Monday, January 25, 2010

Scripture

Revelation itself comes from the word “apocalypsus,” or unveiling.  It is this idea that God in His divine wisdom has chosen to make some things known to humanity.  Revelation is three fold; it is for everyone, its not a small scale epiphany like in your Bible study, and it is not just a prophetic word brought forth in a worship service. Ultimately the entire world benefits from a revelation.  There are two divisions to revelation, and I'm going to deal with them each in turn.
Revelation exists as an indirect and indiscriminate revelation of God, or general revelation.  This most often happens in nature and in the inner searching of the human psyche.  It is placed within the reach of all human beings and is able to be discovered. “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings (Proverbs 25:2, NIV)”  One may learn about God by observation, and contemplation.
A more profound way revelation is understood is in the method of special revelation.  Special revelation is both discriminant and direct in nature.  It is pin point focused on events, and direct insertions of God in time.  This form of revelation is seen most often in the context of history, the Bible, and the Christ event.  The church is in turn charged with the propagation of special revelation.  


Scripture
I believe that because God directly appealed to man through the writers of the Scriptures that they are very special in nature.  I believe that Scripture is authoritative.  That it is a piece of literature above all others both in its content and nature.  It has a specific power granted it by the Holy Spirit, and is in fact so full of the anointing of God that it is a means of grace for those that hear it.  Grace is the “unmerited work of God through us, in us, and for us [Bounds]“  Theology is in fact one of the primary means by which God administers grace “it is the balm, the healing salve that works to heal the soul [Bounds].”  We, as Christians, deeply revere the Scriptures because we believe the words to be those of God Himself, dynamically inspiring the writers of the Text.  We know that the authority of Scripture comes from God.  There is little value in trying to prove the validity of Scripture, what we must rely on is the “testimoium internum Spiritus Sancti,” or the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.  I also believe that the Scriptures are plenary in nature, and that every word is equally as inspired as the next.  It has been the practice of the Church to focus on those verses that most resonate with the current world, but we know that regardless of the apparent relevance, or highlighter-worthiness of a passage, God is equally present in every word.
I believe in the Primacy of Scripture.  Scripture is the final source of authority on all matters of faith and practice [Bounds].  We believe Scripture to be unique and unrepeatable, that it is unlike any other source text.  We see in the Canon the purposeful preservation by God of the worldview, and vocabulary of the writers.  For instance in the Pauline Epistles we see a higher form of Greek than in that of Peter's writings.  While maintaining the fact that Scripture is without error, we as readers cannot demand of scripture what it does not offer; we call this Irenic Inerrancy.    One must allow the Scriptures to speak to the discrepancies within itself.  One must not ask of Scripture what it doesn't ask of itself.  I believe that “Scripture itself must determine according to its intent the scope of that inerrancy [Bounds].”

Monday, January 18, 2010

Operating Methodology

I have chosen for, this paper, to operate under the methodology laid out for me in my Theology course.  Founding all of my understanding on the Holy Scriptures, knowing it is not only enough, but is in fact beyond sufficient for all pursuits of knowledge.  Yet it is apparent upon the study of Scripture to discover that it is in fact not as clear as we would like it to be.  I describe the tools for understanding this way.  The Canon is the foundation, solid and unshakable, fully sufficient.  Upon that is the work of those great saints that have gone before us.  It is said that “if we are able to see further than those that have predated us it is simply because of the work they built for us to stand on [Bounds].”  Thus we see this great Tradition laid for us of the Consensual theology of the Church, that which is understood everywhere, always, and by all.  We look to the past on the basis of the law of “proximal authority,” that is those authors living closest to the days of the Apostles must hold the chief weight of our understanding.  Next is the communal convictions of my denominational conviction, or my “small t” tradition.  This tradition is found in the teachings of the Wesleyan church, and greatly influences the things I do.  These traditions in a sense frame a cognitive house upon the foundation of scripture.  I then rely on the logical reasoning of my mental facility, which adds walls and windows to this house.  Lastly there is this personal experience, different for every person, which gives the personal nature to every home.  All of the other elements can almost be arrived at apart from a person, but it is the experience that really finishes off this analogy.  You cannot have understanding without each of these pieces, but I believe that the order is what is essential.  It is not any individual point, but the whole process, which I believe if deviated from can have devastating consequences.  For instance, if experience is what was foundational, you may arrive at the heresy that all roads lead to God because a family member is not following Christianity, a conclusion that is sorely mistaken.  Or if you were to focus on tradition you would be the type of person Jesus preaches against in every message against the lives of the Pharisees.  There is an order and a rhythm to understanding that we must learn.  This rhythm is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and is the hierarchical ordering of these four pieces of methodology.  The Apostles' Creed is the principal Tradition text that I will be working with.


The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended to the dead.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen


The Creed creates the framework for Tradition, and grants a call to create a comprehensive coherent account of the Christian faith [Bounds].  As traditionally explained the Apostles' Creed is split into twelve articles.  Each one has been systematized and will be addressed accordingly.  There is a very specific order to the Creed.  For instance, God is referred to as the “Father Almighty.”  The word Father is the principal modifier to His being almighty, that is, He is first father, and then omnipotent.  God's character informs His will.  God cannot act against the character of God.  We call this “Divine Command Theory,” His character limits His will.  The understanding that His power is qualified by His identification as Father, is essential to many of the understandings that will be dealt with, thus we see that the exact wording is important.  The history of theology can in many ways be traced back to the widespread memorization, recitation, and examination of the Apostles' Creed.  It allows even the most uneducated of people to succinctly communicate orthodox Christian beliefs.  While the Creed does not concretely establish the deity of Christ, the full understanding of the Trinity comes to us eventually, and the Apostles' Creed is still the foundational theological text.  There are a number of disciplines of Systematic Theology that will be defined as well, although great detail will only be paid to that of Theodicy as it pertains to the understanding of the work of God, bearing in mind that every discipline mentioned is deserving of an entire paper, perhaps later in my life.  All of this however, is of naught if not for the call of theology to change the Christian's life, to apply Christian Faith to contemporary life [Bounds].  On that note, it must be understood that the Truth is meant to be interpreted in the context of of community, implying a Christian's right relationship to the Church as essential to their growth. 


Theism: monotheistic belief that “conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation [Orr, English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, p. 234].” 

Monday, January 11, 2010

A Call to Orthodoxy

Amid the anti-denominational war we see a cry from the post-modern everyman; we want to understand transcendent universal truth.  Post-moderns want to know what has been true across the vastness of the Christian tradition, and not the petty doctrinal disputes between sects.  We want to be a part of something that makes a difference and that is bigger than ourselves.  We want to be a part of something authentic.  Where people aren't involved in scandal, or where nobody is fleecing us for our “own good.”  Post-moderns can see a fake a mile off, we know when somebody is insincere, and we have no patience for us.  There is this attitude I feel in every group of post-modern adolescents that screams for sincerity.  Out of this we hear a call, a plea for teachers of good Orthodox theology.  We want to know the truth, beyond the opinion.  We are a part of the swing of the pendulum back to that which is held the most dear by the Church.  We discover this brilliant teaching from Vincentius, a Gaul, wrote a treatise outlining the problems with Augustine's view of predestination called “the Commonitory.”  He outlines an operating principal for the acquisition of theological understanding that I will embrace for all of my future academic pursuits.  In order for us to fortify our minds against heresy and pop-theology we must look first to Scripture, and next to the Tradition of the Church; that which is universal, has been held by antiquity, and is consensual among believers.  I will endeavor to delve into the vast pool of theology and to portray my understanding of its nature to the best of my ability.
One of the more interesting parts of my theological journey is simply the early years of my interest.  I started my reading in my bedroom, apart from society.  Whenever I would try to talk about it I was met with a consistent lack of interest.  So frustrated I became with this that I internalized all of my thoughts.  Untempered by society, and uncorrected by people of superior intellect my understandings remained narrow, and shallow.  It wasn't until my time at Indiana Wesleyan that I finally felt encouraged, being able to discuss and ask deep questions.  It has served as an invaluable part of my understanding of what it means to wrestle with theology.  I have come to the understanding that theology is meant to be discovered in the context of community.  That it is supposed to be discussed and corrected if one is to really learn and excel.
With these understandings I would like to state my intent for this paper.  I am departing on a literary journey to accomplish four ends.  First, to participate in the great conversation of theology, thus creating a framework by which to both teach those of lesser understanding, and to seek correction and guidance from those of higher understanding.  Secondly, to create a reference point to steer my future theological pursuits.  Thirdly, I aim to bring clarity to my systematic understanding, to be able to clearly convey the principles of theology in a coherent manor, and to create stock verbiage to use in my local church ministry.  Lastly, but most importantly is to bring more strength and love to my relationship with God, the author and perfecter of our faith.

Monday, January 04, 2010

Personal Worldview

We find ourselves today in a world torn between two approaches to truth; modernity and post-modernity.  My parents generation was part of an epic struggle to refute all the things of the Great Generation, from morality, to their approach on all things scientific and philosophical.  They thew out church liturgy, music, and everything else that echoed of old.  My generation now finds itself in a precarious scenario; we have no history, nor direction.  See in the midst of burning everything that has formed society over the generations, the modernists threw out everything that gave value to culture.  My generation is left with the aftermath of the decisions of the modernists.  Thus we, the post-moderns, have been scattered in every direction, having no semblance of connection.  The ramifications of this are evident on the front page of every newspaper, and in the captions of every newscast.  The fascinating thing about this is that in trying to create a world for their children, free of the tyrannies of past generations, the modernists have made children that crave those very tyrannies.  I find myself a part of a world that wants to belong to the vastness of history, a generation that longs to find truth, and to join in the time line of this world.  In a way our parents never thought possible we are embracing hymns, and longing for the next arrangement of a classical song, updated in our chords, and dripping with theological strength.  Churches everywhere are beginning “liturgical services,” because they provide us with stability.  The linear approach of our parents is obsolete.  A pastor that preaches “ten ways to get your life on track” will be thought trite and self-righteous.  The students in today's world want pastors that will ask big questions, and stand in the muck and mire of this world with us.  We want to know scripture, but not just the scriptures, we want to know the Hebrew, Greek, and context.  I come from a worldview that thirsts to swim in the deep streams of life, and longs in all ways to make a true lasting difference.  
I come from western Michigan, an area wrought by a homogenous religious culture.  Five out of six congregations come from a Calvinistic background, and are so intrenched in tradition, that nobody understands the need and call for evangelism.  This fact is interesting because my church has what I call hyper-evangelistic theology.  I've spent most of my childhood learning how to reach my classmates for Christ, while never in fact learning much about Him.  I am embarrassed to say that I came to school here with far less Biblical and theological understanding than I care to admit.  You see, I was so well trained to win new followers, that I never really looked at what I was winning them to...  
I also come from what I would call a hyper-conservative environment.  A tradition of people that are trained to take everything at face value, to never doubt the pastor, and to take every letter of the Word as unquestionable truth.  We explored in class the subject of innerancy, as a three divisions, but I would say I came from a place even more extreme, a scriptural view that the Bible is innerant, and our brains our too simple to understand any of it, and thus we should not even try to rationalize the apparent contradictions.  
My generation also comes from a culture rife with pop-theology.  Authors like John Piper, Brian MacLarren, and Joel Osting preach concepts that are enticing at first glance, but are horrendous in implication.  Ideas that God wills people to hell, that God is not just, and that all God wants of us is our happiness.  We need to know the truth, and to understand the true meaning of what it is to be a disciple of Christ.  

Friday, January 01, 2010

Women: God's Answer

“Then God said, 'let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Genesis 1:26-27 [NIV]


The first two chapters of Genesis are loaded with symbolism, meaning, and the foundations of theology. For instance; by the second verse the discussion of the Trinity is begun (Genesis 1:2 “and the Rûwach of God” or the Spirit of God), by verse four we see the original state of creation (it was good), and we have the cosmological framework for time set up. The rest of this creation story is equally pregnant with essentials of the conversation of God's interaction with His creation. There are two events in the first five chapters of Genesis that are written about more than any other; the creation account, and the fall of humanity. Sandwiched, however, in the middle of these two principals is the story of the creation of man, that is mankind (the Hebrew word for man, adam is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam [Archaeological Study Bible, p.5]), but specifically the creation of woman, and her place in the created order. It is one of the most pressing issues in the life of the Church, and one that I believe is widely misconceived. It is the intent of this discourse to articulate the innate equality of women in the site of God in creation, the hierarchical consequences of the fall, and the plan of God on earth to reconcile creation from the moment of the fall all the way through the salvific Christological act. As a Christian, operating out of a Christocentric philosophy, we see the scripture in light of Christ's coming, and the teaching He delivered. In Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus says that the entirety of Scripture revolves around people; loving God, and loving each other. Scripture then in the eyes of Jesus is a redemption narrative, restoring His creation to right relationship with each other and Himself, at any cost. A compilation of verses from Deuteronomy and Numbers from the Torah is the most obvious source for Jesus' quotation, but we must look back further.

Jesus operated in what is known as a Talmudic interpretation [Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, p144] of scripture, which means that He was not only well versed in the Scriptures, but also in the recorded rabbinic discussions of His day. One of the common practices of a Talmudic rabbi, like Jesus, was to look to the principal of first mention [Fergussen, Wright, Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, p44], which calls into question the first place in Scripture where a given principal or understanding is born. Where was the idea of the relationship between God and mankind formed, and how is mankind to interact? We look to the Genesis Creation Narrative to find the answers to this question. In Genesis 1:27 God creates mankind. Now, mankind was created very specifically last, and in a very special way. We learn that mankind was created in the image an likeness of God. An early heresy dispelled was that God exists as both male, and female, which is simply not true, but rather that the Godhead exists in community. The Godhead exists in trinity, and each person has infinite love toward both of the other persons. If God did not exist triunely His love would have been egocentric in nature, something we know not to be true. Thus we see, reflected in the relationship of the Godhead, the love meant by God in creation. The maleness and femaleness of the people, is a reflection of the image of the Godhead [Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume I, p.181]. We see this beautiful language set up in Genesis 2:24 where two whole people, become one whole person. While it is not a direct correlation, it is very symbolic of the distinction and oneness of God. There is this equality set up in the persons of mankind. Apart from one another they do not reflect the Godhead.
Its interesting to learn that Genesis is the only ancient creation narrative, of which there are many, that talks about the creation of woman. From its onset the one true God is wanting to communicate the equality of humanity “This is the only full account of the creation of woman in all of ancient Near East literature [ASB, p7].” We have this understanding that the God of the Old Testament is the only true God, not that He is greater than other gods, but that no other God exists. In the current of what is then the one true creation narrative we find that God created man and female equal. There is a thread in the scholastic communities that explains the creation of Eve. The etymology of the word rib in Hebrew is the same root of the word center, and they are often used interchangeable in the ancient world. Thus we note that in taking a rib of Adam's, God is symbolically showing that Eve is taken from the very center of what it is to be man. This thread of understanding states that it is important to realize that she was not made by man's head, the source of the man's power, that she might be ruled or lorded over by him. It is also important to see that she was not created from his feet, to be trampled by him [Walton, Matthews, Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, p. 28]. In this teaching we see the intentionality of God. This is eventually expounded upon with verse 23 “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh [NIV].” Adam was not only saying that she was one with him, she was saying so much more. To a Jew bone was the strongest part of a person, and flesh, the weakest. Woman was man's strength, and his weakness. Back in verse 18 it says “I will make a helper suitable for him [NIV].” In his sermon titled “Sex by Design,” Peter Yoshonis points out that the word used for helper here is the word 'êzer, a word that is most often used to describe God (see Psalm 33:20 “Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our 'êzer and our shield [ESV].”). Woman was not meant to be man's petty servant, but in the likeness of God, was meant to be the strength of man. There is this sense, buried in the Genesis narrative, that mankind can only exist as male and female, that it would be incomplete and fragmented if either gender were to be missing, or unequal.


By the third chapter of Genesis however everything is about to change...
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:1-5 [NASB]
The Genesis Fall is classically understood from two theological principals that we glean from St. Augustine of Hippo. He states first that because only good was created in Genesis that evil is in fact not created but rather a brokenness of the good, we call this notion privation of the good [Augustine, Enchiridion of Augustine]. We know that man was both created in the image and likeness of God, and is thus meant to be like God, as well as meant to appreciate beauty. We see the serpent of Genesis 3 using the way mankind was created to twist the good creation of God. This privation was accomplished by telling Eve that she would be like God, and by calling attention to the inherent beauty and utility of the fruit. The act of creation was change, because it had not previously existed (the dotrine of ex nihilo creation [Aug., Ench. p.35]), and thus because it was changed, it was able to be changed; which it was. One of the things that is interesting to note is that until the fall man and woman enjoyed a beautiful sense of equality. Enter the fall, we see a tragic repercussion; as a result of the fall a new hierarchy began within the life of humanity. “...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you [Genesis 3:16, NIV].” No longer was man and woman existing in a state of equality, but this divisive order had begun, that has continued into this day.

If one were to look at history, one would observe the lack of attention paid to women. They are not included in stories, not valued by political leaders, not regarded for opinion, and not allowed to be educated in almost every past civilization. They have no place in government, no position in the home, no property, no voice.
Yet there is this glimmer of hope. Immediately following what has become known as the Curse a radical turn is taken in the tone of God toward humanity; a tone that savors strongly of the first two chapters of Genesis. “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them [Genesis 3:21].” It is impossible to define the nature of God – it is far too complex, and lofty for our minds. However we learn certain things of God from His word, among them is that God is immediately compelled to reconcile His creation to Himself once it has fallen. We entered into a sinful and depraved existence at birth, but part of the salvific act of Christ is that God longs to reconcile us to right relationship; made apparent from the foundations of time. We see this call to the restoration of gender equality from the very first story in the Bible. God was at work in the lives of women all throughout the Old Testament. The lives of Deborah, Ruth, and Esther prove that God left no room for women to remain at the bottom of the hierarchical system. All of these point to the eventual coming of the Messiah, where all things would be made right again. The belief of the Jews throughout the entirety of the Old Testament was that God would be at work in His creation, through His Messiah, restoring the world. It is also important to note that at the time when most of the Old Testament was written Jews had a very weak understanding of the afterlife. This concept grew over time to the current theological interpretation we have today, but to a Jew in the Old Testament, they expected the changes the Messiah brought to be for that point in history. That the redemption of creation was meant to happen in this lifetime, not in the next. Thus when many people argue that equality, and sanctification are only dreams, able only to be actualized in death, they are sorely mistaken, and in grievously poor exegesis of Scripture.

In conclusion it must be understood that from the beginning of creation - mankind was meant to exist in a state of equality, that inequality was merely a result of the fall, and that the restoration of Biblical gender equality is meant to be achieved in this lifetime. All persons must be doing their part to inform and propagate the equality of genders. This is accomplished by a personal commitment to reform your perception of gender, and by a fervent effort to reform that of others. Everyone must be at work in the act of redeeming and restoring the woman of the Church.



Reflection: I began this research paper as a look into God's design for sex, and it really morphed as I progressed. The Wesleyan Church has always taken a strong stance on the elevation of women to roles of pastoral leadership, and in the world at large. They architected, and actualized much of woman's suffrage and helped women to achieve the place they currently enjoy. The work is hardly over. I saw this deep need to research, and to portray the original respect of woman. One of the things that stuck out to me so intensely was that inequality was a result of the fall. Dr. Chris Bounds spoke in class one day about the fact that God, by nature, MUST in fact move to redeem. It is as though one component of who God is, is redemption. This paper helped to make the idea of woman in ministry that much more simple to me. A precedent was set in Genesis as to God's heart for woman, one that continues forever.

Works Cited:


“The Holy Bible: New International Version,” International Bible Society, copyright 1973,1978, 1984 a.d.



New Dictionary of Theology” Sinclair B. Fergussen; David F Wright, J.I. Packer. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 1988 a.d.



“Archaeological Study Bible, an illustrated walk through Biblical History and culture.” Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishers, 2005 a.d.



“Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.” by James Strong. Madison, N.J. World Bible Publishers Inc. 1986 a.d.



“The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament” by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 2000 a.d.


“Jesus the Jewish Theologian” by Brad Young. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hendrickson Publishers. 1995 a.d.



“The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume 1,” second edition. By Thomas Oden. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishers Inc. 2008 a.d.