Thursday, April 24, 2008

Recovering Divine Mystery through the Feminine Metaphor?

"Feminist critique of patriarchal discourse is surfacing the false assumptions that underlie insistence on exclusively male symbols and thereby propelling new discovery of holy mystery which we call God."

Elizabeth Johnson, in her book, She Who Is, argues that the best spirit of classical theology, which had always prized the essential incomprehensibility (and illimitability--great word!) of God as divine mystery, can be recovered by attending to feminine metaphors and aspects of the divine reality. This requires, of course, that the experiences of women and their theological explorations be taken seriously. The recovery of the divine mystery and ultimately incomprehensibility of God will have several positive consequences: (1) a reminder that finite words, titles and pronouns can never refer, without remainder or approximation, to God and (2) the significance of the male experience will be equalized with and unified with that of women, thus effecting what Paul seems to have in mind with the "new creation" (neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus and (3) the legitimation of the female experience and the rightful humanization of woman as equal in God's creation and Kingdom.

Any thoughts?

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Theological Exercise in Critical Thinking: Round 2


Our first one was so much fun, let's try another:

Was Jesus really tempted?

Christian orthodoxy, since the formulation of the early creeds, has asserted that Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully human, possessing both natures “undivided” and “unconfused” in one person. It was necessary for our salvation, early Christians argued, that Jesus be both divine and human. Related to this conviction arose the question of whether it was possible for Jesus to sin. Some argue that because Jesus was fully human, he became “like us in every way” (Hebrews 2:17) and therefore must have been truly tempted (it was not a hypothetical or fiction) such that it was possible for him to sin. The fact that he did not sin (even though he could have) meant that his perfect obedience could be applied to and restore the imperfections of humanity. Others argue that because Jesus was fully God, he could not have actually sinned, because God cannot sin or be “tempted with evil” (James 1:13). They argue that if God cannot sin, and if Jesus was truly the Son of God incarnate, then surely Jesus could not have actually sinned, or he would have been shown not to be God. Furthermore, God’s plan of providing salvation for humanity through Jesus’ perfect obedience would have been nullified, revealing God to be impotent to fulfill his ultimate plan and desires. Jesus’ divine nature and the perfections of divinity ensured that Jesus would not have actually succumbed to temptation.


Questions:


Which position would you take and why?


If you argue that Jesus could have sinned, how could Jesus have been truly divine, had he actually sinned?
If he had sinned, would that not have nullified our salvation, since he would no longer be the perfect sacrifice?


If you argue that Jesus could not have sinned, then in what way was Jesus truly tempted? Furthermore, in what way could we consider him to be an actual human being, and thus “like us in every way”?

Friday, April 11, 2008

Try it, you might like it: A Theological Exercise in Critical Thinking

I know...it's not as fun as watching Kansas beat Memphis in overtime, but now that March Madness is well behind us, football season is a distant land far, far away, and only meaningless baseball games can fill the void, why not try your hand at some theological reasoning? I was recently asked to write a brief "case study" or scenario that could be used to assess critical thinking skills for seminary students. The first one is posted below. Try your hand at it. You just might like it. If you think the scenario (or questions that follow) could be improved, please offer any suggestions for modification:

Does God sanction violence and vengeance against others?


The book of Numbers tells us that God commanded Moses to “take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Num 31), because they had cursed Israel and conspired to seduce the Israelites to worship their false gods rather than Yahweh. Israel obeyed God’s command and went to war against them, killing all Midianite men and all Midianite women who were not virgins. On the other hand, in the New Testament, Jesus (who, as God incarnate is the perfect image of God), commanded his disciples to not resist evil people, but to “turn the other cheek” (Matt 5:38) and to “love your enemies” and “do good to them” (Matt 5:44). There appears to be a fundamental discrepancy between God’s will and character as described in this Old Testament passage and his will and character as delineated in the New Testament. In response to this problem, many argue that, though there is a progression of revelation from the OT to the NT, God is always just when he commands that people take vengeance on the wicked or does so himself. Others respond that the ethic of the OT was superseded by Jesus’ interpretation of the law and his explication of God’s character. They conclude that God no longer commands or condones violence against others.

Questions for Reflection:

How should we understand the meaning of God’s command in the OT to commit what appears to be genocide, motivated by vengeance, given what Jesus commands in the New Testament?

In what sense is Num 31 still valid for Christians today? How does your interpretation intersect with your view of the Bible’s authority and nature (inspiration, inerrancy, etc.)

If you agree with the first perspective above (God is always just in taking life and commanding the taking of it), how do you explain Jesus’ non-violence against the apparent violence of God in the OT? Furthermore, how would a God who commands violence be understood as a God of love and mercy?

If you agree with the second position, in what way is the Old Testament still relevant for us today?

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

There Will Be Blood: On Oil, Despair and Kierkegaard

If there were an Oscar category for "Best Theological Portrayal of the Consequential Effects of Sin and Despair on the Self and its Relations to God, to Oneself, and to Others," There Will Be Blood would win it hands-down. Well, it might have some stiff competition from the Cohen brothers' recent masterpiece, No Country for Old Men, but since I haven't seen it I have to guess it would go to Blood. Last time I checked, though, the Oscars don't have that category, so it may have to settle for best picture, best actor, best cinematography, or some other lame, mundane award.

In any case, this stunning portrayal of the rise and fall of a turn of the 20th-century self-made millionaire oil tycoon puts you in a slight but steady choke-hold from the opening scene and kicks you in the gut at the end. The pain is well-worth the eight bucks. The film correlates Daniel Plainview's business and financial rise with his emotional and relational demise. As one reviewer has pointed out, it's a fascinating study of the dark underside of the American experiment and of the so-called "American dream."

I am most interested, though, in how the film captures and portrays that theological slippery snake called "sin." Fifty years or so before the fictitious Daniel Plainview struck silver and then an ocean of oil under western soil, S. Kierkegaard wrote that despair is the psychological side of sin. The life of sin begins with its innocent stage as anxiety, but eventually bubbles up, like the black soupy oil of Plainview's prosperity, as despair. For Kierkegaard, despair is the breakdown of the self, when a person cannot relate rightly to God, to oneself (what one is supposed to be), or to others. Sin (and despair) is primarily for Kierkegaard a relational category. It disrupts our humanity by disordering and destroying our relationships. Despair may at first be "hidden"-- that is, not recognized for what it is. Many of us are brilliantly skilled at hiding despair. We go along in life pretending that we like people, that we are comfortable with ourselves, and when the suspicion rises in us that we're living a lie, we squelch the sensation and fill up the gaps with entertainment. We simply amuse ourselves to apathy, and divulge in enough lighthearted pleasantries that it seems like all is well-enough with the world, with ourselves, and with our fellow human beings.

Plainview cuts through all of that as his hidden despair becomes increasingly revealed. In one of his more vulnerable moments, he says, "I look at people and I see nothing worth liking." Other than his son H.W., the only person he comes close to liking he kills. For the hardened oil man, relationships are merely instrumental in his rise to the top and people merely pawns in his game. Plainview is the "Uber-Mensch" whose power over others destroys even himself. The closest he comes to authentic relationality is in the context of his psychological war with the imposter-preacher Eli Sunday. In the end (spoiler alert), all Plainview wants is authenticity from Sunday. Just admit you're a crook and that God is a fantasy for weak minds. What Plainview doesn't realize is that, as straightforwardly authentic as he appears to be, he is not living a fully human life, because he has cut himself off from God and from others. Thus, while he is true to himself, he is not a true self. Not only has his despair destroyed his relationships with the people who want to love him (e.g. his son H.W.), but it has killed his spirit and turned him away from life altogether.

If there would be a sequel, one would hope that the despair which is no longer hidden is healed somehow through the very blood he spills. In a powerful nod to the Christ-event of the Gospels, Plainview exhales in exhaustion at the end: "It is finished." The shedding of blood has long signified within Christianity the chance at new life. Could despair turn to salvation? Could the "sickness that leads to death" (Kierkegaard) be healed through an ironic and tragic culmination of the depth of despair? When despair runs its full course it either leads to death (spiritual) or it reaches the end of the rope and grasps for help. From the Christian point of view, humanity's source for hope lies in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. There we find the potential restoration of authentic relationality: to God, to oneself (what one is supposed to be), and to others.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

theology in a postmodern context

What is the role of theology in a postmodern world? In a context in which knowledge, and therefore "truth," is said to be largely (if not entirely?) shaped by historical, social, economic and geographical location of the subject (the knower), what merit and promise can theology claim for itself? This Wednesday at 4:00, I will be responding to a paper by Jim Beilby on this topic for our first "theology colloquium." I look forward to an invigorating, provocative and stimulating conversation on this important topic. If you're in the area, come check it out.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Fantasy Football Championship!

One of the greatest highlights of this past fall, a not-so-close second to my October 6 marriage to Sara Flies, is the remarkable success of my fantasy football team. To be fair, the credit is shared with all involved, beginning with my beautiful wife Sara, team owner and CEO. Of course, it was a wise move on her part to bestow the day-to-day responsibilities of personnel and quality control upon yours truly, who has more time and energy for such blatant trivialities. I was more than happy to assume position of V.P. of Operations. In the first year of Lux Aeterna (google it) we saw the team reach the championship game. I credit a strategic trade (my Joseph Addai for Silas Morgan's Tony Romo) for our surge to the top. Wish us much luck (as if we need it) as we prepare for our final match-up against my father-in-law (maybe I should take a fall?) this weekend. Below is our team line-up. How in the world could this team not reach the final?

QB
Tony Romo
, Dal QB
Sun 4:15









RB
Jamal Lewis
, Cle RB
Sun 1:00









RB
Selvin Young
, Den RB
Thu 8:15









WR
T.J. Houshmandzadeh
, Cin WR P
Sat 8:15









WR
Randy Moss
, NE WR
Sun 1:00









TE
Chris Cooley
, Was TE P
Sun 8:15









D/ST
Seahawks D/ST
, Sea D/ST
Sun 1:00









K
Shayne Graham
, Cin K