I had a number of ideas about what I could title this post. Working titles included "The UnHoly Trinity", "You, Me and Heresy", "Personal Divinity", and "The Selfish Theologian". I ended up with the above because I think it gets across what I'm trying to say without being either too vague or too blunt. I've started reading a very interesting new book - "Retro Christianity" by Michael J.Svigel - which has helped crystallise a number of ideas I've been sort of having for a while.
I write this post as what we call an evangelical Christian. I'd use other labels as well, but for the purpose of this post I'm focusing on being an evangelical, the theological/church movement known as evangelicalism, and so on. Briefly, the identifying marks of evangelicalism are:
1. The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
2. A high regard for biblical authority
3. An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ
4. Actively expressing, sharing and living out the Gospel.
These identifying marks are, technically, "conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism and activism". I would note here that there are other and more nuanced key parts of evangelicalism, but for the purposes of this post its helpful to start here. Don't get me wrong - at the very outset of this post I want to stress I completely agree with those four things and don't want to change them. I'm definitely a Christian, and I use the label evangelical (even though I don't want to be associated with some of the negative connotations, and try to use my blog to articulate the fact that following Jesus is not meant to automatically mean homophobic, chauvinistic, hypocritical religion). I don't want to stop doing and being those four things in my faith, in my church, and in my relationships.
I mentioned in my opening paragraph that I nearly called this post "The UnHoly Trinity". And thats what I want to briefly consider here. Firstly, The Holy Trinity is a central Christian Doctrine, one of the lynchpins of Orthodoxy, and a very necessary Doctrine. I've blogged about it before, on why we need it, and three posts on what it means to say "Trinity: God Is" (post 1, post 2, post 3). The Trinity is the Doctrine that enables Christians to say "I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, the Godhead Three in One". However, I believe that a lot of Christians today (and evangelicals in particular), and those who don't believe but do their not-believing/critiquing of Christianity in the West, don't 'get' The Trinity, and often get involved in the other one. I think that the three things that many evangelicals place as authoritative are their church (or stream/denomination), their bible, and themselves.
It is easy to think that the church/stream we are in is the best. Often, we do because that is why we are there! But that is a position of arrogance. It is easy to forget that many churches that many of us go to today did not exist 20 years ago - and the majority of churches we go to did not exists 2-300 years ago. Yet people have been following Jesus for FAR longer than that. For nearly 2000 years. Is it really likely that we, in our little bit of Jesus' wild and wonderful church, have got it exactly right? I'm not calling for a return to Rome, or charge to Constantinople, or even a crawl back to Canterbury, but I am stressing the need to listen to those who have gone before us. ALL those followers of Jesus who have affirmed the Creeds, who have dug deep into Scripture - even if we disagree with them. We need to be connected. Just as the New Testament makes little sense without the Old, so will our 'modern' faith without reflection and appreciation of what has gone before. I say again, I'm not calling for a return to Rome - but that we might consider what has gone before us.
I love the Bible. I believe it is the inerrant word of God. I think it is applicable and authoritative in every part of human life. But the Bible isn't God. I've blogged before on bibliolatry - its worth asking ourselves that question. Notice, in my 'unholy trinity' I wrote their bible. And one's own interpretation of it. And the limitation of having only one version. Or listening to interpretations from only one slant. Much of the modern debates in the Church - for instance that around Christianity and Homosexuality - could be dealt with more easily if we only looked back at how Christians have interpreted and applied and obeyed the Bible before us. When we let Scripture speak - as the prime witness to the Trinitarian God of reality - then we release it from the individual prison we each put around God's word. If we really believed the Bible had authority, and spoke, and was relevant, the Church would become unstoppable.
The final part of this trinity is the most important. And it is simple. I, Thomas John Creedy, am not the only Christian to have ever lived. I, Thomas John Creedy, am not infallible. I'm not Jesus. And neither are you. No human is Jesus. Though, of course, Jesus is transforming his followers into his likeness. What I'm saying is a lesson I'm slowly learning. Humility. I don't know everything. I know slightly more than some people and a lot less than some people. Overall, we need to have the humility to listen to those who have done the work, and who have really tried hard to work things out. For instance, my wife Amy has done a music degree, and is really gifted at leading musical worship. I could, as a 'theologian' wear my little hat and tell her how to do it. But she's done the work. She knows what works. I need to excercise the humility of listening when working on music and musical worship in conversation with her. (On that note, she will be posting something about that here soon!). We need to listen to those in authority over us, those whose words survive in sermons and books, and those around us with more experience of the things of Jesus.
I've looked at three things that we can let ruin our relationship with Jesus, squash our religion, and hamper our holiness. And I want to close by directing you to the thing that I think gets us out of DIY Heresy. The thing that gets us back in touch with the past - and yet ultimately fixed with eyes on the future - is not a thing. Its a person. Its a person of the Trinity. Its Jesus.
Jesus is the mark of authentic Christian faith. Jesus is the one who gives us the right to be born again. Jesus is the one who the Bible is about - he is the very Word of God, the Son of the Father and the sender of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is at the heart of teaching about his death and resurrection - he was the only one who could die the way he did and live the way he does. Jesus is the heart of the Gospel, the perfect model for expressing and sharing the Good News of Grace, the perfect example of how to live out God's Kingdom in the power of the Holy Spirit. The simplest, oldest, most basic Christian confession - what some see as a proto-creed - is simple;
"Jesus is Lord"
Think about it.
___________
Thanks for reading, I'd love comments on this post, and your feedback. If you really like it, do please share it on your social network of choice!

“I love the Bible. I believe it is the inerrant word of God”
ReplyDeleteDefinition of inerrant:
adjective
incapable of being wrong.
Leviticus 25:44-46
New International Version - UK (NIVUK):
44 ‘“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
Is this passage right or wrong?
I'm not convinced you quite understand how the bible fits together. What god commands must be obeyed - in the culture the command is given. Scripture speaks if absolutes and also things which pass. We don't live in a culture that has majority slavery - and so we don't obey this.
DeleteWhat you are doing, I'm afraid, is missing Jesus. You have missed the main bit of the story. I'd love to point you in the direction of the gospels. Try reading Matthew, where Jesus tells us how to live.
Slavery is terrible - the bible was always radical in recognizing the humanity of slaves. Eventually it inspired William Wilberforce to seek to end slavery - as Jesus ends our slavery to sin by his death on the cross.
Thanks for commenting, I hope I've made some sense.
Could you elaborate on “what god commands must be obeyed - in the culture the command is given.” Surely Jesus telling us how to live falls under “what god commands must be obeyed” yet, as you alluded to, our culture today is significantly different from the culture in which those lessons were given. Why should we blindly (without question) obey them now?
DeleteTo my understanding, you would include in your definition of god an infinite morality. It therefore seems unusual that such a being would command anything that we humans, who are obviously far from having an infinite grasp of morality, can determine to be immoral. I received one explanation for this from a Christian who claimed that the spread of the message of god would be hindered by any serious challenge to the contemporary status quo (i.e opposing slavery). Again it seems unusual that an infinitely moral being would compromise such knowledge or wisdom in favour of popularity. Can you elucidate this conundrum for me?
I am glad you suggested the gospels. I am particularly fond of John chapter 2, where Jesus turns water in to wine. A miracle according to your theology if I am correct. What intrigues me about this ‘miracle’ again, according to your religion, is this demonstrates the superpowers of your god. Yet if we take the Fritzl family as an example. Mr Fritzl imprisoned, raped and sodomised his daughter, and the offspring that resulted, for a period lasting, I believe, 24 years. Despite, I imagine, innumerable begs screams and pleads for some assistance; heaven fails to intervene. Why would your god prioritise defying the laws of the universe to ensure his acquaintances enjoy a cracking wedding reception before intervening in the Fritzl case, or thousands of millions of other similar examples?
Thanks for your comment.
DeleteIf you look at the consistent body of teaching of Orthodox Christianity (and its origin, Judaism) you see remarkable agreement. There is a consistency of thought. Things based in creation, for example, are ordained permanently. Other things are cultural. Regardless, the constant theme is of obedience to God - even when it may not sem to make sense. I appreciate that may not answer your question.
I think my definition of God includes the origin and totality of morality - I'm not sure what you mean by 'an infinte morality'. It is clear from the Bible that the law is essentially impossible for humans to keep - as you point out. I'm intrigued by the answer you recieved - I don't understand what that person was saying? The notion that God is concerned with popularity is nonsensical - I believe that the Bible teaches that Gods prime concern is with his own glory. Basically, I'm afraid I don't understand your middle paragraph!
I am aware of the Fritzl family, and I'm not a fan of easy answers. The obvious answer regarding the wedding at Canaa was prophetic fulfilment announcing the messiah - which in itself was an announcement of Gods kingdom, a kingdom that is now and not yet. Whilst sin and death were defeated on the cross, there are still things going on that are not part of Gods will. The terrible story of the Fritzl family is an evidence of this. I can't claim to know Gods reasons for doing things - beyond what I said about the wedding reception - but I can, and will, point you in the direciton of the Cross, where Jesus suffered for the sins of the world, sharing the pain even of the Fritzl family, in order to do what God had commanded him.
thanks for commenting, I hope my response isn't too irritating.
Thank you for yours.
DeleteI don’t understand the phrase ‘things based in creation are ordained permanently’ could you put that in Layman’s terms please?
Correct me if I’m mistaken but are you saying that obedience to god regarding a given issue is automatically makes the action right? Rather than making a rational argument or decision which is derived through logic and supported by evidence? If obedience is paramount, are we not disobeying god by not enslaving people?
By obedience to god I assume you are referring to the Christian or Judaeo-Christian god and I wonder what would constitute such an order? Currently 0.3-0.7% of the world’s population suffer from schizophrenia, a disorder which is characterised by delusions and hallucinations. Some people in this disease group claim to be the messiah, son of god, etc., don’t you think the majority of these people are experiencing delusions rather than revelations? If that is the case, how would one differentiate these claims from those contained in the bible, the torah or the qur’an for example?
I propose that it is more likely that any historical figure claiming to be in communication with the almighty is suffering from a similar mental illness than it is that their claims are accurate. A useful example of this is the prophet Muhammad, something on which, interestingly, I think we could agree.
I apologise about my second paragraph, I will try to clear it up. My premise was that an omniscient and benevolent being/deity would, by definition, wield a perfect and absolute understanding of what is right and what is wrong. To add from my third paragraph, an omnipotent god would be able to implement this perfect grasp of morality. Thus I cannot accept that the leviticus quotation regarding slavery was mandated by such an entity, as humanity has, eventually, realised rationally that slavery is wrong and immoral/unethical, nor can I accept your earlier comment that the bible is inerrant. If a being did exist with the three qualities mentioned above, I doubt I would be participating in this conversation as our world would already be a perfect place; anything less would contradict either omniscience, omnibenevolence or omnipotence. Again correct me if I am mistaken and am overestimating god.
Hopefully, that is clearer. Could you define god’s glory please?
I accept that forgiveness is a very important quality for humanity and under the right circumstances it is plausible to forgive Mr Fritzl for his actions. I do not fully understand the psychology behind these actions so I cannot be very specific about such conditions. How would Mr Fritzl acquire forgiveness from god?
Final request, could you elaborate on Jesus and the cross?
Thanks
Crikey, this is becoming a big discussion! Thanks for the comment though.
DeleteRegarding creation - I'm echoing the Orthodox Christian belief that (for example) marriage was ordained as part of creation (ie, God set it up as the natural state of man) - and this applies for various other things too, like homosexuality.
Obedience is paramount - to theFULL counsel of scripture. Hence why I make the point about covenant theology and the way salvation history works. So, now, we are being obedient in liberating people.
I'm intrigued by your mental illness point - I assume you haven't heard C.S.Lewis's famous 'mad bad or god' point? I think its valid, personally, and I think a religion based on mental illness would not be as successful as the followers of Jesus have been.
Without an understanding of innerrancy of course you are not going to agree with me - and without an agreement on the person of God we are going to struggle too! By limiting God to three qualities of your own definition you immediately miss the point of God and the mystery of God. By limiting God to three qualities you describe a non-existent being. Any and all qualities of God are held in tension and are (by virtue of being based in human language) only a part of his being. Hence why Jesus is so important.
God's Glory: "So God's glory is the radiance of his holiness, the radiance of his manifold, infinitely worthy and valuable perfections." - taken from this post by John Piper. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/ask-pastor-john/what-is-gods-glory
Fritzl can aqquire forgiveness by God because Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world - and anyone who would seek forgiveness from God needs only to trust in that sacrifice, and seek to live in the life that Jesus bought with his blood. The cross is God's answer to the problem of sin - and it is a HUGE topic. See my post "The Wonder of the Cross" for more on ways Christians have interpreted it throughout history.
Thanks again for commenting.