TheoSpora

This is the first post in a planned series of posts about different forms of postmodern thought.

It seems to me that postmodern philosophy and thought has something to do with each of these categories. As with all philosophies, postmodernity has its strengths and weaknesses. First and foremost it is important to realize that postmodernity is ill-defined but not ill-conceived. That is, to me at least, its philosophical basis works when it is spoken of generally. However, when applied particularly postmodern philosophy can run up against some major difficulties. Let's begin with Jean-Francois Lyotard's definition of postmodernism.

In a nutshell, Lyotard describes postmodernism as the incredulity towards meta-narratives. First things first, Lyotard is a linguist whose philosophical contributions centered around the idea that we all play games with language to the extent that it is ultimately impossible to have everyone agree on one meaning for one object. Lyotard scholars would no doubt disagree with me on this point. Truthfully speaking, I have only read one of his works and therefore my exposure to his thoughts is limited. I put my interpretation in context in order to explain how I got to the meaning that I have claimed from Lyotard's work. Thus, I have also proved his point concerning meta-narratives.

Meta-narratives are the grand narratives of modernity that sought to explain how we are all alike. That is, modern philosophy posited that there were certain stories or linguistic concepts that could be generalized to all people. Lyotard objected to this assumption and instead sought to bring attention to the individuality that is present in each interpretation of the same phenomenon. The good part of this theory is that it brings in marginalized interpretations; it opens the door for multiple possible interpretations of phenomena and the validity of each of these interpretations; it also makes us aware of the contexts that we bring with us to particular experiences. However, there are some possible negative aspects as well.

Carried out to its extreme, this form of postmodernism can lead to relativism and the denial of a larger truth. Furthermore, there is the possibility for conflict when multiple interpretations are deposited into a communal milieu. The conflict is not bad itself; however, when one finds themselves incapable of hearing and validating the interpretations of other people can be further marginalized in their own communities.

For those in Christian communities (indeed all religions fall in this category), we are by definition guided by a meta-narrative. Moreover, this meta-narrative contributes to a number of positive and negative experiences in the Christian community. To put it in its most basic format, Christians are all guided by the same story. This, in and of itself, could disqualify us from the postmodern debate. However, even though we believe we are guided by the same story, in truth we are not. So many are the interpretations of this story, that I have to believe that there is little possibility for us to agree fully upon its meaning. This means that our meta-narrative is actually a series of meta-narratives.

For example, if I were to admit publicly that I believe the story we adhere to, in its most basic form, reveals that God is love, then at that same moment someone else could cry bullshit (in a Christian way of course) and they would proceed to tell me that the story we adhere to says that God is judgment or God is jealous or God is power or even God is anger. Therefore, the meta-narrative that is supposed to bind us is really a multi-narrative (my term) that has no one guiding meaning that affects humanity in all the same way.

The "good" part about this example is the possibility that there is some form of "rightness" within each of our interpretations. If we accept that there is some validity in each of the theologies of Pat Robertson, Jurgen Moltmann, Paul Tillich, Joel Osteen, John Cobb, Jr., and John Calvin, and that in none of them will we find an absolute truth that will guide every single human being, then there is possibility of a "multi-rightness" that leads to multiple ways of encountering God in the world. Therefore, the discussion of differences changes from a "right-wrong" perspective to a "my experience-your experience" perspective. This can lead to a greater understanding of the varieties of experiences that make up our relationships with God, and possibly even further enhancing all of our experiences of God through the multiple ways in which God is encountered. One way of talking about this is that the multiple experiences of God resemble the concept of the body of Christ; my experience may be an eye or ear whereas yours might be a mouth or arm (we won't posit who gets to be the ass).

My guess is that you might also see some of the difficulties with this form of contextualization. The first is that God is supposed to greater than one or even the sum of all of our interpretations and experiences. This also means that God, if God is truly greater than all of these, is something that is ultimately a meta-narrative. That is, God authors stories that are beyond the context of human experience that are good for all of humanity.

Secondly, there would be no need for postmodern Christians to evangelize if we truly believed in the contextualization of the experience of God. All experiences of God would ultimately speak the truth about God from a particular perspective. This would mean that the meta-narrative of Christianity would not be a meta-narrative for the world. Instead, God would be able to speak through the meta-narratives of all religions, rendering Christianity as one path among many to God, rather than a "one true path" religion.

The final "bad" piece would be that we carry out contextualization to the point where we no longer resemble the Body of Christ but are more like a set of body parts in Ziploc bags. Contextualization could lead to compartmentalization and the separating of the body of Christ through the individuation of worship styles, theology, education practices, dress code, music styles and so on. Truthfully, we are already a compartmentalized religion, we just have broader labels for each compartment (think conservative-liberal, contemporary-traditional, modern-postmodern, etc.). Extreme contextualization can create pockets of Christians with the same tastes or similar narratives that cling to one another rather than reaching out to the body of Christ as a whole.

As far as the "ugly" is concerned. I think that might come out in two fashions. The first is an "anything goes" kind of Christianity. The second is a "lowest common denominator" Christianity.

In the "anything goes" category, Christianity becomes diluted through the attempts to appease as many different experiential styles while not catering to one group in particular. Take worship for example. I attended a church recently that incorporated powerpoint, hymnals, a praise band, organ, scripture, prayers and a basic sermon. The worship was poorly constructed with what I can only describe as a marginally acceptable order and description. As a person visiting the congregation I was subjected to: confusion, a praise band that seemed more interested in itself that in worship, a barely functioning powerpoint presentation that was distracting at best and boring at worst. This attempt to appeal/appease all of the congregational contexts left me feeling as though the congregation treated worship lightly, they felt theologically inept and shallow, and the service made me only more determined to find a better place of worship.

I don't mind "contemporary" worship (the distinction is a misnomer because ALL worship is contemporary due to its temporal locality and its connection with the world, regardless of its casualness or the use of "praise" music). There are some new music songs and styles that provide theological depth and challenge the singer/hearer to novel theological connections. The difficulty comes in the desire to please every person's context and whims rather than focusing the point of worship, namely to direct oneself to God for a sustained period of time. Therefore, the question that must be answered is, how can we open ourselves to anything that might direct us toward a sustained period of worship with God? Is it image, music, poetry, art, sermons, or prayers (or other mediums)? Moreover, how will we use these resources responsibly in order to accentuate our worship, rather than using them to keep ourselves interested? In my theological world, God is the ultimate audience of worship, the gathered body of Christ are the actors in the play. In "anything goes" styles, the actors become the audience and it shifts the focus of worship.

The final "ugly" is "lowest common denominator" Christianity. That is, we find the things we agree on and only work with those pieces. The difficulty with this form is that it lacks challenge and doesn't move people from the things that make them comfortable. Christianity has, built into it, a sense that something is not right with the world, and God has called upon us to try and fix it, with God's help. When we hit the "lowest common denominator" form Christianity loses its edge and becomes just another social or country club where we gather to pat ourselves on the back for not screwing up the world too much more during the week.

I realize this is a long intro, but there is a lot to Lyotard and the implications for Christianity are many. I will be gone for a vacation in the upcoming week, but I hope to post another piece to this postmodern puzzle by next Friday. Please feel free to comment on what you have read. I am by no means a philosopher, and if others have insights about Lyotard feel free to add them.

grace and peace...

I have always shunned the term born again. This phrase brought up thoughts of witless teens handing out tracts at the Olympics, or the forceful conversion conversations that occurred with evangelicals about the state of my soul. For me, born again became synonymous with everything that was wrong with Christianity. This led me to write them off as forever lost to Christianity, mainly because of our blatant inability to respect one another and the religions we carry with us; and, on a personal note, not being able to get beyond "born again's" historical meanings. I guess that one of the greatest things about having prejudices is finding that moment when we are able to escape them...

The lectionary passage from this past Sunday was the famous text in John that gave "birth" to the idea about being born again. As I listened to a good sermon about this idea, and the need for progressives to reclaim it so that passion once again is portion of faith, and the rational becomes the radical, I heard something that disagreed with me. At the moment the words floated effortlessly into the congregational milieu, I knew they felt wrong to me. I could not agree with the idea that being born again meant that we have to die to something else.

There is nothing in the text that supports this idea, which leads me to believe that any juxtaposition of death and birth that we cling to today must have its rise in tradition. The only things that are set against one another in this text are the ideas of heaven and flesh, which if carried out to an extreme would give credence to the heretical idea of dualism. However, I am not concerned with the historical implications of a heretical dualism; instead, I want to introduce the thoughts that have once again allowed me to consider the term "born again" Christian.

First, when we juxtapose the ideas of birth and death we are saying that there is something about us that is not quite right. This something is so grievous that it can no longer live or dwell within us once we have become "born again." Furthermore, we must find some way of killing off that part of ourselves in order to live a faithful life. There are a number of difficulties with this idea. Death is final, it is penultimate act of a human life. When we choose death or when death chooses us there are no more choices to make. Life ends when death begins.

Choosing to equate the idea of being born again with death is choosing to believe that our current life is unworthy of saving. I cannot abide by that notion. Regardless of the extent of our depravity there is always a part of every human being that represents God in this world. To believe that the death of ourselves is required for new life is to believe that nothing in our lives is worthy of saving. Moreover, this "cold turkey" Christianity sets us up for failure from the get go. In fact, the grief and mourning that generally occurs with death is more likely to force us to return to the very things we were supposed to "die" to in the first place. Therefore I think it is high time to reclaim and reinterpret this idea of being born again.

The first thing I want to do is to claim the idea that being born again involves sex, or more precisely copulation and conception. I don’t know where or when we discovered that Christians should be ashamed of sex and furthermore I don’t really care. I just want us to realize that we are wrong about it and repent. Through sex the birth of a new life is possible; it is a mysterious and wonderful act that is part recreation and re-creation. It is only through the reclamation of the sacredness of sex and sexuality that we can even begin to understand what it means to be born again.

Conception is the act that creates new life. So, when we talk about being born again we are talking about re-conception rather than death. Furthermore, re-conception is not as cognitive as it sounds. Re-conception is an act of passion, a melding of spirit and flesh into a union that seeks to create something new through the love, tenderness and care that is a part of the sacredness of the act itself. In the contemporary world we have turned conception into a cognitive act or an act of science and robbed it of its mystery and passion. Conception has become one of two things in the modern world. It has either become a cognitive term that speaks of a rational imagination; or of the science of bringing life into the world. In our search for predictability we have turned a passionate and sacred act into a multi-billion dollar industry.

To be born again is to take part in a copulative act with God. There is a moment when the Spirit reaches out to us that we must passionately grab hold of and enter into willingly. In order to be born again, we must enter into an act of co-creation with the Creator. Flesh and spirit must sensuously grapple with one another and passionately embrace the possibilities that lay before them. The only way this can happen is if spirit and flesh are of the same substance. Rather than subordinating one to the other, both should have a say in the process. Much like the relationship between male and female, the relationship between spirit and flesh should be one of mutuality, love, respect and care. It is only through that kind of relationship that we can celebrate the conception or re-conception necessary for life and/or life abundantly.

In the end, death is not the beginning of new life, re-conception is. It is only through the beautiful, mysterious and wonderful act of copulation that life has any possibility of newness. To be born again is to be re-conceived. It is step freshly upon the earth again for the first time, seeing anew the possibilities for abundant life in the passionate embrace that co-creates a new vision on this earth. Being born again is not just about seeing though. Being born again means passionately embracing the possibilities of the world through new eyes, fresh limbs and a re-invigorated heart that is ready to engage in the practice of love, care, and respect that the world so desperately needs at this moment in time.

grace and peace

My spouse works at a local hospital here in Denver. The street on which this hospital rests houses two other hospitals (hospital row is its nickname).

I happened to be walking home from her work place yesterday when I noticed something odd. As I passed the hospitals, I noticed hot dog carts sitting out in front of two of them. The menus were filled with nitrate-rich processed meat-sicles, ranging from the innocuous American hot dog to Bratwurst to even (for the health conscious) a veggie dog. Along with these "parts is parts" meals the carts vendors sold potato chips and soft drinks and various other foods that have half-lives longer than my life expectancy.

Ironic isn't it? The places we go to heal from whatever ails us are also the places we can go to eat what will cause us to ail in the long run. Unfortunately, the lines were long and the green spaces were inhabited with people in long hospital gowns or worse yet, scrubs, eating the processed pleasure dogs.

It would seem, at least to me, that common sense would prevail and hospitals would search for ways to beacons of health rather than purveyors of empty calories. Then again, without the venders the hospitals would suffer and lose some of their clientele. Ahhh, the mighty bottom line, could the hospitals secretly enjoy the presence of these carts of culinary crap?

Actually, what this is indicative of is the cultural ethos that only treats or manages symptoms rather than seeking to do the hard work of fighting the disease. Now, I realize that labels are being placed on packages in order to better inform the consumer. However, all the labels do is tell people how badly they are eating. The only way to stop them from eating it is to treat the disease of ignorance. Information and knowledge are two entirely different things, and I have to wonder if we have confused to two, or at least merged them in some fashion.

There is no magic pill that cures ignorance; the only way to make a difference is to be different and to think differently. One of these days we might understand that seeking health, be it physical, mental, emotional or spiritual, might provide a more satisfying life than a quick hot dog before we head into the hospital.

grace and peace

There are a number of things to talk about this day. However, what piques my interest is the Senate's move to open the floor for debate about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. They know they don't have the votes for it to pass, but they still want to have the debate in order to shore up their base of support for the November elections.

A kind of, "here, we've screwed most everything else up and wasted a lot of time and money, but we tried to ban gay marriage; that makes us okay, right?" The theological and the political are danger bedfellows. This leads me to wonder if there is any possibility for a future between these two important disciplines. I would say "yes" in general. However, given the current method of usage the marriage between these two is abusive at best.

I believe these two disciplines are married in a manner that can be described as the politically theological. This means that the primary modus operandi is political through which theology is then interpreted and applied. There are a number of problems with the method. First, it gives primacy to political concerns over theological concerns. The political culture in our country today is populated by fear, abuse and manipulation. For political gain, we will spin the meaning out of a subject (deconstruction) and then attempt to refill the concept with trivial applications that hold little or no value or grounding. When we do this with theological concepts it is called “relativism” and is eschewed by the common Christian. However when a politician does it, it is called appealing to a constituency. I call it pandering.

Take marriage for instance. The legal term, I believe, is a signification of a mutually agreeable union (a contract) between two people who seek to share lives, experiences, and property with one another. This is the political (civil) meaning as well. This legal and contractual view of marriage is the most relevant when it comes to history and tradition. Marriage, in the Christian community, was not formally conducted for many hundreds of years. Therefore, the civil meaning is the most historical and has undergone the most scrutiny throughout the ages (I doubt if every marriage in the Roman Empire was mutually agreeable).

Politically speaking, the civil meaning has been spun out and a trivial "Christian" meaning has replaced it. It is important to realize that the church has long recognized the importance and primacy of the civil contract of marriage. The theological importance of marriage is a latecomer to the dance, but nevertheless important to examine.

The theological meanings of marriage have their roots in two doctrines, the doctrine of creation and redemption (most of this information comes from the following source: Christian Marriage (1986) The office of worship for the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Louisville, KY: The Westminster Press.). These two doctrines are applied in the following manner. First, "marriage is understood to be grounded in the doctrine of creation and thus the gift of God to all humanity" (p. 82). Second, "marriage is an issue of discipleship," whereby two individuals are contractually bound to one another and "allow their relationship with Christ to form the pattern for the covenant of marriage" (p. 82). To me, these two statements seem to be far away from the politically theological rhetoric that permeates the marriage debate.

In the politically theological realm, the roots of marriage as a civil contract are usurped and a fear-based theological justification replaces the historical meanings. Generally speaking, a theology of marriage has been constructed on heterosexist fears about gays and lesbians. Thus, the gift of God for all humanity is rationalized and replaced with a gift of God for some of humanity. Caveats about sexual orientation are added and gays and lesbians are demonized for committing to one another. Furthermore, by adding a fear-based theological meaning to marriage, the Christians that espouse it are no longer required to examine their own abuses of marriage. Heterosexuals are to be blamed for the problems and abuses of marriage. We have not honored the idea of covenant and discipleship, nor have we considered it a gift from God for all. Rather than examine this log that has created the broken family, we choose to skewer and lambaste the mote of gay and lesbian marriage. The politically theological does not work because it lacks responsibility, accountability and is devoid of theological, moral and ethical force.

I would propose that we reverse things and begin to examine policies through a lens of the theologically political. This imparts a primacy to theology as the governing impetus for examining policy. Therefore, we begin with theology, in this case the doctrines of creation and redemption and move to the political, the civil contract of marriage. Here is how I interpret this working.

The doctrine of creation is bound up in the idea of the Imago Dei, or the image of God which is said to be a part of all of humanity. Being bearers of this image, we all have particular rights, such as rights to food, to not be abused, to shelter, to love and be loved without fear, and so on. Bearing in mind that all are created in the image of God and each one of us in some way represents God on this earth, then the relationships and attachments we form bear this image as well. The gift of marriage from God through the doctrine of creation cannot support the exclusion of committed covenants between gay and lesbian partners, if we are to faithfully uphold one another as representatives of the Imago Dei. The doctrine of redemption as seen through discipleship is based on a commitment to the teachings and life of Christ. It is not dependent on sexual orientation; rather it is dependent upon the willingness to live under the constant umbrella of grace in a foreign world. Furthermore, unless one wants to limit God’s grace, then there is no theologically sound argument that would exclude gays and lesbians from the table as faithful witnesses in a hostile world.

Finally, as theologically political Christians we must apply the doctrines of creation and redemption to the civil contract of marriage. Rather than emptying it of its historical importance for the order of the state and applying vacuous fear-based theological constructs, we are to look upon the intent of the policy through the lenses of theology. In this case, a theologically sound view of marriage for Christians would be two people who, viewed as images of God and disciples of Christ, desire to covenant with one another, under the grace of God and authority of the state, in order to live full lives through the giving and receiving of their love for one another.

Theology and politics must mingle with one another if the world is to become a place of justice and peace. The question is, which discipline will lead and which discipline will follow...

grace and peace

Some of the more frequent visitors to this blog may have noticed a slight change in the format. I have added a third column on the left that includes an ad or two and a couple of books that I am reading at the moment. Since I spend a good portion of my days involved in the intricacies of the written word I thought I might share a few of my favorites with you and little bit about why I believe them to be good reads. I have debated long and hard about the inclusion of ads in this space and you can see the decision that I have come to. I promise not to clutter the entire site with the buggers, but it can't hurt to have a couple around. Finally, if you are having trouble with the new layout, please let me know. My skills as an HTML editor are minimal and it took a lot of tweaking to get things looking decent. If there are problems let me know so that I can try and fix them.

Now, a couple of words about the books I have chosen...

God & Religion in the Postmodern World by David Ray Griffin

Grifin is a process theologian who has written several good books that border on being approachable. This is, by far, one of the easier books to read. Postmodernity has been weaving its way into the theology and structures of the church for a while. However, it is only now gaining a good bit more attention. The problems I have with the current renditions of postmodernity in the church are many. It has been used as a cover for relativism, casual theology and worship, and even nihilism in some forms.

Postmodernism is many things and it defies a conventional definition. Griffin's approach seeks to illuminate several doctrines through a particular postmodern lens. It is ambitious, but in the midst of his work there is a distinct call for people of varied theologies to sit at the table together and learn from and live with one another, all the while holding on to the tension present between their beliefs. This is a real attempt to visualize theology beyond the simple dogmatic phrases that have defined it in the modern era.

The Angry Christian by Andrew Lester

This is a book about pastoral care and theology. Furthermore, it is a book that seeks to reclaim anger as a vital component of the Christian life. Lester does a wonderful job of pulling together a vast swath information and research from a variety of disciplines in order to theologically construct a new meaning of anger for the lives of Christians. I have found a great deal of helpful information and practical skills in this book and would recommend it for ministers and laity alike. This is not the last time that I will recommend a book from Lester.

Wherever You Go, There You Are by Jon Kabat-Zinn

This book occupies a permanent place on my bedside table. Truthfully, I have not finished it in the year that I have owned it. While I have multiple reasons for not finishing it, the first is that it is so rich in wisdom and practical application that I can read no more than a chapter or two at a time before needing to set it down and contemplate. Kabat-Zinn uses the meditative technique of mindfulness in order help people find and live full and meaningful lives. There is a deep sense of fullness that permeates the pages of the book. Whenever the opportunity comes, I look forward to picking it up and reading just a few pages.

These three books have enriched my life and understandings of the world and humanity. Should you choose to read them, I hope you find the same satisfaction.

grace and peace

As you cross the state line into Colorado something washes over your body. It's a thin film that exposes whatever idea about exercise or the outdoors you might have previously held as a farce. For me, vacations used to entail sitting quietly, reading a book or watching television or sleeping late. Occasionally, I would rise from the indention I created on the couch and go for a short walk or bask in the sunlight. If I was ambitious I would play golf or even make it too the beach for a brisk, but short, walk; serious outings generally revolved around food or shopping. However, all of that changed when we crested a hill and saw the purple snow-tipped mountains of Colorado jut into the horizon. Suddenly, the sky was bluer, the air more crisp, and with each breath we wanted to be outdoors, moving amongst the hills and trees. Vacations became destinations where we were compelled, no propelled, out into a new world. You don't just drive I-70 through the Rockies, you experience the mountains as your car thrusts you from valley to canyon to mountain pass. Your body itches and twitches as you take in the landscape. It has nothing to do with boredom or uncomfortability; rather you see a hill and want to climb it to discover what new views it holds or you discover a small creek that winds through a valley and you want to see where it takes you. I have never thought of an interstate as magical, but when you are on I-70 and you hit Vail Pass a novel view of the world explodes before you.

Just as my mind is growing and stretching from the theological explorations that doctoral work holds, my body is also experiencing new things again. I now weigh the same as I did on the day of my graduation from college, over ten years ago. I get up early and exercise almost every morning and am in better shape now than in any time in the past ten years. I awake each morning with a satisfying soreness that has more to do with pushing the limits of my body than with the inevitable creaks and groans that come with age (though there are those as well). When I lived on the east coast I was resigned to the idea that my waist size would inevitably increase an about an inch every two years. Today, I am swallowed by my pants and shorts; the thin layer of fat that occupied my waist has been eaten by that same Colorado film that pushes me towards the fresh air and mountains.

When I reflect on these physical transformations it pushes me to think about my life on the east coast, especially the pervasive mentality towards a sedentary lifestyle. What made it so easy for me to sit, rather than move? Furthermore, what is it about my life now that makes me more motivated to move? There are a number of easy things I can contribute as answers. I don't drink soft drinks anymore (I have had maybe six in the nine months we have lived here). I don’t eat at fast food restaurants as regularly as I did in Richmond. I cut down my caloric intake and introduced more fruit and vegetables into my diet (though not nearly enough, my wife would say). I eat several small meals throughout the day and one big one at dinner time. I exercise regularly. I see vast numbers of people exercising on a daily basis, riding bikes, jogging, or walking. I don't see nearly as many overweight or obese people on a daily basis. All of these things have contributed to my physical transformation over the past few months. However, I can think of two other reasons that are less obvious but equally important.

First, there is an aesthetic, a sense of beauty, at work in Colorado that I have not experienced elsewhere. I grew up around the mountains on the east coast, but no mountain range has ever captivated me like the Rockies. Where ever I wander I want to see the mountains. Their beauty beckons me, drawing me in like a moth to flame. Whether it is the sheer face of a canyon in western Colorado or the gentle rolling foothills that are closer to home, I find myself wanting to explore and touch the beauty that constantly befalls my eyes.

Second, I believe a satisfaction with my vocational pursuits has contributed to my physical changes. I believe that I have found my home, theologically and vocationally. I thoroughly enjoyed my work with the counseling center and congregation in Richmond, but I always felt like I needed something more. Here, I am satisfied in my own skin. I am writing about things that matter to me. I am exploring my creative side, examining the dark corners of my theological structures and bringing to light novel connections. I am comfortable enough to be me and to let others be themselves.

I hope that I will never again underestimate the power and feeling of a vocational home. My very life depends upon it, and it is from this home that I draw life and power. I won't be a sophist and say that Colorado is perfect; nor would I admit that it is a panacea for all that ails the world. However, for me, at this moment in time, it provides the shelter, the container, that allows me to reach out to a weary world and try and make a difference...

This is the final piece to the paper I wrote; and for a moment my final word on sin. Whenever I begin to explore strictly theological themes I run the risk of being obtuse or irrelevant. I have tried to explain my points clearly, in approachable language and concepts. However, theology, especially good sound theology is difficult. Easy theology runs a greater risk of being damaging to community in the long-run. Furthermore, developing a lived coherent theology is important because it helps us have a coherent worldview that accounts for what we see and experience. Theology is most often the result of our experiences in life and how we see God working through ourselves and others. Lest we forget, theology is finally an exercise in surmising the presence of God in our midst, or the lack thereof in the case of sin...

Deconstruction

Deconstruction is a critical theory often applied to texts in a manner where the critic engages in "undermining, subverting, exposing, undoing, transgressing, or demystifying… traditional ideas, traditional limits, traditional logic, authoritative readings, privileged readings, illusions of objectivity, mastery or consensus, the referential meaning of a text, or simply what the text asserts or says" (Ellis, 1988, p. 261). Furthermore, through the deconstructive process the critic does not put forth a new interpretation of the text, but instead "The traditional idea is… retained in order that we can focus on the act of subversion itself which, however, does not constitute a final rejection of that idea" (1988, p. 262). Deconstruction thus subverts the authority of a text while at the same time holding the text as authoritative. It is therefore a multi-layered reading of a text that seeks the subtleties within the text that undermine its authority. However, if the authority of the text is not retained then there is nothing to subvert and the deconstructionist could do nothing more than offer a critical analysis (Ellis, 1988, p. 263-264). Finally, deconstruction is a process that "hopes to neutralize the system—not by erecting another truth in its place (which would only re-establish an opposition) but—by laughing at it" (Gall, 1990, p. 415). In order to deconstruct John Calvin’s constructions of total depravity and original sin, I will put him through a fictional psychotherapeutic session.

Putting Calvin on the Couch

I imagine the following conversation taking place between John Calvin and his therapist after the final version of the Institutes of Christian Religion was completed.

Therapist (T): John, welcome back. Please have a seat, tell me how life is treating you.

John Calvin (JC): It is a fine day, although I am having trouble enjoying it.

T: You're not able to enjoy the day? Tell me about that.

JC: It is the same things that have been bothering me since day one. I can't seem to shake this feeling that I am letting someone down. The guilt is totally overwhelming and I just can't shake it (McNeill, 1960, p. 253). It's as though every time I try and think about who I am and what I want to do, I get overwhelmed with despair at how selfish and corrupt I have become.

T: It must be difficult to continually beat yourself up on the inside. You have been working hard to get to know yourself and it makes you feel depressed. I was just remembering some of our previous sessions and I have to wonder what would happen if you were to let yourself remember some of the good things you have done, that tell others who you are. I know you have this desire to be honest about your faults, but can't you also be honest about your strengths? Even you have admitted that "knowledge of ourselves lies first in considering what were given at creation and how generously God continues his favor towards us" (p. 242). That means we should consider our gifts as well as our faults, right John?

JC: Yes, I did say that. However, I said that to contrast how depraved we have become since sin was introduced into the world. Sin is inescapable and it hides God gifts from me.

T: Let's keep the conversation focused on you, instead of everyone. I want to hear you use the term "I" instead of "we." Totally depraved is such strong word. Total implies everything, and yet John you are able to recall what your gifts are and how they can be used for good in the world. Doesn't that mean that there are parts of us that are less affected by this despairing sinfulness? How can we know what is good and right if all we are is totally sinful and corrupt? Moreover, to call yourself depraved means that you are full of evil or immorality. Yet the life you have lived includes many good actions and desire to love God. Are those the actions of a totally depraved individual? All of this talk makes me wonder what would it be like if you considered yourself to be a vessel of a number of good, bad or neutral qualities? Even you have admitted to a "primal worthiness" (p. 242) that is a part of who you are. Moreover, you have told me on a number of occasions that "the mind restrains itself from sinning… because it loves and reveres God as Father, it worships and adores him as Lord" (p. 43). I interpret that to mean that we are capable of doing good things out of love for God, can you see those possibilities?

JC: Sure, buried deep within me might be some of those good qualities, but as soon as I try and recall them I am painfully aware of the value I place on my gifts and then I tend "to be unduly credulous about them" (p. 243). My arrogance about my gifts leads me to believe that "Nothing, however slight, can be credited to [me] without depriving God of his honor, and… falling into ruin through brazen confidence" (p. 255). I just can't escape this vicious cycle of sin. Even when I consider these good things I feel like I am letting God down by relying on myself. See what I mean about feeling totally depraved, it's like no matter what I do I can't escape the reality of my situation. It is so depressing.

T: What I hear you say is that while you often feel overwhelmed by the amount of sin in your life, but there are also moments when you are able to comprehend something good about yourself. Even though this might lead you to down a path of where you feel proud or arrogant, it does raise an interesting point that counters your ideas about depravity being totally consuming. John, what becomes apparent to me in our conversation is that you not only see the depressing parts of your life, but you also see a glimmer of something good. Otherwise you wouldn’t know that you were so depraved of in the first place. Therefore, maybe you and everyone else are not totally depraved but instead you might be mostly or predominantly depraved, leaving some room for goodness to spring forth from within.

JC: I hear what you are saying and I want to agree, but I am afraid that if I give in to the idea that there are some good things about me, I will no longer be dependent on God's goodness and grace to do good things in the world.

T: I thought I heard you say something to the effect that you and God work together for good in the world. Is that correct?

JC: In a sense yes. I am saying that God's grace works through me to do good things in the world (p. 306-307).

T: Tell me how God could choose to work through such a corrupted vessel.

JC: Well, actually it is the grace that does the work; I am merely a servant of grace. I don’t initiate the action; God initiates it and compels me to act on its behalf. I can’t say why God chooses humans other than we are the pinnacle of creation and have rational capabilities that allow us to recognize our depravity.

T: I am not sure if I understand how such a corrupted vessel could even hear or interpret the grace of God. Yet, I often see you doing things that embody the love and grace experienced in Scripture and in the life of Jesus. I am not sure if this makes sense to you, John, but I wonder if we might find a new way of describing the state of humanity. The word total just seems so black and white, all or nothing, when the actions of human beings occupy a space that seems grayer. Could you see yourself occupying a gray area of life?

JC: Well, maybe, if it weren't for original sin. I really feel like I was born this way, the offspring of corrupt flesh and blood. I guess a really dark gray might work if I factored in being endowed with good gifts by God and the grace and redemption through Jesus.

T: Original sin, what does that mean to you?

JC: It's simple really. Adam and Eve were disobedient to God. As a result, their good nature was corrupted and everyone since that time has been the offspring of corrupted parents, inheriting this depravity I keep obsessing about (p. 251).

T: Wow, you have really thought this out. First it's total depravity and then I come to find out it is a part of your nature, inherited from two mythic characters in the Bible.

JC: Blasphemy!

T: John, settle down. I am merely stating one interpretation of Adam and Eve. What I am trying to say is that their story is a metaphor for humanity's relationship with God. In the end, we come out with similar conclusions although we take a different path to get there. We both understand that something went wrong with humanity's relationship with God and we have felt some form of distance between us since that time.

JC: If I weren't paying you, I'd get up and leave right now.

T: John, think about it for a moment. We are arriving at a similar conclusion, just taking different paths to get there. Think about my path for a moment. If the creation stories are mythic and represent a way of imagining our relationship with God, how does that change your idea of original sin?

JC: Well, the relationship would still be estranged, right? And, sin would still be a part of humanity. Only, with your way original sin wouldn't be an inherited feature from the nature of the parents. I guess that it would have to be passed down through some kind of communication though. Otherwise, we would all get better at being good, and I know that isn't happening.

T: Great job John! That is a wonderful reframing of original sin. Rather than an inherited nature or disposition, there might be a communicated sense of sinfulness through family, culture and society. Furthermore, maybe the Original in original sin isn’t so original after all.

JC: Huh?

T: Well, think about it this way. If the features aren't inherited, then babies aren't born with pervasive sinful dispositions. Instead they are taught disobedience by those they grow up around. Which leads me to think that if there isn't a predisposition to sinfulness, then sinfulness is just the replaying of others sins; there is nothing original about it! John, it has been wonderful seeing you again, but our time is about up, don't be a stranger.

JC: It's been good to see you as well. I will think about what you have said, but I'm not sure that it is going to change anything. If there is anything that I know, it is how deep sin runs in my life. Black or white or dark gray, original or not it’s always there and I just can't forget it.

Conclusion

John Calvin's concepts of total depravity and original sin have informed the life of the Presbyterian Church for many years. Through careful biblical and theological analysis he lays out a case that beckons the reader to know themselves and know themselves as unworthy before God. Through Calvin, an understanding of our dependence on God becomes easy to see in light of the totality of our corruption. Four hundred and fifty years later through the writings of popular pastors/theologians, Calvin's message has been either watered down or forgotten. Thoughts about sin are watered down by believing that God's purpose is to give us purpose, or they are destroyed through the power of positive thinking. This unfortunate circumstance has created a vacuum whereby Christians and systems are rarely held accountable for the actions they commit. By putting Calvin on the couch, I attempted to deconstruct his view of sin, showing both its limits and authority. There is no denying the estrangement humans feel from God and the endless searches to discover why. Maybe, through a revamped Calvin we can understand the depths of our depravity and gain some insight into the love of our Creator.

grace and peace...

I realize these last few posts are pretty long, but hey, the paper was 18 pages and at least I am breaking up in to palatable chunks. Of course I realize that palatable is contextual...

Rick Warren and Joel Osteen are culturally well-known evangelical pastors and authors; and their popularity makes their writings theologically significant for contemporary culture. Their appeal is far reaching and each of them has written commercially successful books about what it means to live as a Christian in the world today. As of a year ago, Rick Warren’s, The Purpose Driven Life, had sold over twenty-three million copies in English and has been published in numerous languages. His book remains on the New York Times Bestseller list in the Self-Help category and has spawned numerous side projects including journals, music and scripture memorization cards. The Purpose Driven Life is the bestselling non-fiction book in publishing history. Rick Warren is also the pastor a 22,000 member congregation in California and speaks at various engagements around the world. Joel Osteen is the author of Your Best Life Now, a book that sold 2.5 million copies in its first eight months. Osteen is the pastor of a 30,000 member congregation in Houston, Texas, and is watched around the world through a television ministry. Recently, Osteen has signed a book deal that is valued at ten to thirteen million dollars depending upon the sales of his new book. The popularity of these two pastors and authors is undeniable given the attendance of their churches and the statistics of their written works. However, the question that remains for me is what kind of theology do they advocate? Moreover, how have they contributed to the destruction of sin in popular theology?

As I read these two books, I couldn’t help but think of the fast food company McDonalds. In 2000, McDonalds introduced the advertising slogan “We Love to See You Smile.” In my opinion, McDonalds provides two things to their consumer. The first is a quick and easy solution to the immediate problem of hunger felt by an individual. Secondly, they provide a diet of empty calories that fills that same hunger for a brief period of time but has no lasting value for the nutritional needs of a human body. Holding the slogan “We Love to See You Smile” together with the two values placed on a McDonald’s meal helps me draw an analogy to Warren and Osteen. Namely, these authors provide theological consumers with quick and easy fixes, empty theological calories and a theological life that never reaches beyond the depth of a smile. While this analogy is applied to the totality of their works, it is their treatment of sin that is in sharp contrast to the work of Calvin, and is of concern in this essay.

The Purpose Driven Life

Of the two books we will examine, The Purpose Driven Life (PDL) has the most in common with Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion. However, I make that statement knowing that when compared side-by-side they share very little. Where the ICR is a four course gourmet steak dinner, the PDL is a Big Mac. Both meals might consist of beef, bread and vegetables but the quality of the ingredients that go into each meal are quite different. Before moving on to the PDL, I want to share two initial impressions in order to set the context for an exposition of his use of sin throughout the pages of the PDL.

The first impression I was aware of was the audience. With Calvin the audience seems to include Christians, philosophers, theologians and others interested in the Protestant movement. On the other hand, with Warren the audience is a Christian or a non-Christian, with an emphasis on the individual. The opening and guiding question for his book is “What on earth am I here for [emphasis mine]” (Warren, 2002, p. 9)? Furthermore, while the PDL expounds upon the necessity and benefits of community, they are couched in how the community is beneficial to the individual. This led me to read Calvin with an implied “we” versus reading of Warren with an implied “I.”

The second impression concerned the language used in both works. Calvin relied on traditional theological language, using rebuttals or refutations to explain his ideas. Calvin used the language and style of his time to provide a depthful argument for a way of living as Protestants in a Catholic world. On the whole, Warren’s PDL ignores theological language seeking to make points through repetition and quotation of paraphrased Scripture passages. Furthermore, the PDL contains little novel theological insight, relying on repeated phrases as pragmatic tools rather than theologically constructed meanings that help a reader critically reflect on their lifestyle in relationship to who God has called them to be.

Sin in the Purpose Driven Life

There is not a sustained discussion of sin in the PDL. Therefore, I will attempt to cull together several brief passages that either mention the word sin or imply its existence. I believe that for Warren sin is a peripheral theological and practical term, which explains his light treatment of it. Furthermore, I believe the word self-centered is sometimes substituted for sin. I interpret his use of this term as a psychological alternative to sin, meant to soften or replace the theologically loaded term and attend to its personal rather than corporate manifestations.

Warren states that sin is “failing to give God glory” (2002, p. 55) and that our failure to give God glory is rooted in our “prideful rebellion” (p. 55). This is in contrast to Warren’s statement that “living for God’s glory is the greatest achievement we can accomplish with our lives” (p. 55). Furthermore, Warren believes that God is glorified when an individual takes on acts of worship, love, service and evangelism and when they become more like Christ (p. 55-56). His discourse on giving God glory helps define what sin is not, rather than further elucidating what sin is and how it might function in the life of a Christian. Roughly fifty pages later Warren makes his second statement concerning sin and its affect on a person’s relationship with God. Here he states, “sin does disconnect us from intimate fellowship with God [emphasis his]” (p. 109). Warren also provides a small list of acts that, if read critically, could be construed as sinful. He says, “We grieve God’s Spirit and quench our fellowship with him by disobedience, conflict with others, busyness, friendship with the world, and other sins” (p. 109). Finally, Warren pays tribute to the idea of original sin when he admits that, “the image [of God] is incomplete [in a human being]… damaged and distorted by sin” (p. 173). This final reference to sin is weak at best with no supporting statements or elaboration (there are two other mentions of the word sin, both comment on how to deal with sin and will be dealt with later). Through Warren’s writings about sin in the PDL, I can state that sin has to do with a personal relationship with God and how that relationship is conducted. This is far cry from Calvin’s insistence on the knowledge of our total depravity and our dependence on God. It also progresses the notion that damage has been caused to one traditional understanding of sin and its role in the life of a Christian.

Before concluding, I want to briefly examine Warren’s use of the term self-centered. This term is not explicitly defined in the context of the PDL. However, it is used on a couple of occasions to describe immaturity, as in the case of babies (p. 182) and as the counter position of self-sacrificing service (p. 232, 233, 265). Self-centeredness is a psychological concept that has to do with preoccupation with the self. It is generally thought of as a negative term and the way it is used in the PDL does not give me cause to think otherwise. However, being self-centered has vastly different connotations than does being sinful. The term self-centered is fairly new and pertains to an individual rather than a community or widely applicable theological theme such as sin. Moreover, because of Warren’s focus on self-sacrifice and self-denial it is unclear what, if anything is left to this wonderful self that was created for a purpose in the first place.

Finally, because Warren does not take sin seriously, he cannot take grace seriously either. Calvin’s high doctrine of grace only works because of his emphasis on the depravity of humanity. Warren’s lukewarm statements about sin empty it of almost all of the traditional meanings that it carried leaving a hulking shell that has very little use for the Christian life. There are two references in Warren’s book concerning the antidote for sin. First, Warren states that “The battle for sin is won or lost in your mind” (p. 210). Furthermore, Warren believes this battle is won when someone finds themselves “adopting how God thinks…” (p. 182). Therefore, not only is sin a personal thing between God and a particular human being, but any “battle” waged against sin occurs and is won only through the power of the mind. One of the major problems with Warren’s concept of sin is that there is no systemic accountability for families, groups, communities, nations and others who find themselves in positions where they are abusing power in ways that diminish life. In the PDL the only thing accountable is an individual, which leads to a flawed and incomplete definition of sin that is dysfunctional at best. This theological “Big Mac” that Warren has provided is merely a quick meal and a bevy of empty calories that bears some resemblance to Calvin. However, Warren fails his readers by not challenging the sinful structures that permeate their lives and actions, leading to a collapse in: (1) personal responsibility and (2) dependence on God.

Your Best Life Now

Joel Osteen’s Your Best Life Now (UBLN) is best described as a self-help book with a mediocre dose of Christianity thrown in for good measure. Its chapters are an amalgamation of anecdotes, self-help taglines and rules for living a proper Christian life that emphasize positive thinking and a positive attitude. Overall, there is a theological naïveté at work in this book. This is evident through the simplistic ethic that he tells Christians to live by; namely, if I am good then God will reward me with “favor” (this could mean health, wisdom, but it mainly seems to concern material wealth and objects, i.e. – finding a good parking space, pages 42-43) and punish those who have or will do things that might hurt me in some way. Where Warren uses repetition and paraphrased scripture to prove his points, Osteen is concerned with anecdotal evidence and positive thinking as the primary resources for Christian living. Furthermore, where Warren seems to be concerned with sin as being self-centered, Osteen borders on the idea that it is a sin if one is not somewhat centered on the self. In fact it is not until the second to last chapter that Osteen even mentions the idea of giving and his reference is mostly with regard to the practice of tithing of one’s gifts (tithing includes a variety of gifts, but is mostly concerned with giving monetarily). This leads me to conclude that if Rick Warren’s book is a theological Big Mac then UBLN is a hand full of French fries, great tasting but devoid of any lasting nutritional value.

Sin in Your Best Life Now

As one might expect from a self-help book, there are very few traditional theological themes defined in the pages of UBLN. By my count, the word “sins” is used one time in Osteen’s work. This makes it difficult to define and describe the antithesis to Osteen’s perfectly positive human (though I will venture a guess). Instead of the term sin, a conglomeration of terms and phrases are used throughout the book to describe the opposite of a positive Christian disposition. Some of these include: “that ‘poor-old-me mentality,’ always negative, always depressed” (p. 14), “negative frame of mind” (p. 16), and “a wrong thinking pattern that keeps us imprisoned in defeat” (p. 30). Furthermore, Osteen states that “If you see yourself as unqualified, insignificant, unattractive, inferior, or inadequate, you will probably act in accordance with your thoughts… you will imagine yourself as a born loser, a washout, unworthy of being loved and accepted” (p. 56-57). This negative cognitive disposition is the closest he comes to laying out a definition of sin for the Osteenian vision of Christian life. As a result Osteen is, in many ways, the anti-Calvin. He focuses on the created good image and implies grace-filled living but completely ignores the idea that humans might have fallen to such a degree that only God can pull them out.

Throughout his work it is apparent that self is to be regarded only in terms of the positive and that anything contrary to this position is to be considered anathema in the life of a Christian. Osteen uses a variety of anecdotes to prove the value of his theological stance on humanity and our relationship with God. Generally speaking, these anecdotes move through a predictable pattern: negative thinking, negative life events, positive epiphany, change in self-image, change in circumstance and finally blessings (often materially-oriented) arrive from God (for examples see the anecdotes on pages 47, 110-111, & 117-119). Unfortunately this leads me to believe that, according to Osteen, sin should not occupy a prominent place in the lives of “healthy” human beings. Furthermore, his destruction of sin also destroys any hope of dependence on God for redemption and grace. Instead, an Osteenian Christian is dependent on and faithful to God in order to receive blessings and “favor” (p. 44), self-esteem (p. 91) and payback “for all the unfair things that have happened to us” (p. 164).

To conclude, Warren and Osteen provide a microcosm of thought concerning the place, definition and function of sin in popular contemporary Christian writing. Furthermore, because their books reach a large audience and their church ministries include large sums of people, Warren and Osteen have theological influence over the popular view of sin in the life of Christians. However, it is evident to me that anyone who professes to be a Warrenite or Osteenian Christian would have little or no concept of a theological construction of sin. Moreover, they might be oblivious to their own complicity in the sinful structures and systems that permeate the world. In the end, the Warrenite or Osteenian reader is no longer dependent on a God who offers the redemption and grace necessary for a sinful human being. Instead, sin is destroyed and the readers are left with depending on God for purpose or blessings. Unfortunately, this is a theological meal that can only satisfy for a little while, that is until these devoted Christians catch a glimpse of the next McDonalds on the horizon. Ultimately, these works lead me back to Calvin in order to deconstruct and recover his ideas about sin.

I have finally finished my last paper for this quarter... now on to bigger and better things, though I am not quite sure what. I thought I would post the rest of my paper in chunks. The first portion was done last week, and I ended up having to cut the whole first experience because of page length issues. This week I will post my synopsis of Calvin's concepts of sin. Later on, I will post my interpretation of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren's concepts of sin. Finally, I will post my attempt at deconstructing some of Calvin's ideas through a fictional conversation between Calvin and his therapist...

I remember the dour portraits of John Calvin that found their way onto the walls and covers of books at my seminary. The black and white drawings showed a man uncommitted to emotion with a long beard wearing the robes of a scholar. Many of the stories and legends of his life echoed the stark reality of the portrait. Furthermore, Calvin’s treatment of sin in the Institutes of Christian Religion (ICR) does nothing to counter these portraits of him. The ICR, according to the translator John T. McNeill, “is a living, challenging book that makes personal claims upon the reader. This is because it presents… that which laid hold upon the author himself” (1960, p. li). Therefore, I believe the ICR may be one of the first Protestant books that would fit in the contemporary book store category of “Christian living.” However, this purpose of Calvin’s text has been lost amongst the weighty language and depthful insights that challenge the reader to reflect theologically on their lives, as well as how God might be active in the world.

Furthermore, Calvin’s depth of thinking has relegated him to the halls and classrooms of seminaries, or the dark corners of local bars where students of theology speak in hushed tones about predestination, sin and total depravity. Through this essay, I hope to bring a little bit of Calvin out of this smoky obscure existence. Predestination, in my opinion, might better be left to the hushed slightly inebriated conversations of students and scholars, but sin and total depravity are too important to reside in the dark. If the ICR is truly a treatise on Christian living, then sin cannot be avoided. Calvin experienced the pervasiveness of sin as he watched persecuted Protestants die for their beliefs, and he obviously felt the weight of his own unworthiness before God. The effect sin on Calvin’s life necessitated a lengthy discussion of two concepts. The first, original sin, sought to describe the condition upon which humans inhabit the earth. The second, total depravity, was a natural result of Calvin’s understanding of original sin and functioned as a way of describing the actions of humanity in the world. These two terms come together to describe the pervasive nature of sin in the life of human beings.

Original Sin

Before diving too deeply into original sin, it is important to remember that Calvin considers two mutually reinforcing concepts to be necessary for true wisdom, knowledge of God and knowledge of ourselves (McNeill, 1960, p. 35). Therefore, as Calvin opens the second book of the ICR with original sin he begins with the notion that what is important for human beings is the total knowledge of what we have been given by God, and also what we lack due to our condition following the “Fall.” Calvin states, “God’s truth requires us to… examin[e] ourselves: it requires the kind of knowledge that will strip us of all confidence in our own ability, deprive us of all occasion for boasting, and lead us to submission” (1960, p. 242). Calvin is sure that more we delve into the depths of our being, “the more dejected [we] become” (p. 244). True knowledge is therefore the result of our contemplation on how God created and endowed us with gifts meant for the good of the world contrasted with the reality that our state of being renders us incapable of fulfilling these good ends and bringing about God’s will for the world. For Calvin, despair is the only plausible result of contemplating the discrepancy between the intended ideal and the actual result, leading him to examine the historical reasons for our despondency.

The “Fall” of Adam and Eve, for Calvin, is the point in history when the originally intended and endowed positive abilities became utterly perverted. Calvin characterizes these mythic (I believe I just felt Calvin roll over in his grave at my use of the term mythic) figures as unfaithful, ambitious, proud and ungrateful. These qualities led to an act of disobedience that estranged them from God, and thus they committed the first, “original” sin. Calvin’s logic is quite clear and linear. Humanity was created “good” with qualities that matched our goodness. Adam and Eve were unfaithful and disobedient leading to estrangement from God. This estrangement perverted the good qualities, abilities and nature of Adam and Eve. Therefore, any child of Adam and Eve would be a child who is bathed in these impure qualities due to the parents’ fallen nature. Calvin states, “All of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin. In fact, before we saw the light of this life we were soiled and spotted in God’s sight” (p. 248). Original sin is not to be thought of as our complicity in Adam’s first sin, but instead an inherited feature that is the result of us being the progeny of an impure and perverted seed. All of this leads Calvin to assert that “Original Sin” is “a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’” (p. 251). Moreover, our birth into perpetually perverted generations, and the works we are a part of indicate the necessity of Calvin’s second theological term related to sin, total depravity.

Total Depravity

Total depravity is of primary concern for Calvin, without it grace and God mean very little. Through the imparting of Original Sin humanity can be said to reside in a state of depravity. That is, we are deprived of the nature and gifts God intended for us to use in the world. Calvin believes that being born of a broken nature means that we are “so vitiated and perverted in every part of our nature that by this great corruption we stand justly condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity” (p. 251). Furthermore, Calvin believes “this perversity never ceases in us, but continually bears new fruits… [like] water ceaselessly bubbles up from a spring” (p. 251). We are thusly beginning to understand what Calvin means by way in which sin affects the totality of our being. In fact, it feels as though we have little choice in the matter! As we can see, through the eyes of Calvin our corruption extends to the core of our being, where it sits in relative safety reproducing itself through each action we take in the world. So consumed by sin are we, that even the good things we do in the world result in pride and arrogance enabling us to believe that we might be capable of goodness apart from God. We are perpetually and precariously poised preparing to pounce onto another misguided attempt at goodness, which can only result in the committing of another sin. For Calvin, the knowledge of the totality of our helplessness is necessary if we are to have any hope in the present or for the future. Total depravity, therefore, necessitates dependence on and humility towards God. As Calvin assures his readers, “whoever is utterly cast down and overwhelmed by the awareness of his calamity, poverty, nakedness, and disgrace has thus advanced farthest in knowledge of himself” (p. 267). The lower you are able to descend into your own hopelessness, powerlessness and helplessness, the greater your chances of experiencing the grace and goodwill of God. Total depravity is the totality of human “beingness” leading to total awareness of our total dependence upon the one who reveals the totality of our possibilities.

Through Calvin, sin claims a place of importance for those who wish to live life as a Christian. By original sin, human beings are made aware of the ideal possibilities and the corruption of their own abilities. Furthermore, through the concept of total depravity, all of humanity and Christians in particular are convicted to a point of utter dependence upon their Creator for hope and grace for the present and the future. For Calvin, true knowledge of oneself is only possible when one is willing to delve into the depths of their own depravity realizing what has been lost through the perpetuation of a broken humanity. Finally, sin is a primary feature of his volumes on Christian living, but he spends far more time explaining the benefits of Christian life and the goodness that can be found through dependence on God to be relegated to a simply sour soul. In fact I wonder if some of those dour portraits should be changed to recognize Calvin’s high doctrine of grace. Calvin worked hard to systematically lay out a reasonable argument for a particular brand of Christian theology. Unfortunately much of his hard work has been lost in contemporary popular manifestations of theology.

grace and peace

Unfortunately I must put off dealing with the "last things" for another week or two. I am in the midst of winding down this final quarter of my first year. I have completed one paper on how pastors might use the shared narratives of a congregation as a tool for helping them care for the community. I think it is a good paper, we'll see in a two weeks when I present it to the class and professor.

I am working on my second paper which is due next Wednesday. I am looking at sin, spin and the postmodern theory of deconstruction. Below is my introduction and a little explanation of the paper. I thought it might give you a taste of what I will sleep, eat and breathe over the next week. And, yes, I am reading The Purpose Driven Life and Your Best Life Now...

Roughly one year after my graduation from college I was employed by a large urban Presbyterian congregation. It was a Caucasian dominated congregation of roughly twelve hundred members who were mostly college educated and mostly wealthy. Furthermore, it was a congregation that had experienced sexual abuse at the hands of one of its ministers. The event occurred roughly seven years before I began working in the congregation. However, the community did not deal with the event in a manner that was able to provide healing and health for the members and leadership. Therefore, the fear and anxiety that surrounded the situation reared an ugly head during my time there.

Here are the facts of the situation as I understand them. Seven years earlier the male youth minister was caught having a sexual relationship with a seventeen year old female member of the youth group. The minister admitted his guilt and was disciplined by the Presbytery. His punishment included removal from the church, his ordination was revoked for a period of seven years and he was required to enter counseling. The church received quiet guidance from the Presbytery that was restricted to the family of the abused girl and the leadership of the church. The return of many of the feelings towards this situation arose around two situations. The first situation was my presence as the first male youth minister since this incident. The second situation was the knowledge that the former minister had requested a return to the active ministry in the larger Presbyterian Church.

As the anxiety arose in the congregation concerning these two situations, conversations began to take place that opened many of the previous wounds suffered by various members in the church. It is these conversations that gave me my first taste of “spin.” As the leaders began to talk about the situation there was a great deal of disagreement on the facts surrounding the incident. There was talk about who initiated the situation of abuse, the girl or the minister. They talked about the number of sexual encounters they knew of and whether the punishment fit the crime. No one talked about it as a situation of abuse; instead it was a sexual encounter. The character of the girl was brought into question and compared to the character of the minister. These conversations rarely progressed beyond argument and speculation as different leaders “spun” the facts to fit their worldview and interpretations of what the sexual abuse, the minister and the female involved meant to them.

Generally speaking little meaning or fact was left following these conversations. The spin and interpretation served the purpose of emptying the situation of any coherent meaning useful to the leaders as a whole. Without a mutually agreeable definition of sexual abuse the situation became increasingly hostile as the leadership rallied around particular interpretations. Lost in the rhetorical whirlwinds created by each interpretation was the an understanding of what happened, namely a seventeen year old girl had sex with an adult in a position of power within the confines of the church. The minutiae that ensconced each side of the argument left no room for the proverbial elephant that stood before them. Finally, in the midst of the raging debates taking place an interim minister stepped in to provide guidance. After hearing both sides argue, he attempted to inject meaning back into the polarized argument. His statement was that for legal and moral reasons, in this denomination, no sex between a seventeen year old and an adult is considered consensual. Moreover, sex that occurs between a seventeen year old and an adult is to be considered abusive. By re-injecting a definitive meaning into the debate from an outside source, the conversation was given parameters around which the meaning for the church could be discussed. This ultimately led to a healthy conversation about what the church should do with the experience.

The ability to empty the experience of an agreed upon meaning and usurp the pain and anguish it caused has haunted me for many years. Furthermore, there was an underlying theological message that I see hidden in the arguments. Namely, there was an inability or maybe a lack of desire at wanting to judge the situation. Lost in the arguments was the ethic of a right or wrong. This rendered the church impotent to talk about the situation in theological terms such as: sin, redemption, hope and forgiveness. My goal is to add a theological ending to this conversation by discussing what meanings the word sin has for a postmodern theology and world.

I begin this essay with a personal sense that sin has been overloaded with historical meanings which have led us to a point where we have attempted to empty it of its significance and meaning for the current church. In my estimation, contemporary theology has brought about the destruction of sin. Therefore it is my intention to find what, if any, theological meanings can be used in a postmodern ecclesial and theological context. I intend to do this by first looking at a historical figure that often informs the Presbyterian tradition, John Calvin. Calvin’s writings influenced the theological anthropology of the Presbyterian Church with regard to the concepts of original sin, actual sin and total depravity. I will then undertake an examination of the destruction of sin in contemporary theology through the writings of Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. These two authors have been best-selling writers in the Christian tradition for a number of years, and their theological influence is far reaching. I will use their most popular writings, The Purpose Driven Life and Your Best Life Now, to examine how they (mis)treat and spin much of the meaning out of sin. Finally, I will to return to Calvin in the hopes of deconstructing his concepts of sin for a postmodern context.


grace and peace...

More on escahtology in a bit....

Does anyone else see the Republican gas rebates as a veiled attempt to buy votes before the fall elections? $100 buys me around two full tanks of gas (I drive a Mercury Sable, 20-25 mpg). Therefore, not only is it an attempt to buy my vote, but apparently I am a cheap vote at that.

Tell you what, keep your damn $100, close the loopholes that allow big oil companies to exploit the tax system, and use the money to buy surplus corn and wheat at the end of the year to feed those who are hungry.

Oh, and by the way, I will always vote Democrat as long as the Republicans think that money is the beginning and end of power in this world.

grace and peace

I was recently reading a blog that is dealing with different theological propositions concerning eschatology. Before I add to the contemporary fray about the end of times, a couple definitions might be helpful so that we are speaking and reading a similar language. All definitions are from the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (WDT).

Eschatology – The study of the “last things” or the end of the world. (WDT)

Eschaton – The final event of history, considered by many theologians to be the return of Jesus Christ to earth. (WDT)

Teleological eschatology – the view that eschatological events mentioned in Scripture are not events that will occur at the conclusion of history but are events that are being carried out concurrently with human history. (WDT)

Existential – a philosophical term referring to that which is of ultimate importance to one’s being or existence. (WDT)

Immanence of God – the view that God is present in and with the created order. (WDT)

Transcendence of God – the view that God is over and beyond the created order and superior to it in every way. (WDT)

I realize that I have tested your patience with all of the definitions. However, it is important that we speak a common language despite the fact that each of us will approach what I write full of preconceived ideas concerning eschatology.

Why eschatology? It is certainly easier to pontificate about fun Christian things like: the Jesus action figure that sits in my seminary library. It is a special one with glow in the dark hands and comes with an assortment of plastic fishes and loaves, just in case G.I. Joe or Barbie gets hungry. Despite whatever inane ramblings I could devise while reflecting on the absurdity of this action figure’s genesis, I think a brief exposition on eschatology is an equally valid undertaking...

I opened the Wall Street Journal this morning to find an article (on the front page no less) about a Texas evangelist whose ministry was an utter failure in America. A few years ago he turned his style and theology loose on the continent of Africa, and he now draws thousands of people to his “crusades.” One of the reasons why this particular evangelist failed in the States was his extreme conservatism and the fact that no one wanted to hear him preach.

Ultimately or conveniently, he has come to think that there will be more Africans than Americans in heaven and that America, (by rejecting him) has rejected the Bible (he is however dependent on American funds to continue his mission to the “unsaved” and he spends half a year in Texas raising said funds). This person infects others with a brand of Christianity and eschatology that is popular today (think Left Behind series). I want to argue for a different kind of eschatology, one that emphasizes teleological eschatology, the immanence of God and existentialism. I hope to spend another week or two building the argument I want to make, beginning today with my understanding of the psycho-biblical underpinnings that create the eschatologies of fear that permeate the theological landscape.

Biblically speaking, Revelation and Daniel are the two major sources used when a literal eschaton is constructed. These two writers help conjure the beasts, plagues, horsemen, apocalypse and also the numerous PowerPoint presentations and artistic renderings of the end of times. However, what seems to be left out of the discussion is Jesus’ ambiguity concerning the time, place, and events surrounding the last days. He prefers to leave such ramblings to the transcendent nature of God that stands outside of human history. Jesus seems more concerned about the present and what it means to live today. However, given the human capacity and desire for knowledge and thus control over the future, it is no wonder that Revelation and the prophecies of Daniel have become centerpieces in modern fundamentalist and evangelical eschatological literature.

Those who preach ideas of strict inerrancy must ultimately bow to that which they serve, namely the printed text of the canon. This brings us to another idea concerning the Scriptures as a source of knowledge about the eschaton. Scripture is a culturally conditioned, highly contextual document that reveals each writer’s and redactor’s impressions of what Jesus meant to particular communities.

From my readings, the intention of the writers was to convey the message of Jesus to their contemporaries. Remember, in that day most Christians believed that Jesus was coming back in their lifetimes (circa 100-200 CE), if they could have conceived that humanity would still be around almost two thousand years later, reading their stories about Jesus, do you think they would have changed what they wrote? Moreover, there is a tension in the writings of scripture between the immanent and transcendent nature of reality. Most descriptions of Jesus relate the immanence of his work in the world, betraying the notion of only a fully transcendent God who stands outside of the created order. Instead, scripture generally conceptualizes God as immanent and transcendent.

Psychologically, I have to consider the motives of the writers of the canon. If you believed that the end of the world was happening soon, and if you believed that the central message of Jesus was love for God, self and neighbor. How would you express the message of the immanence and transcendence of God to those who had and had not heard of the Messiah? I might imagine that I would write something that expressed the urgency of the situation, the love of God, the fear of being excluded and the call to a certain style of living in the present.

Depending on my view of the end of times, any one of these four possible motivations for sharing an interpretation of the relationship between God and humanity could surface as primary, leading me to downplay the others in the hopes of getting a particular point across to the reader or listener. Are fear, love, urgency and lifestyle the primary motivations of the writers of the New Testament? No one can say for sure, and I willingly admit that my thematic musings are speculation. However, understanding the motivation of those who seek to guide us is helpful when discerning how we should incorporate their ideas into our own.

That is enough for now, I must return to the books or I will be “left behind” in class…

grace and peace

I wasn’t sure if I would come back here, then again I am not sure that I am staying at this point. Doctoral work in the midst of some depressive features does not make for a healthy combination. Add to that a healthy dose of guilt – not being more social, not writing on my blog, spending my days reading Fredric Jameson’s Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late-Capitalism – and it comes together in a gray mishmash of days and nights that blend into a blurry cornucopia of blah.

I am trying to get back again, to find my way in a new world where everyone seems a stranger, to live amongst good people in a good place and be a good person. I am not sure what to make of my life at this moment. When people ask me what I do, I tell that I read for a living. Only that is not much of a life, so after a pregnant pause and uncomfortable silence we laugh precariously and move on to more shallow conversation. I never know what to tell people who actually work for a living. Granted, I work; I work hard in my classes; I work hard attempting to be creative with the materials before me; I work hard cleaning house and so on. Without trivializing the situation of the under or unemployed, I can see the gradual feelings of hopelessness that creep in when you cannot financially support yourself on what you have chosen to do for a living.

Throw into that mix this new revelation that the God I always knew in Reformed Theology is no longer palatable for me and all of a sudden everything is up for grabs. This in-between time is something that I have not experienced often. It reminds me of living paycheck to paycheck, precariously perched on a thin branch in fifty mile an hour winds.

Two things keep me hanging on, a wonderful spouse and the fact that I am pretty good at what I am doing. If things go well I will have two articles published by this fall and will be in the process of researching a third. I will be more than halfway done with my class work and ready to take my first comprehensive exam. All these things tell me I am progressing in good fashion; however, there are moments, days and weeks where I feel as though I have stepped out of time and out of the world.

Some of the things I am thinking about at the moment:

~ God is love, God is not omnipotent.

~ Postmodernism describes everything and nothing at the same time. It functions by trying to make the trivial into the depthful and the depthful into the trivial. I am all for the contextuality of truth and the primacy of narratives and the lack of one right way. However, I am not sure that this approach to life makes life any better.

~ If you want to build a theology that works, begin by starting with the least: build a theology around those who suffer or have suffered and see if the God you have always believed in would work for them. Don’t prance around with an untested God and believe that it works for everyone.

~ Pat Robertson is still an idiot, but he doesn’t bother so much anymore.

~ Skiing is a counterintuitive sport. Who, in their right mind, when going down a mountain leans forward in order to stay in control? However, I kind of like it sometimes.

~ Sometimes the Gnostics were right.

~ Patriarchy is probably the single most devastating institution in the world. Men should not run the world, we like power too much and testosterone keeps us from listening and relating to one another. We should be relegated to the dirty work where we can flex our muscles and make monkey sounding grunts toward one another. Men need to give up some of their power and listen.

~ Suffering is real and I am complicit in it by my lack of protest towards it.

~ Neo-cons are mostly idiots, but they don’t bother me so much anymore.

~ I am tired of petty partisanship from both sides of the aisle. I want candidates and politicians who want to make the world a better place not argue about who made the mess we live in. I want a third, better, way that really wants progress over pettiness.

~ I am glad spring is here. The blue sky in Colorado is amazing, the tulips are blooming, the trees are full of tiny little flowers, and I can’t stop sneezing.

Grace and peace

Well, thanks for not letting me off the hook. Before we go much further, I want to add a caveat to the conception of God and God's relationship to evil.

No one knows truly how this relationship plays out. All I offer is one person's attempt to reconcile God will the pervasive evil in this world. That said, I appreciate all of the comments and careful critique of my thoughts. It helps me clarify the road I am taking and makes the journey all that much more fun. It also gives me the opportunity to test and write out my ideas in relationship to the wonderful thoughts and question you pose. So... Here we go again!

Bad Alice wrote the following:

Let me play devil's advocate. If God created us and lets us operate in perfect free will, it seems that he could also have created other beings with the same option. I tend to cringe when anyone talks about 'spiritual warfare,' but sometimes it seems as if there is more than self-interest at work in some of the most grotesque manifestations of evil. Also, if there is a spirit realm why wouldn't it contain evil forces as well as good forces? And if there isn't a spirit realm, why not?

Thanks for such thought-provoking posts. Boy am I glad there's someone willing to do all the philosophical legwork--I don't think I could get through a book on process theology.

First off, since I don't believe in a "Devil," I wonder if we will have to find another term for it ;).

My take on what I would term "senseless evil," or that evil that seems beyond self interest, is that it is a search for purity in a world of beauty. I am still working out this concept, but it has to do with aesthetics and the idea that optimal perception of the world is found in beauty - the contrast between what is and what could be in a unified object, rather than found in purity - the quest to attain one particular pole in a polemic at the expense of the other.

Like I said, I am still developing the concept, but it plays out in this way - Hitler, the instigator of probably the single most "senseless evil" event in the world, was on a search for purity in the German race, therefore he went to any length possible in order to insure that optimal conditions for purity could arise by exterminating those things he found unpure. A more recent example, though on a smaller scale, would be in extremist religious factions like the Taliban or even Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (Yes, I did just equate Falwell and Robertson with the Taliban. The hate that these to preachers inspire is worthy of the comparison). Their search for purity in a morally ambiguous world is misguided and ends up producing more harm than good. The religious views they espouse harm other people which is inexcusable and unnecessary.

As to spiritual warfare, yes it seems as though God could have created other beings with perfect free will, even those of a spiritual nature. However, we have no evidence, biblical or otherwise of such a creation, literally or figuratively. We have "sons of God" as the only other "human-like" created beings. Almost all ideas of spiritual warfare are out of literature, Milton especially. His work is the reason why we place "Satan" in the Garden, rather than reading what is actually there. His work is where we garner this idea of spiritual warfare, of "sons of God" who turn and wage war against heaven. It is his work that feeds our imagination when it comes to the battle over our souls.

Moreover, I would say that these "sons of God," whatever they are do not have the free will we associate with humanity. We are unique in that right and responsibility. For me, this comes down to the nature of God again. If we posit, as I have, that God is good, then could God create beings of an entirely evil make-up, such as we attribute to "evil forces?" And if God could or did create such beings, would that logically negate God's goodness? Nothing in the literature that we produce on the Spiritual realm says that a "demonic force" can be redeemed, therefore, they have no choice but to be evil and then must have been created that way. The result of this is that God is good and evil because God has placed beings that interact in this world in only a context of evil. God is therefore responsible for the evil in this world. I am not yet willing to make that claim, nor do I believe I ever will be able to make it.

But it is a nice segway into Malcolm's comments:

I think it's time for you to try a Jungian perspective. James Hillman's Kinds of Power and Carl Jung's Answer to Job are both excellent sources, and they don't overlap. In the mystery of it all Jung really stretches me to conceive that God is in fact ultimately responsible for the evil. That thought is problematic only if I think of it in a willful way -- that is, God's willfully creating evil. If I think of it in a willing way, as in God was/is willing to allow evil, then it's a different matter. God is willing for evil to be, I think, because that's the only way we as human's capable of responding to his love can be free to do so.
[The willing/willful distinction, by the way, I owe to Gerald May, he defining sin as willfulness. Which reminds me of something else -- John McQuarrie (sp?) a British theologian, defined God as "He who lets be."

Malcolm, I do so miss the days when you and I sat in a mall food court over Chik-fil-a and found meaning in our theological struggles and triumphs. I long for that kind of connection with someone out here and remember our times together fondly.

As you know I am nowhere near the Jungian scholar that you are. I know very little of his theory and what I remember, I like. The concept that sticks out, and I could be misusing it here is the shadow self. That part of the self that is capable of misusing our humanity and abusing the possibilities before us. I would agree with everything you said, except for one point - that God is ultimately responsible for evil. I am still not sure I want to go that far. I am willing to say that God gives us perfect free will, which can result in our making choices that result in evil outcomes.

The question then becomes (for me at least) is God indictable for the decisions we make as individuals who have not been coerced into making one particular decision among many possibilities?

Am I indictable if you decide to murder your neighbor? As a friend of yours who has a personal relationship with you, it would not be my fault that you committed the crime. However, to a lesser extent, there could have been decisions that I could have made that might have helped you arrive at a different outcome. Fault would fall to me, only if I made you believe that your only possibility was murder. I am still not quite sure about this rationale, what do you think?

Malcolm and Bad Alice, thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions. As I continue to read and "converse" it is helpful to have others on the journey who can offer different points of view. I thought the two of you might be interested in a couple of resources. They are not quite the light reading that some enjoy, but they have had a small impact on what you have mentioned here and I thought of these authors when I read your comments:

Kathleen A. Sands, a new author to me, has written a book entitled Escape from Paradise where she discusses evil as competing goods. She is a feminist theologian who whose take on evil is unique and challenging, but I believe that there is a lot of merit to how she chooses to discuss evil and tragedy.

John Hicks is a theologian who writes a theodicy of protest. His article in a book entitled Encountering Evil by Stephen Davis is short but challenges the assumption that God is good and he believes that God is ultimately indictable for the evil in the world.

These are not easy reads, but judging from the thoughtful comments and poignant questions you have offered they might be helpful in the long run. Thanks again

grace and peace