Is that congregation "sound"?

i remember when i was in seminary, we threw the word "sound" around a lot when inquiring about different congregations. There was an unspoken but understood list of things which served as criteria for whether a church was sound or not. It meant things like whether or not a church allowed women in leadership roles over men, whether or not their musical worship included anything beyond congregational singing, and maybe what their particular position was regarding divorce and remarriage.

Of course, i encountered a lot of people who thought those criteria were completely wrong and misguided. They thought this was all nothing but nitpicking or majoring in minors. They tended to have criticisms of "sound" congregations that i found myself agreeing with. 'What about how much they love each other or what service their doing for their communities?' Quite a fair question, i thought. But these people i encountered seemed to be as lop-sided as the others. Instead of asking whether or not churches were "sound," they asked whether churches were "grace-oriented" or "Spirit-oriented." So far as i could tell, all that meant was either "Is it a church that really doesn't care about 'little' things?" or "Is it a church who IS using women in leadership over men/is it a church who IS going beyond mere congregational singing in its musical worship?" etc.

Frankly, i did grow to think the critics had a good point. Why was a congregation's "soundness" based on its congregational singing, but not its care of widows and orphans? Why wasn't a church's willingness to support one another materially and monetarily part of whether or not it was "sound"? What about whether or not you could openly and transparently confess your sins to a congregation, and that congregation would respond with support, prayers, love, and accountability? Yes, the critics had a point.

But at the same time, the critics seemed no better. Just because some "soundness"-obsessed people were missing very important criteria, i don't see how that means that it really doesn't matter at all what we do in regards to musical worship or roles of men and women or teachings about divorce/remarriage, etc. It doesn't seem right to simply trade one lop-sided-ness for another.

In fact, it seems to me Jesus asked us to care about all of it.

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." (Matt 23:23)

It's true, Jesus criticized the lop-sided focus of the Pharisees. He does scold them for their backwards emphasis. But what i cannot find is where Jesus told the Pharisees that "little" things don't matter. In fact, at the end of the above quote, He told them they should have been doing all their minute division of spices all the while emphasizing more important things like justice and mercy. i find interesting and frustrating the sensitivities that exist among both extremes--where merely asking whether or not there's a right and wrong way to worship gets you labelled as NOT "grace-oriented," and merely suggesting that we try and focus on the heart of the person speaking rather than some vague comment they made gets you labelled as NOT "sound."

Maybe i've misunderstood people, but it appears to me that Jesus was neither "sound" nor "grace-oriented." It seems that Jesus models and teaches that we ought to ask precisely how God wants something done no matter how "big" or "small" the topic in question. It seems if someone asked Jesus if a church was "sound," He'd say, "not if they don't have a handle on justice and mercy." It seems if someone asked Jesus, "surely God doesn't really care that we're not dividing out a tenth of our spices, does He?" He'd say, "Yes, He does." It seems to me then, based on Jesus' comments in Matthew 23 that (1) we ought to care about all ethical matters big and small and do the right thing no matter how insignificant that may seem, and (2) recognize that even though we should do the right thing no matter what the topic, some topics are of greater weight than others.

How do we implement (1) and (2)? i, by no means, have any magic formula, but i have an idea or two.

1. i think the church has got to foster open, candid, even frighteningly honest interaction between members during church gatherings. i find it sickening that ideally church should be the one place i'm most inclined to share my deepest fears and problems, and yet practically it's the LAST place i would ever do that. Why? Some people there don't want to know my problems. They don't want to have to deal with the crap in my life. Part of it is because they assume i won't want to have to hear about or help deal with the crap in theirs. Anytime i have seen these unspoken rules broken, i've actually found the opposite to be true. The practical hurdle, though, is that i have almost no opportunity to tell other people in my church my deepest fears and problems. Why? Because in nearly every church gathering i attend, i am a completely passive participant. How are we going to confess our sins to one another when none of us get a chance to speak? And who's going to dare to be the first one to start confessing when a safe environment to do so hasn't been established? The American idea of "minding your own business" has prevented us from being a family, i think. It needs to become clear in the church that people have the freedom to say openly to any other member in that same congregation, "i am so afraid my husband's going to leave me that it's all i think about," or "right now, i'm so bitter over my father's death that i'm very angry with God," or "i'm about to lose my job, my car, and my house, and i have no idea what i'm going to do" or "i look at pornography all the time and i just can't seem to quit." And it needs to become clear in the church that when they do exercise that freedom, they will be met with support, prayers, and closeness, rather than silence, cold-shoulders, averted eyes, or lectures and scoldings. i believe that the lack of such frankness in church is the dam that prevents a river of mercy, mutual love and edification, and justice. Somewhere along the way the church developed the horribly un-Christian notion that gathering is about making an impression rather than about being genuine.

2. emphasis in preaching and teaching topics must be re-evaluated. Seriously, do we need to spend the next 13 weeks talking about why we shouldn't use instruments in worship when there's not a single person in this room who disagrees with that or has any doubts? Do we need to spend the next four sermons hearing about how women shouldn't be elders or preachers when there's not a single woman in our congregation vying for either position nor is there a single man in the congregation trying to force a woman into such a position? i believe we must develop a needs-based teaching. If a topic is still a problem in the congregation, then why'd we leave it? (why stop teaching, studying, and preaching about spiritual disciplines until people actually start practicing them?) i know some may be thinking, but won't you eventually run out of things to say? Maybe it's not about saying things. Maybe it's about listening. Ever considered asking a question and letting others do the talking? "What keeps you from practicing prayer as a spiritual discipline?" (God forbid anyone other than the man behind the giant block of wood do any talking during the sermon!)

3. not just emphasis of certain content of preaching, but also the way even needed-topics are handled. so much religious teaching treats people as though they are mere data-processors. "Okay, i'll preach about pornography." SERMON: "Pornography is bad and evil. Don't do it. and here's a eleventy-seven jillion reasons why it's bad." Seriously? Do you really think the people who are struggling with it are IGNORANT of the fact that pornography is bad and they shouldn't do it? Do you really think they are incapable of coming up with reasons why it's bad? How about teaching in such a way that actually meets them in their struggle? How about giving practical ways to get better and better at staying away from it? How about actually offering accountability to them--"if it's what you need to beat this and you want my help, i will personally come over and sit with you while you're on the computer"?

4. it's time to let go of both (and i did say BOTH) old for the sake of old and new for the sake of new. "it's tradition" isn't really any more or less of a legitimate reason for maintaining a practice than "it's new and progressive" is for starting one. You'll live without a choir. Your head won't explode just because there's a view screen instead of songbooks. You won't curl up and die just because no one's clapping. If you feel you can't worship God without such, how is that any different than the person across the room who feels she can't worship God without some traditional way of doing things? If you haven't got any reason to resist a change other than "but that's not the way we've always done it," it's time to let go and quit insisting on getting your way. If you haven't got any reason to implement a change other than "but i'd like it better that way and that's how churches are doing it these days," it's time to let go and quit insisting on getting your way. If a new way doesn't glorify God more or accomplish more for the kingdom than an old way, why the change? If an old way isn't getting the job done very well, why keep it? Before you sit around huffing and puffing about how important your way is to you and people not understanding that, how much time have you spent trying to understand why someone else's way is important to him?

Would You Still Know Truth Despite Your Background?

Just a scary thought i have sometimes:

i am quite convinced that several things are true. i have some rather specific and maybe even radical theological beliefs. i actually believe that they're correct, and that others who don't agree with them will suffer negative consequences as a result. Do i feel like apologizing for that? No. i don't intend to apologize for that, and i don't see why i'd need to or to think i need to change any of that.

But something my brother and i talk about every now and then is, what if we had been born into a different family that taught us differently about theological matters? Would we still have come to our same conclusions about what's true? Would we have been able to come to know the truth about x, y, or z *despite* having been raised to believe otherwise?

This question haunts me. It never moves me toward relativism. i think it may be that i would still be completely blameworthy for believing the wrong things even if i were in that situation. But it does shake my confidence a tad every time i think very long on it.

For instance, a professor of mine was ranting the other day about how Aristotle's system of ethics leaves out women, slaves, and foreigners. i think my professor's right; Aristotle was wrong about those things. But before i was willing in my mind to "rant" like my professor was, i was jarred by the thought: if i had been born in Aristotle's day, would i have thought any differently?

i think it shakes me not because i think it proves anything i believe untrue--mere doubt doesn't disprove. But it shakes me because it's a test of the foundation of that knowledge. Do i know x, y, and z to be true on some justified and objective basis? Or do i "know" x, y, and z because of the particular cultural conditioning i've experienced in life? The fact that i can't so quickly say i would still have believed the right way even if born in Aristotle's day or in a family of a different religion or whatever--that makes me unable to so *quickly* say of my beliefs that are objectively based rather than culturally based. And it's that loss of "quickness" in my answer that is a little scary i think. Sobering to say the least.

Science vs. Scripture II (an ellaboration of the hypothetical)

Suppose that 4 or 5 centuries from now, all sorts of scientists (geologists, paleantologists, astronomers, etc.) "find" means of explaining the basic phenomenon they each deal with in such a way that actually makes a literal-6-day creation seem very viable and even probable.
What are the possible ways of understanding such a future?

(1) All these future scientists and their popular opinions could be wrong. Maybe our contemporary scientists are generally right, and all these hypothetical 5-centuries-from-now-scientists have it wrong. That would mean that 5 centuries from now, Christians ought to argue that "day" refers to a long period of time. However, they would actually be arguing *against* their own popular scientific community of the day who would actually be saying something that appears more in line with the most prima facie reading of the Christians' own text. Should the Christians of that hypothetical era attempt to fight science with science and go out and conduct experiments of their own to prove those eons of time occurred?

(2) Maybe all our current scientists could be wrong, and all the future ones could be right. If that's the case, then Christians living *now* ought to be arguing that "day" in Genesis 1 means a literal 24-hour span of time, which is, of course, against the grain of current, popular scientific opinion, but will be supported by the trend of popular, scientific opinion 5 centuries from now. But now should Christians go out and perform "counter-experiments" and fight science with science in order to prove these eons of time did not occur?

(3) Maybe scientists both contemporary and 5-centuries-from-now could all be wrong. In that case, what should Christians be telling people about Genesis 1 both now and then? Will they be stuck and unable to explain to anyone what Genesis 1 means unless they can accompany such teaching with scientific material? Would they just have to wait around for scientific opinion to eventually come along and tell them what Genesis 1 means? If they did have some other means of accurately understanding Genesis 1, notice their teaching would contradict popular scientific opinion both now and in the future.

Popular scientific opinions and explanations could easily change every few generations. I bring that up to illustrate that with this approach, Christianity simply becomes reactive to modern popular opinion. To me, that seems to be making God's word subordinate to man's endeavors. So what is important is not what man's own endeavors tell me God's word can or can't mean, but rather, how God's word presents Itself. Through history, popular scientific opinion has changed, and i believe it will continue to do so into the future. But what has not changed in all these years is the text of Genesis 1. Whatever God meant to communicate to us when He used the word "day," He has meant that same thing throughout all these years. And it has meant whatever God intended it to mean regardless of changing scientific opinions.

Science vs. Scripture

Should i feel an obligation to reinterpret the early portion of Genesis or explain away the plainest reading of it?

If so, is it because i am from the outset committed to Scripture as Gods supremely authoritative word, implicitly trust it as such, and from this basis I ask questions like:
Has God presented this piece of text to me as something *other* than a record of history?
Has God in this passage or in the rest of Scripture provided me with clear reasons why I should *not* accept the plainest, most prima facie reading of it?
Are there significant differences between this text and other biblical historical records that should cause me to conclude that this passage does not accurately and plainly represent real space-time historical events?
--and after asking these kinds of questions, I find real, textual reasons to view this passage differently than recorded history?

Or do i feel this obligation because I am faced with some idea, object, or opinion external to scripture, and I feel in some way obligated to subject and alter the meaning of a passage to the appeasement of this idea/object/opinion? If I do this, haven't i implied that God is obligated to fess up to modern scientific belief?

Consider this*hypothetically,* let's just suppose that in our culture it was the authoritative, scholarly, scientific opinion that the earth in its present form came into being in the span of 6 seconds. Should Christians all start trying to make a case that day in Genesis 1 could be soundly understood to only represent a second? Should we start trying our hardest to explain how "day" probably only means one second?

If we say no, then why should we now, in our present scientific age, feel in anyway way urged to stretch day out as far as it will go?
If we say yes, then how can we ever truly claim that Gods word is authoritative over everything including science, in its methods and conclusions?

I certainly agree we shouldnt commit ourselves to what the text doesn't say. And for that reason we could point out something such as "the earth was without form and void" being an unspecified length of time. But isn't it strange that when that point is made, it's always made to suggest the possibility of extreme lengths of time? --When in truth, if it's the case that we simply dont know how long the earth was "without form and void," then it's equally possible that such a state only lasted 5 minutes.

Why isn't anyone suggesting that? Why isn't anyone using that point to suggest an extremely short amount of time? Well, we might say because we have evidence for great lengths of time such as in geology or paleontology or astronomy---that's exactly my point! At base we are saying that we should alter our understanding of scripture based on what man through his own endeavors has found out for himself as though such an enterprise is equally or more trustworthy and equally or more authoritative than Gods word in itself.

Notice how we sometimes even say that we should be reluctant to commit ourselves to any particular interpretation of Scripture, yet some people are clearly willing to completely commit themselves to certain interpretations of *science,* and then, in turn, to subject Scripture to those interpretations--doesnt that seem backwards? --especially coming from anyone who in the same breath claims to believe that the Bible is the inspired, authoritative revelation from God, Himself?

Don't misunderstand--for all i know, "day" does allow for eons of time. My point is that before we ask that question, there seems to be another question behind it--that is, how does the authority of Scripture relate to the authority of man's rational organization of the world independent of Scripture? Notice, even if someone says that God's word "trumps" science in authority, he/she could still decide that "day" is figurative and means eons for some other reason (not just because some guy in a lab coat says so). But i think that the matter of deciding whether we take God's word or man's rational endeavors as finally and ultimately authoritative is paramount in all issues, but of particular importance in this case.

A Moral Dilemma

Suppose you’re walking down the street and immediately you’re snatched by someone who pops out of an alley. He drags you behind a building where there are 10 people standing against a wall and 4 guys (including your abductor) with guns. Your abductor shoves a gun in your hand and says, "if you shoot one of those people against the wall, we’ll let the other nine go; but if you refuse, we’re going to shoot all ten of them." And suppose he’s telling you the truth, and suppose there’s no way to shoot the other three gunmen to try and make an escape.

1. Would nine people not-dying justify killing one person? Would the stakes make murder right in this case?

2. If you (or anyone) did refuse to kill that one person, and the gunmen did gun down all ten people, would you be responsible and blameworthy for their deaths? Would those people dying truly be your fault? Why or why not?

Is Virtuous Character Different For God Than Humans?

It seems we take for granted that character traits such as courage, temperance, perseverance and others are virtuous for humans. In other words, it is morally good to possess these, and people who possess these are more virtuous in character than those who do not have these traits.

But is it possible for God to possess such traits? What does it mean for God to be courageous? Did He have any fear to overcome in the first place? Or was He truly threatened in some way such that He had to act a certain way despite those threats? Or regarding temperance, what appetites or desires is God curtailing in Himself?

The particular examples aren't the point. i think others could be presented. The point is it seems there are ways in which man can be virtuous that God cannot because certain virtues seem to presuppose circumstances or conditions specific to humanity. If we were to assign any of these virtues to God, it would suggest that He faces a circumstance or condition that it seems we would be hesitant if not altogether unwilling to say that God would ever face.

So does this mean that morality works differently for God than for man? Does it mean we have mis-defined those virtues? Can a person be virtuous and moral and good in a way that God can't? It seems particularly strange to concede this because Christians typically tend to think (and rightfully so, i believe) that God is the measure of all morality, that goodness and virtue is metaphysically grounded in the character and person of God. If that is so, it seems strange to think of certain points of virtue being disanalogous between God and man.

Introduction

i'm hoping i'll have things to say interesting enough to attract a few readers. Really, i need to push on with this blog either way because i think this will be terribly therapeutic for me at this point in my life. But let me be clear up front--despite dealing with the occasional academic-heavy topic, i still intend to write rather informally. Don't expect a string of footnotes following philosophy-based posts, nor will you find strings of symbolic logic or academic lingo. i don't consider my blog something to turn in for a grade. Personally, i don't see why writing informally necessarily means what i blog here will contain any less rigor or precision or weightiness. Plenty of philosophy and theology is unnecessarily complicated in my opinion. To put it another way, i'm not one of these guys who thinks that the 20th century analytic philosophy-style is the only way worthwhile work can be done. --far from it, frankly. anyway, i hope the wide range won't hinder anyone from commenting on particular blogs that interest them.