What have been my reasons for being a member of The Church of Christ so far?
1. The Restoration Principle
2. Baptism as the immersion of a penitent person in water for the forgiveness of sins
3. Observance of the Lord's Supper every Sunday
There is one last major reason i'll supply, though there might be other reasons which aren't as terribly significant to me. Or else, they are only half reasons. Maybe i'll do a part 5 and explain what i mean by that. But let me state my final major reason for remaining a member of The Church of Christ, and on this blog i do want to give a few justifications for that reason.
4. i am still a member of The Church of Christ because of their general rejection of the use of instrumental music in worship.
i know for some readers i probably just became the ugly, conservative traditionalist they were already afraid i was. But i assure you, i honestly think my own personal conviction on this matter is of a different nature than your average red-faced, i'll-write-a-nasty-article-about-you-in-my-publication, right-winged CoCer. This is why i want to state my reasons for this conviction. If you asked such a CoCer what's wrong with instrumental music, the pat, ready-made answer is (you guessed it): silence! (and on the back of that donkey, tack on a tail of the principle of authority). Despite my slightly jovial tone, i honestly don't altogether reject that reasoning (though i think it's in dire need of revision). But i honestly do not see it as the primary reason not to use instrumental music--not by a long shot. Here, instead, are the roots of my personal conviction on this matter:
(1) Using instrumental music in worship would be a case of Judaizing. The Hebrews writer tells us that Judaism was full of mere shadows of things to come. The real, solid objects casting those shadows are the elements and blessings we (the church) have in Christ. All of the ceremonial implements and rituals of the Old Covenant were dim veils covering a beautiful face that the church is now blessed to look directly in the eye. i am saying we shouldn't use instruments because we're not Jews--yes. But i'm not merely pointing out that Christianity is a different religion from Judaism (that's only half my point here), rather, i'm pointing out that the particular relationship shared by Judaism and Christianity ought to show that things such as instrumental music are inappropriate in Christianity. Using instruments in worship is really a "step down" or a "step backwards" from the spiritual realities and blessings given to us in Christ. Instrumental music would be spiritually immature in the same sense as burning incense, observing the Passover, burnt sacrifices, and a golden ark. i'm not at all saying that those who argue for the use of instrumental music are immature in their motives or arguments. Neither am i saying that God forced immature practices on the Jews--i think an individual Jew could be as spiritually mature as someone now. What i am saying is that in comparing the covenants, there's a sense (an important sense!) in which the ceremonial implements of Judaism are inferior to the spiritual realities of Christianity. It is inferior along the same comparitive vein as Israel being concerned about a literal plot of land and a civil law over against Christianity's trans-territorial and trans-temporal nature. Judaism had mere symbols and ceremonial metaphors for what we in Christ are blessed to have a literal grasp of. i believe instrumental music is letting loose that new grasp in Christ to return to inferior shadows and symbols as in Judaism.
(2) This is strongly related to the last point, and in fact i am very tempted to call it "(1b)" instead of a second distinct reason. Here it is nonetheless: There is an incredible textual contrast between the Old and New Covenants regarding these ceremonial implements and regarding instrumental music in particular. The Old Testament is permeated with references to the use of instrumental music in Jewish worship. Instruments feature quite prominently throughout the literature. (So i definitely disagree with those CoCer's who try ardently to make the case that instrumental music was equally as bad in the Old Testament as in the New but God just let it slide.) It is amazing to me how often and how explicit God was in the Old Testament regarding the use of instruments and yet in the New Testament not even one word is breathed about their use in Christian worship. It's true--i am making a sort of argument from silence, but it's not the traditional argument from silence. i'm pointing out the glaring contrastive silence of the New Testament to the Old on this issue. If all of these ceremonial implements of worship (including instrumental music) are appropriate to Christianity, then why this blindlingly obvious difference between the two texts? How do you account for the New Testament being completely bereft of any mention of such things? What i think it suggests is that the use of instrumental music (as well as any other ceremonial implement) was entirely appropriate to Judaism because of the nature of the Jewish covenant, but it is entirely inappropriate to Christianity because of the nature of the new covenant.
(3) i believe the restoration principle strongly suggests rejecting instrumental music in worship. Let's forget the traditional principle of authority and argument from silence for just a moment. Let's even suppose that instrumental music is no big deal and the early church could have used it had they wanted to and God would've been fine with. So what if they could? Did they use it? And if they didn't, should we? Remember, the restoration principle suggests a precedent of imitation--we ought to imitate the early church. And by all historical accounts, an incredible argument can be made that the early church did not use instrumental music, and that no one used them until the seventh century. But notice, it was introduced in the seventh century. It was not the norm. It was not the custom. It was not the practice of the ancients. The New Testament has no mention or sanction of it, and there is second and third century Christian literature which explicity rejects the use of instrumental music among Christians. The Restoration Principle calls us to imitate the early church. Non-imitation is only justified where the particular case of non-imitation is justified because imitation would be trans-temporally or trans-culturally inappropriate. i certainly can't see why imitating the early church by not using instruments would be trans-temporally or trans-culturally inappropriate.
(4) Only after the above three reasons were exhausted (and i believe they're plenty sufficient without this fourth one) would i then turn to the notion of authority and silence akin to the traditional CoC arguments. But like i said, i think these lines of reasoning are in need of some revision which is far beyond the scope of this post. i just list this to say that i think there is validity to be had in qualified and altered versions of the traditional silence/authority arguments against instrumental music.
So, again, the CoC's rejection of instrumental music in worship is another reason why i am still a member of The Church Of Christ.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Why I Am Still A Member Of The Church Of Christ Part 3
It may be disappointing to some who've read the last two blogs that i haven't made virtually any attempt to justify the reasons i've been giving for still being a member of The Church of Christ. i honestly haven't intended to. The reasons i give are certainly sufficiently justified to my personal satisfaction. But wanting to write these blogs has developed out of my focus on criticisms of The Church of Christ. i have spent quite a bit of time over the years creating a list of things i think are in great need of reform in The Church of Christ. But here i am, still a part of it. It kinda begs the question: Why? If i keep griping about lousy food, why do i keep coming to this restaurant? If i've got all these criticisms, then why am i still here?
So why am i writing these blogs?
First, just to answer these questions (which doesn't necessarily require justifying those answers).
But second, i don't want to become a nay-sayer. The internet has plenty of people who've made it their full-time job to bash The Church of Christ. And while they swear they're not bitter or angry or resentful, i see no other possible motive emanating from their words (especially when some of them include page upon page upon page of their personal negative and abusive experiences in The Church of Christ on their "reformer" website), and even if somehow there were some other motive, i don't see what good could be accomplished by such work but to feed and fester other people's bitterness or anger or resentment over such experiences. Point being--this is not what i'm going for. And i have to be careful. i may have criticisms. They may even all be legitimate criticisms. But in no way does that permit me to be cynical or self-righteous or a fault-finder. And just for that reason (1) i need to be sure that any assessment i voice is given with the right attitude and motive, (2) i must never apply any standard that i'm not willing to have applied to me, and (3)i must take time to acknowledge the good and praiseworthy and make sure it gets due attention. (Especially #3--if you read some people's pages and newsletters, you'd think The Church of Christ is full of the most rotten pack of jerks in the world. But is that fair? Go ask orphans that have grown up in our homes--would they say we're a rotten pack of jerks? Go ask Katrina victims who were forgotten by the government but provided for by our Disaster Relief Effort--are we a mean bunch of cynics?)
So why am i still here?
First, i recognize that my criticisms are neither numerous enough nor of sufficient weight to justify or even suggest that i should leave and join some other religious group.
Second (and the point of these blogs), there are distinct reasons (personal convictions of mine which are also still largely held in The Church of Christ) which keep me here due to their importance and that no alternative religious group offers me all these reasons.
I've already given two of these distinct reasons:
1. The Restoration Principle
2. A Distinctive View of Baptism
Now a third:
3. Weekly Observance of the Lord's Supper.
Despite mounds of articles by in-house Church of Christ critics written to try desperately to show that needing to take the LS every Sunday is a silly idea hermeneutically speaking, it is not at all hermeneutically silly to me. It has never been a difficult or convoluted journey in my mind to arrive at the conclusion that the Supper was the purpose of the Sunday gatherings of the early church. While i think it'd be a stretch to say that the Supper is the purpose of The Church of Christ's Sunday gatherings, it is nevertheless observed every Sunday. i think much could be done to improve the practical observance of the Supper in The Church of Christ. But there will always be room for growth. But i believe they are right to observe it on a weekly basis, and it (in concert with the two reasons i've already given and at least one more i have yet to state) is part of why i am still a member of The Church of Christ.
So why am i writing these blogs?
First, just to answer these questions (which doesn't necessarily require justifying those answers).
But second, i don't want to become a nay-sayer. The internet has plenty of people who've made it their full-time job to bash The Church of Christ. And while they swear they're not bitter or angry or resentful, i see no other possible motive emanating from their words (especially when some of them include page upon page upon page of their personal negative and abusive experiences in The Church of Christ on their "reformer" website), and even if somehow there were some other motive, i don't see what good could be accomplished by such work but to feed and fester other people's bitterness or anger or resentment over such experiences. Point being--this is not what i'm going for. And i have to be careful. i may have criticisms. They may even all be legitimate criticisms. But in no way does that permit me to be cynical or self-righteous or a fault-finder. And just for that reason (1) i need to be sure that any assessment i voice is given with the right attitude and motive, (2) i must never apply any standard that i'm not willing to have applied to me, and (3)i must take time to acknowledge the good and praiseworthy and make sure it gets due attention. (Especially #3--if you read some people's pages and newsletters, you'd think The Church of Christ is full of the most rotten pack of jerks in the world. But is that fair? Go ask orphans that have grown up in our homes--would they say we're a rotten pack of jerks? Go ask Katrina victims who were forgotten by the government but provided for by our Disaster Relief Effort--are we a mean bunch of cynics?)
So why am i still here?
First, i recognize that my criticisms are neither numerous enough nor of sufficient weight to justify or even suggest that i should leave and join some other religious group.
Second (and the point of these blogs), there are distinct reasons (personal convictions of mine which are also still largely held in The Church of Christ) which keep me here due to their importance and that no alternative religious group offers me all these reasons.
I've already given two of these distinct reasons:
1. The Restoration Principle
2. A Distinctive View of Baptism
Now a third:
3. Weekly Observance of the Lord's Supper.
Despite mounds of articles by in-house Church of Christ critics written to try desperately to show that needing to take the LS every Sunday is a silly idea hermeneutically speaking, it is not at all hermeneutically silly to me. It has never been a difficult or convoluted journey in my mind to arrive at the conclusion that the Supper was the purpose of the Sunday gatherings of the early church. While i think it'd be a stretch to say that the Supper is the purpose of The Church of Christ's Sunday gatherings, it is nevertheless observed every Sunday. i think much could be done to improve the practical observance of the Supper in The Church of Christ. But there will always be room for growth. But i believe they are right to observe it on a weekly basis, and it (in concert with the two reasons i've already given and at least one more i have yet to state) is part of why i am still a member of The Church of Christ.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Why I Am Still A Member Of The Church Of Christ Part 2
Biblically, do i think that the "church of Christ" equals "the saved"?
Yes.
Do i think that having "church of Christ" on the sign in front of the building necessarily means the people inside it are "the saved"?
No.
Do i think that having something other than "church of Christ" on the sign in front of the building necessarily means the people inside it are lost?
No. (i don't think "the saved" are demarkated by names or organizations.)
do i believe i'm a part of the biblical "church of Christ"?
Yes. (And i think saying so makes me neither proud nor a Calvinist.)
I must say, there is a sense in which i do concede that "The Church of Christ" is a denomination. If I can acknowledge even the possibility (regardless of whether i consider it a likely possibility or a remote one) that there are people who are part of the biblical "church of Christ" who are not members nor participants in an organization named "The Church of Christ," then i have acknowledged that the organization named "The Church of Christ" is part of a whole. And i have to decide whether i think i ought to continue to be a member and participant in that so-named part of a whole rather than attempting to find some other part of the same whole in which to participate.
So what keeps me a partipant of the organization named "The Church of Christ"? Last time, i stated that one of the reasons is because of the commitment to the restoration principle as a paradigm. A second reason i am still a member of "The Church of Christ" is because of its teaching and adherence to a particular view of baptism. What is that particular view?
Baptism is the immersion in water of a penitent person for the forgiveness of sins.
i believe that baptism does require water as opposed to those religious groups who teach a "baptism" in some immaterial substance (ex. baptism of the Holy Spirit).
i believe that baptism requires being submerged in water as opposed to those religious groups who teach that sprinkling or pouring are acceptable modes.
i believe that candidacy for true baptism is limited to penitent persons. i believe this excludes the baptism of infants or children insomuch as they are incapable of repentance and/or have no need of repentance.
i believe that baptism is the point at which God forgives the sins of an individual, and it is to be done for this purpose. (Must the person being baptized understand this purpose in order to truly be baptized? i'm no longer 100% convinced that the answer is "yes" because i believe the question is vague. But i will say i still largely lean toward answering "yes" to this question).
Further, i believe that this distinctive view of baptism is consistent with the restoration principle insomuch as i believe that holding this belief and practice is an imitation of the early church.
And further, i do not believe that this distinctive view of baptism in any way implies that a person must earn or merit salvation. Actually, i largely suspect that most of the traditional debates about grace/faith/works do not at all originate from the New Testament, but were largely concocted and framed by Catholicism and The Reformation.
Though there are some religious groups named "The Church of Christ" that no longer adhere to this distinctive view of baptism, by and large most do, and more importantly, the particular congregation of which i am a member does adhere to this distinctive view of baptism. And this distinctive view of baptism is part of why i am still a member of "The Church of Christ."
Yes.
Do i think that having "church of Christ" on the sign in front of the building necessarily means the people inside it are "the saved"?
No.
Do i think that having something other than "church of Christ" on the sign in front of the building necessarily means the people inside it are lost?
No. (i don't think "the saved" are demarkated by names or organizations.)
do i believe i'm a part of the biblical "church of Christ"?
Yes. (And i think saying so makes me neither proud nor a Calvinist.)
I must say, there is a sense in which i do concede that "The Church of Christ" is a denomination. If I can acknowledge even the possibility (regardless of whether i consider it a likely possibility or a remote one) that there are people who are part of the biblical "church of Christ" who are not members nor participants in an organization named "The Church of Christ," then i have acknowledged that the organization named "The Church of Christ" is part of a whole. And i have to decide whether i think i ought to continue to be a member and participant in that so-named part of a whole rather than attempting to find some other part of the same whole in which to participate.
So what keeps me a partipant of the organization named "The Church of Christ"? Last time, i stated that one of the reasons is because of the commitment to the restoration principle as a paradigm. A second reason i am still a member of "The Church of Christ" is because of its teaching and adherence to a particular view of baptism. What is that particular view?
Baptism is the immersion in water of a penitent person for the forgiveness of sins.
i believe that baptism does require water as opposed to those religious groups who teach a "baptism" in some immaterial substance (ex. baptism of the Holy Spirit).
i believe that baptism requires being submerged in water as opposed to those religious groups who teach that sprinkling or pouring are acceptable modes.
i believe that candidacy for true baptism is limited to penitent persons. i believe this excludes the baptism of infants or children insomuch as they are incapable of repentance and/or have no need of repentance.
i believe that baptism is the point at which God forgives the sins of an individual, and it is to be done for this purpose. (Must the person being baptized understand this purpose in order to truly be baptized? i'm no longer 100% convinced that the answer is "yes" because i believe the question is vague. But i will say i still largely lean toward answering "yes" to this question).
Further, i believe that this distinctive view of baptism is consistent with the restoration principle insomuch as i believe that holding this belief and practice is an imitation of the early church.
And further, i do not believe that this distinctive view of baptism in any way implies that a person must earn or merit salvation. Actually, i largely suspect that most of the traditional debates about grace/faith/works do not at all originate from the New Testament, but were largely concocted and framed by Catholicism and The Reformation.
Though there are some religious groups named "The Church of Christ" that no longer adhere to this distinctive view of baptism, by and large most do, and more importantly, the particular congregation of which i am a member does adhere to this distinctive view of baptism. And this distinctive view of baptism is part of why i am still a member of "The Church of Christ."
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Why I Am Still A Member Of The Church Of Christ Part 1
No, i don't equate the name "Church of Christ" with anyone who's saved, at least not in this blog i don't. i'm talking about buildings with this particular name on the sign out front. why do i still attend a building with that sign out front? i say "still" because i have honestly considered where else i could go given my personal convictions, and i've considered a couple options before (but not too seriously though--if any of you were worried). another reason i say "still" is because i have developed a list of criticisms of trends among groups with CoC signs in front of their buildings. But like i said, those criticisms haven't driven me to participate with any other group, and there are a few basic reasons why i am still a member of "The Church of Christ."
The first reason (of four i think) that i am still a member is the CoC's basic commitment to a principle of restoration. (i know some who read this will immediately want to make a fuss about the CoC's failure to carry out true restoration in a lot of ways, and i'd probably be sympathetic to most examples that could be given, but this doesn't alter the fact that at least a recognition of the restoration principle as legitimate and a commitment to it as a paradigm has always been a part of the CoC.)
What is the restoration principle? This probably isn't a perfect formulation, but here's my attempt to capture some of it:
Insomuch as is trans-temporally and trans-culturally possible and appropriate, we ought to imitate the first century church.
Again, i'm sure that formulation could be picked at for bugs. In fact, i'm going to pick at a couple of bugs right now. First, it could be said, "Should we imitate the divisiveness of the Corinthan church or the idleness of the church at Thessalonica, etc.?" Obviously not. The restoration principle is not meant to lead us to imitate anyone's sinfulness. i think it can be determined when the first century church was doing something that God approved of.
Second, it could be said, "But we don't have an account of everything they did; how can we imitate what's not recorded?" Absolutely true. But i don't see the restoration principle as an exhaustive or sufficient rule for our faith and practice, only a necessary one.
Third, it could be said, "Doesn't every church really believe in the restoration principle?" Yes and no. It's true--have you ever been to a church that blanketly aimed NOT to imitate the first century church or take the NT as a guide and rule of faith? Probably not. Even the most theologically liberal church still believes it's basically doing what God wants it to do, and still a majority of churches believe they're imitating the things about the people in the NT that they should be imitating. Pretty much everyone claiming to be Christian thinks there are things we ought to lift up off the 30-100AD part of the timeline and move it over to the 2008AD part of the timeline. However, plenty of churches believe and argue (though they may not put it in these words) that there is very, very little that is trans-temporally and trans-culturally appropriate for us to imitate about the first century church. It could be put like this, there are people who think it's fine for there to be a precedent of non-imitation until sufficient cases can be made for individual items that warrant their imitation. i believe the restoration principle calls us to a precedent of imitation, and that instances which warrant non-imitation must be sufficiently demonstrated.
While i'm sure there may be more bugs to work out, i'll stop there and try to restate the principle.
The modern church ought to acknowledge and honor a precedent of imitating the thought and practice of the first century church (as accounted for in the NT) insomuch as the thought and practice of the first century church was approved of by God and insomuch as is trans-temporally and trans-culturally possible and appropriate.
There's certainly more exegesis i could do of this principle and might do in the future. For now, all i want to say is that i believe this to be a legitimate principle, and it (in concert with other things) is part of what keeps me a member of the Church of Christ.
The first reason (of four i think) that i am still a member is the CoC's basic commitment to a principle of restoration. (i know some who read this will immediately want to make a fuss about the CoC's failure to carry out true restoration in a lot of ways, and i'd probably be sympathetic to most examples that could be given, but this doesn't alter the fact that at least a recognition of the restoration principle as legitimate and a commitment to it as a paradigm has always been a part of the CoC.)
What is the restoration principle? This probably isn't a perfect formulation, but here's my attempt to capture some of it:
Insomuch as is trans-temporally and trans-culturally possible and appropriate, we ought to imitate the first century church.
Again, i'm sure that formulation could be picked at for bugs. In fact, i'm going to pick at a couple of bugs right now. First, it could be said, "Should we imitate the divisiveness of the Corinthan church or the idleness of the church at Thessalonica, etc.?" Obviously not. The restoration principle is not meant to lead us to imitate anyone's sinfulness. i think it can be determined when the first century church was doing something that God approved of.
Second, it could be said, "But we don't have an account of everything they did; how can we imitate what's not recorded?" Absolutely true. But i don't see the restoration principle as an exhaustive or sufficient rule for our faith and practice, only a necessary one.
Third, it could be said, "Doesn't every church really believe in the restoration principle?" Yes and no. It's true--have you ever been to a church that blanketly aimed NOT to imitate the first century church or take the NT as a guide and rule of faith? Probably not. Even the most theologically liberal church still believes it's basically doing what God wants it to do, and still a majority of churches believe they're imitating the things about the people in the NT that they should be imitating. Pretty much everyone claiming to be Christian thinks there are things we ought to lift up off the 30-100AD part of the timeline and move it over to the 2008AD part of the timeline. However, plenty of churches believe and argue (though they may not put it in these words) that there is very, very little that is trans-temporally and trans-culturally appropriate for us to imitate about the first century church. It could be put like this, there are people who think it's fine for there to be a precedent of non-imitation until sufficient cases can be made for individual items that warrant their imitation. i believe the restoration principle calls us to a precedent of imitation, and that instances which warrant non-imitation must be sufficiently demonstrated.
While i'm sure there may be more bugs to work out, i'll stop there and try to restate the principle.
The modern church ought to acknowledge and honor a precedent of imitating the thought and practice of the first century church (as accounted for in the NT) insomuch as the thought and practice of the first century church was approved of by God and insomuch as is trans-temporally and trans-culturally possible and appropriate.
There's certainly more exegesis i could do of this principle and might do in the future. For now, all i want to say is that i believe this to be a legitimate principle, and it (in concert with other things) is part of what keeps me a member of the Church of Christ.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Christian Pacifism
A simple question:
Is there any biblical authority for a Christian engaging in any physical violence whatsoever?
We're currectly studying the sermon on the mount in my wednesday night class, and we came to the section regarding non-resistance--turn the other cheek, go a second mile, lend, etc. i was just really surprised at the number of people in the class who offered comments trying to justify returning physical violence if attacked.
i say that, but the truth is, i guess i'm not really surprised. it has been deeply culturally engrained even in me that there's a point at which if you do not return physical violence then there is something wrong with you, something "weak" about you, something even dishonorable or unethical about you. and i'm sure a lot of sentiments in those comments last night arose from such cultural conditioning. and i must admit the strong pull of such cultural conditioning because even i struggle to answer when asked about certain scenarios. Would i physically fight someone who intended to harm my family? Would i let my child watch someone beat me to a pulp without ever fighting back? The trouble with such questions is that they are playing on my own inclination and will, they are not getting at what should be done or ought to be done. Simply because i would do something or have a strong tendency toward doing something, that doesn't imply that my action or tendency is right.
Last night's comments largely centered around the sentiment that surely there's some point at which it's not okay to let yourself get walked all over. There was more than one appeal to common sense, "surely that's why God blessed us with common sense--to know that we're not just supposed to sit there and take it."
So why did Jesus just sit there any take it? Were his disciples any less confused than us about this matter? Were they any less perplexed at how NON-common sensical Jesus pacifism seemed? Why did Jesus let those people continue to beat Him and mistreat Him? Why didn't Jesus recognize there was a point at which it just wasn't right to let them keep walking all over Him?
i'm sure physical violence/resistance justifiers would be tempted to say there's some key difference between what Jesus did and what we're supposed to do/allowed to do. But am i wrong in understanding that Peter clearly and explicitly pointed out that Jesus meant for this specific behavior on His part to be an example for how we ought to behave (1Peter 2:21-23)?
So again, just a simple question: Does the Bible authorize me, a Christian, to engage in any physical violence at all ever?
Is there any biblical authority for a Christian engaging in any physical violence whatsoever?
We're currectly studying the sermon on the mount in my wednesday night class, and we came to the section regarding non-resistance--turn the other cheek, go a second mile, lend, etc. i was just really surprised at the number of people in the class who offered comments trying to justify returning physical violence if attacked.
i say that, but the truth is, i guess i'm not really surprised. it has been deeply culturally engrained even in me that there's a point at which if you do not return physical violence then there is something wrong with you, something "weak" about you, something even dishonorable or unethical about you. and i'm sure a lot of sentiments in those comments last night arose from such cultural conditioning. and i must admit the strong pull of such cultural conditioning because even i struggle to answer when asked about certain scenarios. Would i physically fight someone who intended to harm my family? Would i let my child watch someone beat me to a pulp without ever fighting back? The trouble with such questions is that they are playing on my own inclination and will, they are not getting at what should be done or ought to be done. Simply because i would do something or have a strong tendency toward doing something, that doesn't imply that my action or tendency is right.
Last night's comments largely centered around the sentiment that surely there's some point at which it's not okay to let yourself get walked all over. There was more than one appeal to common sense, "surely that's why God blessed us with common sense--to know that we're not just supposed to sit there and take it."
So why did Jesus just sit there any take it? Were his disciples any less confused than us about this matter? Were they any less perplexed at how NON-common sensical Jesus pacifism seemed? Why did Jesus let those people continue to beat Him and mistreat Him? Why didn't Jesus recognize there was a point at which it just wasn't right to let them keep walking all over Him?
i'm sure physical violence/resistance justifiers would be tempted to say there's some key difference between what Jesus did and what we're supposed to do/allowed to do. But am i wrong in understanding that Peter clearly and explicitly pointed out that Jesus meant for this specific behavior on His part to be an example for how we ought to behave (1Peter 2:21-23)?
So again, just a simple question: Does the Bible authorize me, a Christian, to engage in any physical violence at all ever?
Is Death Normal? 2
it sounds simple enough to me that the tree of life sustained Adam and Even indefinitely, and they lost it in the Fall. Here's what i'm concerned about though: just because their lives were sustained by that tree, this doesn't necessarily imply that death was a natural or built-in part of Edenic/original creation, right? i can see why a person might be inclined to think so, but i really don't think that necessarily follows.
i know a lot of people might see this as just one among many novel curiousities we come up with regarding the Garden, but i really don't think this is as trite a matter as whethe or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons or how much time did they truly spend in Eden prior to the Fall. If we say that death was a natural part of God's original design, i think we rob the Bible of a lot of meaning that cries out to be understood.
First, the curse itself seems like less of a curse. If Adam and Eve would have died anyway, then why was it really a curse to be told they would die?
Second, Christ's resurrection is depleted of meaning. If death was a natural part of God's creation, then Christ's resurrection was little more than one premise in a syllogism about His divinity. i think Christ's resurrection clearly tells us something about His reversal of the curse, and also indicates that God intends to redeem all of creation from that curse.
Third, our own resurrections are depleted of meaning. i suspect that many people find bodily resurrection superfluous anyway, and that's why they (though professing Christians) don't really believe that they will be bodily raised from the dead, but will just have their disembodied spirits float around in an immaterial heaven forever. Or if they do believe in bodily resurrection, again, they see it almost as an ad hoc to God's plan for the end of the world. Our own bodily resurrections are significant for several reasons, but one of which is that our own bodies need redeemed from the effects of sin. To say that death was a part of the original creation implies that there's nothing our bodies really need redeemed from.
Fourth, so many passages in the NT speak of death as an enemy (ex, 1Cor 15). Death is not natural or normal, but is a nasty monster that needs conquered. The Pelagian idea that death is a natural, built-in part of God's original creation suggests that such passages are gross exaggerations.
Fifth, death is a nasty monster that was borne of human sin. If we claim that God through Christ sought to deal with sin, then physical death is part of that which needs dealt with.
i know a lot of people might see this as just one among many novel curiousities we come up with regarding the Garden, but i really don't think this is as trite a matter as whethe or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons or how much time did they truly spend in Eden prior to the Fall. If we say that death was a natural part of God's original design, i think we rob the Bible of a lot of meaning that cries out to be understood.
First, the curse itself seems like less of a curse. If Adam and Eve would have died anyway, then why was it really a curse to be told they would die?
Second, Christ's resurrection is depleted of meaning. If death was a natural part of God's creation, then Christ's resurrection was little more than one premise in a syllogism about His divinity. i think Christ's resurrection clearly tells us something about His reversal of the curse, and also indicates that God intends to redeem all of creation from that curse.
Third, our own resurrections are depleted of meaning. i suspect that many people find bodily resurrection superfluous anyway, and that's why they (though professing Christians) don't really believe that they will be bodily raised from the dead, but will just have their disembodied spirits float around in an immaterial heaven forever. Or if they do believe in bodily resurrection, again, they see it almost as an ad hoc to God's plan for the end of the world. Our own bodily resurrections are significant for several reasons, but one of which is that our own bodies need redeemed from the effects of sin. To say that death was a part of the original creation implies that there's nothing our bodies really need redeemed from.
Fourth, so many passages in the NT speak of death as an enemy (ex, 1Cor 15). Death is not natural or normal, but is a nasty monster that needs conquered. The Pelagian idea that death is a natural, built-in part of God's original creation suggests that such passages are gross exaggerations.
Fifth, death is a nasty monster that was borne of human sin. If we claim that God through Christ sought to deal with sin, then physical death is part of that which needs dealt with.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Is Death Normal?
Had Adam and Eve never eaten from the forbidden tree, would their physical bodies have continued forever? Or would they still have died physically?
i have always thought that physical mortality was not a part of the world until the Fall and curse. i read where N. T. Wright suggested he thought death might have been a natural part of the world even prior to the Fall, which really surprised me deeply considering some other things he spends such a great deal of time arguing for.
i realize there was a tree of life that Adam and Eve ate from. But would this tree imply that they would otherwise die? Or more importantly, would having a tree which sustained one's life indefinitely imply that death was a natural part of the world?
i still tend to think that Adam and Eve would have physically lived forever and that physical death is a part of the Fall and not a part of the ideal. What do you think and why? Am i missing something?
i have always thought that physical mortality was not a part of the world until the Fall and curse. i read where N. T. Wright suggested he thought death might have been a natural part of the world even prior to the Fall, which really surprised me deeply considering some other things he spends such a great deal of time arguing for.
i realize there was a tree of life that Adam and Eve ate from. But would this tree imply that they would otherwise die? Or more importantly, would having a tree which sustained one's life indefinitely imply that death was a natural part of the world?
i still tend to think that Adam and Eve would have physically lived forever and that physical death is a part of the Fall and not a part of the ideal. What do you think and why? Am i missing something?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)