice about some of those smaller “country” churches that are sooooo incredibly friendly. The problem with those is, is that while they may be friendly on the outside, that’s only as long as you conform to their community standards, which normally are outward standards. I’m not sure what would happen if I walked into one of those churches looking like a Goth. It would probably depend on the church, of course. I’ve seen God do a great work in my home church, which used to be one of those stuck-in-the-mud, traditional, but friendly churches. They are very welcoming of all types now.

Anyways, back to the church we visited last week. Friendliness aside, I know both Calvin and I thought our heads were going to explode sitting through that sermon. It’s not that it was bad persay…it was just…*sigh* so typically Christian. Prooftexting. Taking verses out of context. Using Greek words to prove something that I, who don’t even know Greek, am extremely skeptical that he knew what he was talking about in that regards. We’ve just been too spoiled by being able to listen to the Word properly exegeted yet practically applied every week. It’s going to be find hard to find that again.

Yet, at the same time, both Calvin and I left feeling rather empty. Neither of us really feel that the Sunday morning service paradigm is really accomplishing anything worthwhile. We’re not sure what the point is. Even at our former church, we weren’t sure what the point was. Fellowship? You’ve got to be kidding. Singing? So have a sing-fest sometime. Discipleship? Well, sure…but I learn, as do most people, alot more sitting in a small group having discussion with other people who care. So, I ask again…why do Sunday mornings? Why is that “church”? Why are you a bad Christian if you don’t go to Sunday morning services? Why not just go to small groups? Is that forsaking the fellowship? Can’t we find another way to fellowship besides this…Sunday…thing? Unfortunately, in America, that *is* how you do church. There isn’t anything else. Unless you get into the emergent church movement. But there aren’t any of those around here, and I’m not sure I really want to do that anyways.

So, I don’t think we’ll be going back there. I’m not sure where we’re going to go. We’re not going to find what we’re looking for. Not around here anyways. We’d have to move out west somewhere, where they’re a little more open. But, we’re not moving. So, we’re kinda stuck. So we’ll have to find some church and do our Christian duty and suffer through Sunday morning services. We were going to give every church we visited 3 weeks. But what if you just don’t *like* the church? And I didn’t. And I’m not sure I’ll find one I do. It’s rather depressing.

So, Calvin decided that we weren’t going to church this morning. I think he’s concerned about me. He says that I need a week off to heal. You see - I can’t even go to church anymore without wondering if any of these people are being real. None of what happened was directed at me personally, but indirectly, it hurt me very badly. I can’t trust anyone. Maybe they’re real, maybe there not. Let’s just face it; I don’t like church. I don’t really like THE Church either. If I weren’t a Christian, I’d never have anything to do with Christians again. But, I am a Christian, and I know from the inside that it’s not about what Christians do, but what God has done for me, and so in faithfulness to God, I’m rather stuck with the Church, and Christians alike. It’s rather infuriating, but I can’t do much about it.

I’m not really sure that taking a week off will do anything. I think the only thing that can heal me (aside from God), though I doubt I’ll ever really be the same again, is finding a group of real, authentic Christians who can show me that they’re not *all* evil hypocrites. I pray that God will bring that into my life. Meanwhile, I really don’t like church, and I don’t like Christians, but I’m trying to be open to people. Maybe taking a week off will help some, but I’ve got to give people a chance. And I can’t do that sitting at home. *sigh* So, after today, next week, it’s back to church shopping. We have two more possibilities to try. Well three. But that’s another story. Anyways…over and out.

09.18.05

A Place in this Church (Capital C)

Posted in Church, Evangelicalism™ at 3:03 pm by eliana

Today was our last Sunday. Calvin gave a particularly good Sunday School lesson this morning, and the students were exceptionally attentive and engaged. We sang some songs, and then the Pastor preached a good message, as he almost always does. And then…we left. Without even one goodbye. The only family that appears to care that we are leaving didn’t say goodbye, but that is because we have already mutually agreed to continue getting together, and so it’s really not goodbye for us. But…no one else. Not a single student. Not a single adult. So we just…left.

Calvin pointed out to me that he noticed I didn’t give the church the finger as I walked out, as you may remember I once posted I wanted to do. (Although as I mentioned to him, that was in the context of the Church, capital C, not our church specifically.) I thought about that some more, and honestly, I really didn’t feel like it. I didn’t feel anger or bitterness toward the church or anyone in it as we walked out. Just grief. The same, deeply embedded grief for the Church and its state that I have always felt, and which has now touched my life in a very real and personal way. I could only feel sorrow that this was how it turned out. And broken-hearted for the students who were the indirect victims of this situation, who must now ride out yet another wave of changes they didn’t ask for. And I felt sadness - sad that no one cared enough even to say goodbye.

I never thought things like this were supposed to happen to normal people. You know, lay-leaders. Volunteers. And certainly not to us. And though we weren’t “pushed out” of the church, those who believe we (or specifically, Calvin) would have been better suited to other ministries delude themselves; eventually, they would have realized they didn’t want us in those either. They would have never found a place for us they could be satisfied with, because of a basic philosophical belief that no one seemed to want to dialogue about. A philosophical stance that suits Calvin and I and our giftings, and one that doesn’t make us the typical Youth Pastor and wife. Nor the typical anything in a church. And most churches…well…they don’t want atypical. They want the stereotype. They want you to fit into a mold. We would never have fit into a mold that they set forth. And that’s okay. I’m sure they’ll find someone who will.

But meanwhile, we will search for the place that can accept us for who we are and what we’re passionate about. I’m not sure if a place like that exists. Through this, I think Calvin and I have become even more “radical” in our philosophy than we were when we came here. This situation has produced some good: we know even more than before where our place is, what our giftings are, and where our passion lies. We know what we are strong in and what we are weak in. It has certainly been a learning experience (though not quite what I had in mind when we said that’s what this would be!). I know that I, for one, will never again play the Christian game for the sake of the approval of man. There is wisdom, and there is deception. There is shrewdness, and there is insincerity. I am more than willing to be gracious and understanding of those who have not reached the point I am at in my faith and understanding of the Bible, and I will not be a stumbling block to those people, but at the same time, I will not be fake to do so. I am me, and no one else.

If we can find a group of people who can accept that, we will be golden. Once again, I’m not sure a place exists in this area, and that is my fear. But we will try. And what happens if there is none…? I don’t know. Calvin and I, with God, will cross that bridge if we come to it. I am, and fear always will be, a loner in American Christian culture, which is merely a sanitized copycat of secular culture. I am after something deeper than most people want to go. I am not after perfection, I am after genuineness. The star is always just out of reach…like grasping for the wind, in the words of Qohelet.

I pray that it will not always be so.

09.18.04

The Tidy Package of Christianity

Posted in Evangelicalism™, Theology and the Bible at 1:25 am by eliana

Systematic Theology is quicksand that the church has unknowingly fallen into, and it is slowing sucking it down, down, until one day it will suffocate and die. Too drastic of a statement, you say? Here’s my logic:

Let’s start with Romans 2:6-10.

“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.”

Okay, so we’re going over this passage in Romans class, and I’m reading it, and I’m thinking, “Wow, that sounds like going to heaven or hell based on what you do, rather than on faith, that’s a bit of a contradiction.” So I’m curious, at the beginning, to know what Dr. Parker thinks of this. I mean, how do we handle it? So we’re going along and he, without even batting an eye or saying that this passage is difficult or needs some thought, he right up and says that Paul means for the the former group (good) to be saved people, and the latter group (evil) to be unsaved. Well I’m reading this passage, and I don’t see that in the text. I mean, I really don’t. Read it! Do you see “saved”, “unsaved”, or even “believers” or “unbelievers” in there anywhere? No. It seems pretty straightforward: good=eternal life, evil=wrath. So Calvin and I decide to ask about this. I mean, there are some problems with his interpretation right off the bat, aside from it not being in the text itself. What about Christians who act unrighteously? What about non-Christians who act righteously? Where do they fit into this equation? So after some discussion, most of which doesn’t actually answer our questions anyways, but seems to hedge around them, we get more direct. Calvin asks, “How can you say that when it’s not in the text?” Dr. Parker’s response is that you have to look at the whole Bible, and then you realize that this must be what the passage is saying, because of the passages that talk about faith based salvation. So I raise my hand and ask, “So how come we don’t interpret those passages in light of this one?” And his response was telling. “Because then you end up with a works-based salvation.” Interpretation: That doesn’t agree with my theology, so it must be the other way around.

So now, instead of reading the Bible for what it says, we get theology from the verses that we like (faith-based) and interpret those that seem to say opposite through them. ‘Cause if we went the other way around, it would mess with our theology. Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t believe in a works-based salvation. I think the Bible is pretty clear on that. But, then, how do we handle this apparent contradiction? The answer CANNOT be to interpret this passage in light of the other one, nor can it be the other way around. That, you see, is systematic theology. Why does it have to be either/or? Why does it have to mean saved/unsaved or works-based salvation? What I mean to say is, is there a third option? Well, of course there’s a third option, and if I looked hard enough, I’d find a fourth, and if I wanted to get really “liberal”, a fifth. But do you think that if I asked about another option (which I did) I got one? Of course not. With systematic theology, it seems to be either/or most of the time, very rarely either/or/or, or either/or/or/or, and certainly not both/and!

This is dangerous. This is perilous. Why? Because it fits God neatly into a box that He cannot escape. And this isn’t the only example of it. Systematic Theology, in it’s purest form, I suppose, could be somewhat reasonable. The problem is, Systematic Theology has become so convoluted with this theology and that theology that it is impossible to have pure theology, based strictly on the text, anymore. Because if one reads something, it automatically gets put into “Christology” or “Soteriology” or, God forbid, “Angelology”. It gets neatly interpreted, not through the Bible, but through the rest of theology. So you end up with this:

The Bible generates
|
|
\ /
Theology generates
|
|
\ /
Systematic Theology generates
|
|
\ /
Systematic Theology etc.

And the vicious cycle goes on, until everything you read gets neatly interpreted through the lens of “your theology”, which has already been neatly interpreted through the lens of theology. Theology does not, or should not, generate more theology.

The Bible, studied first for what it says, generates theology.

Final.

Period.

If something doesn’t make sense, look at it again, study it, whatever, but please, PLEASE, do NOT try to look at it through the lens of the rest of your theology and fit it into a category, and in so doing, make stuff up that’s not in the text! Do you even realize how much theology we Christians hold so dear isn’t even in the Bible? It’s based on “principle” or “assumption” or “because of this theology…”. And how much other theology is so wacked because it’s based on what we think to be true already, but we really haven’t studied it? Sometimes I wonder if Christians are sentient human beings, or mindless drones who absorb everything they hear and believe it unquestioningly.

So I know what they’d say. How do we deal with problem passages without systematic theology? It gets difficult. Systematic theology solves problems for us. Answers all the questions. Puts our minds at ease.

I understand. I really do. I struggle as well. Passages like the one’s above give me headaches. Paul in general gives me a headache. But I refuse to be conquered. I’m sorry, but if my God isn’t big enough to handle the hard questions of the Bible, and I mean QUESTIONS, not just things like should we have drums in church (rolls eyes), but questions on the very tenants that make Christians Christians, than why do I even bother? If my faith is so shallow that I can’t ask it hard questions, why do I even have it? I know, it’s so easy to resort to allowing systematic theology to answer the questions for us, to work everything out so that it fits into a nice little neat Christian package. But, I cannot, will not, will never be conquered by that temptation. It’s too easy, too perfect, too dispassionate.

If that means questions must be left unanswered, then so be it. I’d rather not have an answer than make up one that isn’t right, or one that makes things up that aren’t in the text, or one that makes me feel good because it fits nicely in with everything else.

Faith wouldn’t be faith without doubt. Faith wouldn’t be faith if all the loose ends were tied. Faith would be fact. And fact doesn’t save me, faith does.

And really, if we’re honest with ourselves, I think we’ll find that most of our questions about the Bible can be answered if we allow ourselves to see outside what we already believe, to open our minds to other possibilities, even if they might be considered “liberal” by other Christians. The problem is, when you do this, as I have done, you come up with some crazy stuff that is so outside the realm of current conservative Christian thought that it scares even me when I think of it! And then you come up with stuff that isn’t necessarily crazy, but isn’t exactly in the realm of the theology of the circles that I travel right now, aka, Baptistic.

And that’s just what I mean really. When we read the Bible for what it says, we come up with some theologically “dangerous” stuff - at least, dangerous to the circles I travel in. We have the Bible all categorized and separated into nice prooftexts for all of life issues. If only it were so easy. If people would read some stuff outside their own Christian bubbles they’d realize there are a whole lot more valid opinions out there that are still good interpretation based on the text besides those in their experience and denomination. Even some “liberal” Christians have some good ideas. Heh. Even some non-Christians have some good ideas.

And this is the real issue. People are afraid. People are afraid that if they question the answers they’ve been given all their life, the theology, the “pillars”, they’ll be left without their faith. They’re afraid they’ll discover something they didn’t want to know, and they’ll be left drowning in the sea of despair and hopelessness that this world is, with nothing to cling to. They’re happier being ignorant and content.

Once again, I understand. I really do. Sometimes I’m afraid of that too. Where else would I go, after all? My whole life is wrapped up in this faith, my whole being, and that’s the only way I would have it if I am going to have a faith. But if I’m going to believe something, if I’m going to devote my entire life to worshiping and serving this God, Yahweh, and Jesus Christ His Son - I’d better have enough faith to be able to stake everything on it, to take that risk. I want to know what I believe. I don’t want to be an ignorant Christian.

I think my God is big enough to take that risk with me. I have chosen Him as my God, as He chose me, and it is enough to say that if I can’t trust Him, who can I trust? I am compelled both to love my God and yet question the doctrine I believe, both important and not, because only in questioning it can I truly learn, and become more deeply enthralled in the God I have chosen.

Wow, was this ever much longer than I intended, and went much further.

If you’re curious at all about the Romans thing, my husband and I have talked about it, looked up some other opinions, and I think we have a valid option number three. It’s a bit risky (read: outside of what my Baptist friends would believe), but, where’s the fun if it’s always safe?