A few weeks ago I invited my readers to engage in a Sunday meditation activity. Although few replied, I nonetheless enjoyed reading your definition of 'the gospel'. In fact, I enjoy reading every comment and perspective shared on all of my posts. Thank you for making this experience so personally rewarding.
Currently I am taking a class on the parables of Jesus, and it has inspired me to ask you a question that I hope will grow into an uplifting and educational exercise. Here is the question:
What is your favorite parable of Jesus and why?
I look forward to reading your thoughtful response.
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
THE BOOK OF MORMON AS PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
A link to an interview that may interest both LDS and non-LDS friends. Bob Price was a part of the Book of Mormon Round Table Discussion held at BYU. The interview discusses his perspective of the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha. His approach to the Book of Mormon may be a way for some LDS people that no longer accept the historicity of the Book of Mormon and its origins to accept it as a normative text within the genre of scripture.
The link below takes you to the Mormon Expression website where you can listen to a variety of podcasts of varying topics. If this is your first time to Mormon Expression, enjoy. I find many of the podcasts interesting, but may not interest some. The interview with Bob Price is Episode 183: Bible Geek Bob Price. It's roughly thirty minutes long. I invite you to listen to the podcast and then let me know what you think.
Important Word to Know Before Listening: Pseudepigrapha
Link to Bob Price Interview Podcast: http://mormonexpression.com/
My thoughts on the interview (Best read after you get a chance to listen to it for yourself):
1) Bob is an extremely jovial guy, it seems. I look forward to exploring his works more thoroughly.
2) What a journey this man has taken. His comment about apologetics - having to explore other arguments against your own for it to be relevant outside the faith - is a very eye opening experience for anyone. While I don't think one has to follow Price towards agnosticism, it is an extremely challenging exploration when you know people who disagree with you will read your argument. It also sharpens your argument.
3) "I had unexamined assumptions." I appreciate this remark because assumptions go unrecognized until someone outside of ourselves brings us evidence that challenges us to our core. It's like you know you have unchallenged assumptions but you don't know what they are.
4) "So much of all scripture is pseudepigraphical." So can Mormons embrace this perspective of the Book of Mormon? That the BoM is authored by JS and functions much like the biblical texts, as a pseudepigraphical text?
5) Price respects JS as a creative theologian and writer, combining elements of the Gospels in 3 Nephi. It's not a hoax, it functions as scripture just like other sacred texts. Basically, Jesus didn't come to the Americas, but the artistic and ingenious combination of the Gospels that formed 3 Nephi 11 is worth appreciating.
6) "This isn't historical. This is a chance to update the Torah." Can we understand the BoM this way? It isn't historical, it's an update of the Gospels?
7) If you are going to throw out the BoM, than to remain consistent , won't you have to throw out the Bible? Well, it just depends what texts you want to have as normative for yourself and your community, I think. I think he means that if you are going to throw out the BoM as a normative text because of historical issues, than to be consistent, you should throw out the Bible on the same grounds.
8) It doesn't matter if the stories are true. The question is, are we true to our stories. Love it. Of course, it is important that we can acknowledge to ourselves and others the truthfulness of our text, and define what we mean when we say it is true.
9) BYU Reception of the Round Table?: Last meeting in a library downtown because BYU would no longer host it. Fired Mark Thomas. Is it okay to fire people because they have challenging round tables about our scriptures? That is disturbing to me.
10) Our theology spawns more from the other writings of JS than it does from the BoM. The BoM is a part of it, but it is interesting that the book that contains the fullness of the gospel mentions nothing of contemporary LDS temple worship.
11) A plead for consistency. I don't know if humans are actually capable of this. I guess that's our objective, but it's harder than we admit.
Well, I look forward to your thoughts.
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
The link below takes you to the Mormon Expression website where you can listen to a variety of podcasts of varying topics. If this is your first time to Mormon Expression, enjoy. I find many of the podcasts interesting, but may not interest some. The interview with Bob Price is Episode 183: Bible Geek Bob Price. It's roughly thirty minutes long. I invite you to listen to the podcast and then let me know what you think.
Important Word to Know Before Listening: Pseudepigrapha
Link to Bob Price Interview Podcast: http://mormonexpression.com/
My thoughts on the interview (Best read after you get a chance to listen to it for yourself):
1) Bob is an extremely jovial guy, it seems. I look forward to exploring his works more thoroughly.
2) What a journey this man has taken. His comment about apologetics - having to explore other arguments against your own for it to be relevant outside the faith - is a very eye opening experience for anyone. While I don't think one has to follow Price towards agnosticism, it is an extremely challenging exploration when you know people who disagree with you will read your argument. It also sharpens your argument.
3) "I had unexamined assumptions." I appreciate this remark because assumptions go unrecognized until someone outside of ourselves brings us evidence that challenges us to our core. It's like you know you have unchallenged assumptions but you don't know what they are.
4) "So much of all scripture is pseudepigraphical." So can Mormons embrace this perspective of the Book of Mormon? That the BoM is authored by JS and functions much like the biblical texts, as a pseudepigraphical text?
5) Price respects JS as a creative theologian and writer, combining elements of the Gospels in 3 Nephi. It's not a hoax, it functions as scripture just like other sacred texts. Basically, Jesus didn't come to the Americas, but the artistic and ingenious combination of the Gospels that formed 3 Nephi 11 is worth appreciating.
6) "This isn't historical. This is a chance to update the Torah." Can we understand the BoM this way? It isn't historical, it's an update of the Gospels?
7) If you are going to throw out the BoM, than to remain consistent , won't you have to throw out the Bible? Well, it just depends what texts you want to have as normative for yourself and your community, I think. I think he means that if you are going to throw out the BoM as a normative text because of historical issues, than to be consistent, you should throw out the Bible on the same grounds.
8) It doesn't matter if the stories are true. The question is, are we true to our stories. Love it. Of course, it is important that we can acknowledge to ourselves and others the truthfulness of our text, and define what we mean when we say it is true.
9) BYU Reception of the Round Table?: Last meeting in a library downtown because BYU would no longer host it. Fired Mark Thomas. Is it okay to fire people because they have challenging round tables about our scriptures? That is disturbing to me.
10) Our theology spawns more from the other writings of JS than it does from the BoM. The BoM is a part of it, but it is interesting that the book that contains the fullness of the gospel mentions nothing of contemporary LDS temple worship.
11) A plead for consistency. I don't know if humans are actually capable of this. I guess that's our objective, but it's harder than we admit.
Well, I look forward to your thoughts.
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Monday, January 23, 2012
THE INTERSECTION OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY: INTERVIEW WITH MATT DOWLING
Matt is a friend of mine. A fellow student at Oklahoma Christian University with a rich perspective on science and theology. I have enjoyed many discussions with Matt and thought it would be fun to interview him concerning his interest in science and theology. Matt has his own blog with a bio and some wonderful resources. Check it out to learn more about Matt and enjoy the interview.
There are more ideas exchanged than people realize, at least for those academics who work at the intersection of science and theology. If there is anything like a “40-car pileup” it happens when we don’t converse with the sciences, or vice versa. The interaction between the two domains of science and theology has been typically characterized in a four-fold typology: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. This typology was made most widely know by Ian Barbour. In my opinion, the most energetic exchanges are happening in the realms of physics and evolutionary biology. That being said, I’m not certain that scientific disciplines are being shaped as much by Christian thought, as Christian thought is being currently shaped by the sciences. Of course, there are those that would disagree with me. Dr. Jim Baird at Oklahoma Christian, who took his Ph.D from Oxford and worked with Richard Swinburne, contends that the contemporary scientific method is completely undergirded by a Christian-derived worldview—which is the assumption that we live in an ordered universe where laws are consistent across space and time. His contends this ordered view of the world arises from theistic belief. If he is right (he likely is) then the modern scientific methodology is more beholden to Christianity than it might like to admit. In my opinion, most scientists are completely unaware of this. I certainly was before I studied the philosophy of religion.
5) Can one believe in God and believe in evolution? If one can, how can one understand Genesis 1-3?
1) Matt, it seems that many people today maintain a sharp division between science and theology. Have the fields of science and theology always been so separated? If not, what would you say contributed to their division (Do your best to be briefJ)?
Let me start by admitting that I am not a historian of science, caveat emptor. Thus, I would characterize myself as an educated layperson with regards to the history of science apart from some formal education I received when I took my undergraduate degree in evolutionary biology. Much of what I know I have learned from being an avid reader. That being said, I would suggest that the line drawn between science and Christian theology is somewhat overstated. Granted, in some corners the demarcation can be quite sharp, at least for some subdisciplines within the sciences (e.g. evolutionary biology) and for some corners of the Christian church (e.g. some fundamentalist movements in Evangelicalism). That particular demarcation really begins in the 19th century and is primarily flamed by Andrew Dickson White, who notably wrote a book which propagandized and overstated the conflict, and who is a co-founder of Cornell University. During the rise of fundamentalism in the 1920s and 1930s, the retreat of certain parts of the conservative Christian churches from public intellectual engagement meant there was a widening divide between science and Christianity in that there was very little conversation between the two. Of course, I am speaking in monolithic tones, and it’s always difficult to say “Science did this” or the “Church did that.” Nonetheless, the point is that there has not always been a separation, and it is even possible that the separation is overstated, though it is particularly pointed in some circles. ‘Division’ connotes conflict. And so, while we know only about 7% of members of the National Academy of Sciences profess belief in a “personal God who answers prayer” (with %70.2 disbelieving and %20.8 agnostic on the issue), this does not necessarily mean there is conflict.
2) How would you describe the contemporary intersection of science and theology? Is it nothing more than a 40 car pileup or is there a steady traffic of ideas exchanged?
There are more ideas exchanged than people realize, at least for those academics who work at the intersection of science and theology. If there is anything like a “40-car pileup” it happens when we don’t converse with the sciences, or vice versa. The interaction between the two domains of science and theology has been typically characterized in a four-fold typology: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. This typology was made most widely know by Ian Barbour. In my opinion, the most energetic exchanges are happening in the realms of physics and evolutionary biology. That being said, I’m not certain that scientific disciplines are being shaped as much by Christian thought, as Christian thought is being currently shaped by the sciences. Of course, there are those that would disagree with me. Dr. Jim Baird at Oklahoma Christian, who took his Ph.D from Oxford and worked with Richard Swinburne, contends that the contemporary scientific method is completely undergirded by a Christian-derived worldview—which is the assumption that we live in an ordered universe where laws are consistent across space and time. His contends this ordered view of the world arises from theistic belief. If he is right (he likely is) then the modern scientific methodology is more beholden to Christianity than it might like to admit. In my opinion, most scientists are completely unaware of this. I certainly was before I studied the philosophy of religion.
3) In your experience as a scientist, was there a pressure from fellow scientists or the content of your education to dismiss your belief in God? If so, what was it that helped you retain your faith?
There was no explicit pressure, per se, but to the majority of scientists in my department who were non-believers, I think my faith was something that was either not widely known, or if it was known, it was looked at as something that was quirky. I sensed the attitude was one of incredulity—meaning, those who knew about my faith either didn’t really care or they quietly wondered why someone who was intelligent and had a promising career in biology ahead of them would believe in these supernatural things. I never really had any sharp exchanges over the issue. But I also didn’t make a point of talking about it widely either.
That being said, we have all heard about students who go off to college and lose their faith. I realize this happens. But why does it happen? One reason I think it happens is because students are encouraged to think through what they believe while in college. They are encouraged to ask critical questions and to turn things over and look inside. We don’t do that as well in our churches. Thus, when students do it in college, things can sometimes crumble because they have not had to do this for their Christian faith before. That doesn’t happen for everyone of course. Many people’s faith gets stronger in college. But it does happen to some. Churches should coach their young people about where secular worldviews are going to come into conflict with Christian thought, and help them respond accordingly. The Christian faith is strong, and will stand up to investigation. Not all of our “sacred cows” will survive of course, but the important things will, in my opinion.
4) The science community is excited to see the anticipated discovery of ‘the God particle.’ The very name may make some Christians fearful that this discovery will be more evidence to disprove the existence of God. What is your reaction to the possibility of ‘the God particle’ and the general progress of science as it relates to a belief in God? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-science-found-the-god-particle-6276634.html. )
Well, the particle physics community is certainly excited by the idea of discovering evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, but I think most are troubled by the moniker “the God particle.” And for good reason, the Higgs Boson has no religious significance, but it is significant because its existence is predicted by the Standard Model. Its discovery would in no way serve to prove or disprove the existence of God, just to be clear. The term is the result of a 1993 book titled The God Particle by Leon Lederman. Many scientists have regretted that he chose to title the book this way, and are especially ungrateful that the term became so widely used in the popular media. The Higgs Boson has no theological significance, except in so much as it shows us the way that God might have invested the early universe with mass. Scientists who are not believers would not describe it this way, but I am a Christian believer, and I make no apologies describing it this way.
5) Can one believe in God and believe in evolution? If one can, how can one understand Genesis 1-3?
Yes, absolutely. I’m not saying you can maintain certain Christian commitments, such a literalist or materialist readings of Genesis 1-3, and believe in contemporary evolutionary biology’s portrait of the development of life on earth. But yes, you can believe in both God and biological evolution. You will likely not have an easy time reconciling all things with your belief in God, and I would not even suggest that one do this. But the two things are diametrically opposed.
In my opinion, the best way to understand Genesis 1-3 is as a functional description of God’s creation, and not as a literal material description. One has to understand what creation stories were meant to do in the Ancient Near East. It would take too long to describe what a functional reading of Genesis 1-3 is, but fortunately there are some wonderful resources out there that will guide you in this better way of reading Genesis. I would recommend John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One. Also, www.biologos.org has some very helpful resources for exploring the intersection of belief in God and evolution.
6) How can the Christian Church as a whole better minister to a secular world?
First, by faithfully communicating the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, exploring the intersection of science and theology is important, but it is not the Great Commission. Telling the Gospel is the Great Commission. That being said, sometimes people wholesale reject the sciences as ungodly and even atheistic. This anti-intellectual posture from some in the churches can be a hindrance to some who work in these fields. Thus, the Gospel can in some ways be hindered when we are not able to converse about things that important to unbelievers, such as the sciences. Remember, Paul on Mars Hill in Acts 17 spoke to the Athenians in ways that they understood and were moved by. We should be able and willing to do the same. Does this mean that every pastor should get a Ph.D in the sciences? No, of course not. But pastors should be humble about what they don’t know about. If they have no training in the sciences or have not received a good education in the areas that seem to be in conversation with theology, then they should read and discern and become better trained. It’s a time when those who are educated will know something about the sciences, because ‘Science’ is a powerful way of knowing things about our world.
7) What materials would you recommend for those beginning to explore the intersection of science and theology?
I would recommend reading good books that explore the intersection between science and theology. Ian Barbour is an important thinker in this area. His 1966 work Issues in Science and Religion is a good place to start. Though it is an older work, it helps one understand the staging area for jumping off into the conversation. Early on in my explorations, I was helped by Ted Peter’s Science and Theology, a collection of essays that survey the field and the conversation. From there, I like to point people to the book resource page at the BioLogos Foundation (http://biologos.org/resources/books). When they ask me what to read, I suggest they just dive into the resources listed there and read what sounds exciting and interesting. Also, it is helpful for the advanced reader who is very interested in these topics, to know something about the philosophy of science. A good resource to jump into is Blackwell’s new anthology of the philosophy of science (ISBN: 978-1405175425). Also, there are two academic journals dedicated to the intersection of theology and science: Zygon and Theology and Science. Both are quite excellent. Finally, it might be helpful to actually know what is happening in the sciences. Two generalist journals which are excellent for science news and research are Science and Nature. They both maintain websites with excellent coverage of news in the sciences (Science: http://news.sciencemag.org/) and (Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/).
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Sunday, January 22, 2012
BEST SONG TO ENDUCE PARENTAL GUILT? "I AM A CHILD OF GOD"
WARNING: You are about to read a post in which Travis attempts to be humorous. There are very few people in the world that understand Travis' sense of humor or actually think it's funny. In fact, he is still trying to find those people. If "I am a Child of God" is indeed your favorite song, this may ruin it for you, but if you've ever been a parent, you may relate.
Parenting is extremely hard. It doesn't help when your childrens' favorite song reminds you of how much you fall short of being that ideal parent. The song is "I am a Child of God," a song children in the LDS church learn very early. For this to make sense you will have to imagine a child singing this song with their parent as the audience. The words in italics are the lyrics to the song and the parenthetical statements are a possible interpetation. Enjoy.
I am a child of God,
(declarative statement enforcing the divinity of your child, like they need the help.)
And He has sent me here
(It wasn't your kid's choice to have you as a parent. God sent them here. They're stuck with you.)
Has given me an earthly home
(wait for it...)
With parents kind and dear.
(BAM! If that statement were only true! It's like the kid is looking at you remembering how you lost your cool just one hour ago and saying, "Yeah, you're suppose to be kind and nice. Now, go hide in a hole.")
Lead me, guide me, walk beside me
(This is actually a very confusing line for parents, especially Dad's. Do you want me to be in front of you, or trying to locate heaven on a mall map? And if I'm suppose to walk beside you than would you please stop running away!?! Can I use a leash?)
Help me find the way
(I can't even get you to pee in the toilet let alone help you find 'the way.' And by the time you're actually needing my help you'll be a teenager, which just means that you'll not only look at me like I'm unkind, but tell me so.)
Teach me all that I must do
(Let's start with the toilet. Once you can remember to point down, then we'll talk theology.)
To live with Him someday
(Don't worry kid, you'll make it.)
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Parenting is extremely hard. It doesn't help when your childrens' favorite song reminds you of how much you fall short of being that ideal parent. The song is "I am a Child of God," a song children in the LDS church learn very early. For this to make sense you will have to imagine a child singing this song with their parent as the audience. The words in italics are the lyrics to the song and the parenthetical statements are a possible interpetation. Enjoy.
I am a child of God,
(declarative statement enforcing the divinity of your child, like they need the help.)
And He has sent me here
(It wasn't your kid's choice to have you as a parent. God sent them here. They're stuck with you.)
Has given me an earthly home
(wait for it...)
With parents kind and dear.
(BAM! If that statement were only true! It's like the kid is looking at you remembering how you lost your cool just one hour ago and saying, "Yeah, you're suppose to be kind and nice. Now, go hide in a hole.")
Lead me, guide me, walk beside me
(This is actually a very confusing line for parents, especially Dad's. Do you want me to be in front of you, or trying to locate heaven on a mall map? And if I'm suppose to walk beside you than would you please stop running away!?! Can I use a leash?)
Help me find the way
(I can't even get you to pee in the toilet let alone help you find 'the way.' And by the time you're actually needing my help you'll be a teenager, which just means that you'll not only look at me like I'm unkind, but tell me so.)
Teach me all that I must do
(Let's start with the toilet. Once you can remember to point down, then we'll talk theology.)
To live with Him someday
(Don't worry kid, you'll make it.)
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Friday, January 20, 2012
WHY PARABLES?: SUMMARY OF CROSSAN'S IN PARABLES (Chapter One)
As a part of my class I am reading Crossan's In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus. In this post I provide three points of the first chapter. This is a helpful way for me to digest the material and I hope it is helpful in comprehending the parables themselves.
1) Poetic Metaphor: Crossan describes the parables generally as 'poetic metaphor.' Crossan keeps the non-poetic (me) afloat by explaining the relationship between the experience and the expression. The experience (life; existence) which leads to the expression (parable; poetic metaphor; words) are in a circular relation to each other. To illustrate this circular nature Crossan quotes T.S. Eliot:
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time
Only by exploring the expression can one grasp the experience and through the expression both audience and poet confront the experience anew. Again, Crossan: "The metaphor here contains a new possibility of world and of language so that any information one might obtain from it can only be received after one has participated through the metaphor in its new and alien referential world." The newness conveyed in the expression (parable) creates a newness to the world. Thus, the parable as it refers to an experience can only be understood if one is drawn into the world it illustrates. Crossan writes "A great poet or a great artist is one who establishes in and by and through his work new criteria for artistic or poetic greatness by establishing a new world in which it is such." Indeed, within the poetic power of Jesus' parables the foreign is brought to the common. We are drawn into it, experiencing something new of a world Jesus conveys through parable.
2) The Kingdom of God: This new world in poetic metaphor is the Kingdom of God. Crossan avoids a definition that would make the Kingdom of God a location and instead insists that the Kingdom of God is "the action of God in which kingly rule and dominion was clearly manifested" (emphasis mine; Psalm 145:11-12). The Kingdom is power and deed, and Jesus is the advent of God's kingdom. The Kingdom of God is the central topic of Jesus' parables.
Three key parables of Jesus concerning the kingdom: 1) The Treasure (Matt 13:44); The Pearl (Matt 13:45-46); and the Great Fish (Gospel of Thomas 8). The Kingdom-movement exemplified in these parables is three-fold: advent-reversal-action. For example, in the Parable of the Treasure the main verbs are finds-sells-buys. The main character of the parable finds a treasure (advent of the kingdom), which alters his plans and creates a dramatic change for the future (reversal) and leads to the unexpected action of buying the field (action). Thus, the parable is the the expression of the experience of the Kingdom of God: advent-reversal-action.
3) Past-Present-Future: In the experience of God's Kingdom as expressed through the parables, one's past ceases to define the present because both are consumed in the experience. The future cannot remain the same. Something new is happening, altering paradigm and place. The individual moves to redefine the future in reverence to the advent.
"The one who plans, projects, and programs a future, even and especially if one covers the denial of finitude by calling it God's future disclosed or disclosable to oneself, is in idolatry against the sovereign freedom of God's advent to create one's time and establish one's historicity. This is the central challenge of Jesus." - Crossan
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
1) Poetic Metaphor: Crossan describes the parables generally as 'poetic metaphor.' Crossan keeps the non-poetic (me) afloat by explaining the relationship between the experience and the expression. The experience (life; existence) which leads to the expression (parable; poetic metaphor; words) are in a circular relation to each other. To illustrate this circular nature Crossan quotes T.S. Eliot:
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time
Only by exploring the expression can one grasp the experience and through the expression both audience and poet confront the experience anew. Again, Crossan: "The metaphor here contains a new possibility of world and of language so that any information one might obtain from it can only be received after one has participated through the metaphor in its new and alien referential world." The newness conveyed in the expression (parable) creates a newness to the world. Thus, the parable as it refers to an experience can only be understood if one is drawn into the world it illustrates. Crossan writes "A great poet or a great artist is one who establishes in and by and through his work new criteria for artistic or poetic greatness by establishing a new world in which it is such." Indeed, within the poetic power of Jesus' parables the foreign is brought to the common. We are drawn into it, experiencing something new of a world Jesus conveys through parable.
2) The Kingdom of God: This new world in poetic metaphor is the Kingdom of God. Crossan avoids a definition that would make the Kingdom of God a location and instead insists that the Kingdom of God is "the action of God in which kingly rule and dominion was clearly manifested" (emphasis mine; Psalm 145:11-12). The Kingdom is power and deed, and Jesus is the advent of God's kingdom. The Kingdom of God is the central topic of Jesus' parables.
Three key parables of Jesus concerning the kingdom: 1) The Treasure (Matt 13:44); The Pearl (Matt 13:45-46); and the Great Fish (Gospel of Thomas 8). The Kingdom-movement exemplified in these parables is three-fold: advent-reversal-action. For example, in the Parable of the Treasure the main verbs are finds-sells-buys. The main character of the parable finds a treasure (advent of the kingdom), which alters his plans and creates a dramatic change for the future (reversal) and leads to the unexpected action of buying the field (action). Thus, the parable is the the expression of the experience of the Kingdom of God: advent-reversal-action.
3) Past-Present-Future: In the experience of God's Kingdom as expressed through the parables, one's past ceases to define the present because both are consumed in the experience. The future cannot remain the same. Something new is happening, altering paradigm and place. The individual moves to redefine the future in reverence to the advent.
"The one who plans, projects, and programs a future, even and especially if one covers the denial of finitude by calling it God's future disclosed or disclosable to oneself, is in idolatry against the sovereign freedom of God's advent to create one's time and establish one's historicity. This is the central challenge of Jesus." - Crossan
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
WOULD JESUS KILL LABAN?
I turn back to the Sermon on the Mount and try to place it in its time when the norm was not McDonalds, but hunger; when disease was more common than medicine; when the road into town was lined with a few occupied crosses, intead of billboards; when the epidemic of iliteracy plagued at least 90% of the population; when being meek was not just an attitude, but a lifestyle. And in this setting emerges a rabbi, son of Mary and Joseph, who teaches that the blessed in the world are those that suffer, who hunger, who thirst. He expounds upon the law, stretching the people's comprehension from a simple "Do not commit adultery," to "everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt. 5:27-30).
I take Jesus' teaching on adultery seriously and I am glad to be a part of a faith community that takes it seriously too. We are taught by Jesus to not only commit ourselves to faithfulness with our chosen partner, but we are taught that faithfulness of the mind is just as important. I believe this to be appropriate council and I make no exceptions to it in my personal life. No adultery, period. No lusting, period.
Before addressing adultery, Jesus discusses the law 'Thou shalt not kill" (Matt 5:21-26). And later He addresses the command/saying of "Thou shalt love your neighbor and hate your enemy" (Matt. 5:43-47). As before, Jesus expounds telling his audience to not only abstain from killing, but not even hate. "Love your enemy and pray for those that persecute you," is the teaching. If I am to remain consistent with my level of dedication to Jesus' teachings presented already in my stern concerning adultery, then am I not making the same type of committment to his teaching to not kill, to not even hate? No killing, period?
While I see many a Christian (in which I include Mormons) hold strong to their commitment to not commit adultery or lust, I perceive a disharmony in our commitment to love our enemy. It is telling that not only did Jesus teach a type of pacifism, but also lived a life wherein, when faced with his own death by injustice, he submitted without retaliation. In fact, he heals one who would walk him to his final doom (Luke 22:47-53). In the power of darkness Jesus heals. He does not retaliate. What love.
So what of Jesus' disciples? They too would suffer. In the centuries that follow Christ the stories of Christian martyrs are held up as an example for those who wish to follow this Prince of Peace. To be a Bishop in the first few centuries, following Christ practically guaranteed only one thing - you would be the first to die for your community of faith. All of the extant Christian writings we have after Christ's death up to the 4th century advocate that Christians are not to join the military, but are to follow instead the life and teachings of Christ. There is a consistent call for Christians to make a commitment to non-violence beginning with Christ's teachings, surging through his life, and charging forward in the lives of his early disciples. No killing, period.
It's a scary commitment. It is one plagued with practical questions, leading the imagination to concoct unrelenting hypotheticals. For example, what if the American Christians did not respond to the threat of the Nazi party? We'd all be speaking German! Of course, what if the German Christians did not respond to the rise of the Nazi party with its call of seizing power and retaliation? Could WWII been avoided if the world-wide Christian movement - empowered by the unrelenting stance of non-violence of the German Christians - stood firm to its Lord and made a stance against war (Hays)? I think Bonhoeffer describes the attitude and commitment we are to make when he said, "I can no longer condemn or hate a brother [or sister] for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me. His face that hitherto may have been strange and intolerable to me is transformed through intercession into the countenance of a brother for whom Christ died" (Bonhoeffer, Life Together).
I try to remember the people that first heard the Sermon on the Mount faced these and many more threats. It was a time and place as hard if not harder than our own, but they still made the commitment: I will not commit adultery and I will not lust; I will not kill and I will not hate my enemy. Istead, I will love my enemy as Jesus taught in word and deed. Tough words.
To avoid this train of thought going too long, I end here with some questions to hopefully stimulate some discussion. Does the Book of Mormon as a whole provide the same demand on its readers as the Sermon on the Mount and life of Jesus? Does it justify killing under certain circumstances? Do we follow Nephi's example or do we follow the example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's? And of most importance, what type of commitment to non-violence do we make today?
As always,
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
I take Jesus' teaching on adultery seriously and I am glad to be a part of a faith community that takes it seriously too. We are taught by Jesus to not only commit ourselves to faithfulness with our chosen partner, but we are taught that faithfulness of the mind is just as important. I believe this to be appropriate council and I make no exceptions to it in my personal life. No adultery, period. No lusting, period.
Before addressing adultery, Jesus discusses the law 'Thou shalt not kill" (Matt 5:21-26). And later He addresses the command/saying of "Thou shalt love your neighbor and hate your enemy" (Matt. 5:43-47). As before, Jesus expounds telling his audience to not only abstain from killing, but not even hate. "Love your enemy and pray for those that persecute you," is the teaching. If I am to remain consistent with my level of dedication to Jesus' teachings presented already in my stern concerning adultery, then am I not making the same type of committment to his teaching to not kill, to not even hate? No killing, period?
While I see many a Christian (in which I include Mormons) hold strong to their commitment to not commit adultery or lust, I perceive a disharmony in our commitment to love our enemy. It is telling that not only did Jesus teach a type of pacifism, but also lived a life wherein, when faced with his own death by injustice, he submitted without retaliation. In fact, he heals one who would walk him to his final doom (Luke 22:47-53). In the power of darkness Jesus heals. He does not retaliate. What love.
So what of Jesus' disciples? They too would suffer. In the centuries that follow Christ the stories of Christian martyrs are held up as an example for those who wish to follow this Prince of Peace. To be a Bishop in the first few centuries, following Christ practically guaranteed only one thing - you would be the first to die for your community of faith. All of the extant Christian writings we have after Christ's death up to the 4th century advocate that Christians are not to join the military, but are to follow instead the life and teachings of Christ. There is a consistent call for Christians to make a commitment to non-violence beginning with Christ's teachings, surging through his life, and charging forward in the lives of his early disciples. No killing, period.
It's a scary commitment. It is one plagued with practical questions, leading the imagination to concoct unrelenting hypotheticals. For example, what if the American Christians did not respond to the threat of the Nazi party? We'd all be speaking German! Of course, what if the German Christians did not respond to the rise of the Nazi party with its call of seizing power and retaliation? Could WWII been avoided if the world-wide Christian movement - empowered by the unrelenting stance of non-violence of the German Christians - stood firm to its Lord and made a stance against war (Hays)? I think Bonhoeffer describes the attitude and commitment we are to make when he said, "I can no longer condemn or hate a brother [or sister] for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me. His face that hitherto may have been strange and intolerable to me is transformed through intercession into the countenance of a brother for whom Christ died" (Bonhoeffer, Life Together).
I try to remember the people that first heard the Sermon on the Mount faced these and many more threats. It was a time and place as hard if not harder than our own, but they still made the commitment: I will not commit adultery and I will not lust; I will not kill and I will not hate my enemy. Istead, I will love my enemy as Jesus taught in word and deed. Tough words.
To avoid this train of thought going too long, I end here with some questions to hopefully stimulate some discussion. Does the Book of Mormon as a whole provide the same demand on its readers as the Sermon on the Mount and life of Jesus? Does it justify killing under certain circumstances? Do we follow Nephi's example or do we follow the example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's? And of most importance, what type of commitment to non-violence do we make today?
As always,
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Saturday, January 7, 2012
A SUNDAY MEDITATION ACTIVITY
I was thinking about a conversation I had with my wife recently that sparked an idea that may help us in our Sunday devotion. I invite all of you to write a comment to this post answering the question below. The one rule is that you cannot look at what other people write. This has to come from you. Don't worry, there is no wrong answer. I will not reply to any comments made. Once you have written your comment THEN you can look at what other people have written. My wife and I thought it would be fun to see how everyone's personal experiences and testimonies have shaped their understanding of the term we so often use in the question below. Again, no peeking at other's comments (honor system).
Here is the question:
What is the Gospel?
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Here is the question:
What is the Gospel?
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Friday, January 6, 2012
WILL ALL THE NON-MORMONS PLEASE STAND UP
Why won't the rest of the world accept Mormons as Christians? For those that may be interested, Stephen E. Robinson wrote a book addressing six common arguments often used to claim that Mormons aren't Christians. The book is called.... wait for it .... Are Mormons Christians? It is a very thoughtful book and presents some wonderful arguments in favor of the inclusion of Mormons as Christians. I would also like to include a link to a blog that was recently posted by Amy Hall which presents a more contemporary argument against the inclusion of Mormons in the category of Christian.
In this post I do not offer a defense of Mormons as Christians. Instead, I offer a reason why many Christians may not accept Mormons as part of the in-crowd. Yes, I see the peculiarity of offering such an argument, being myself, a Mormon. But this proposal is one that I have deduced during my time going to school with some amazing Christians involved in worth while ministry. So, don't be mad at me; instead, see if you can put yourself in their shoes. My hope is that non-Mormons will also weigh in on this proposal and maybe offer further insight.
So why are Mormons not accepted as Christians? I propose it is because most Christians don't trust us. Most Christians are accustomed to a very bold message that comes in a variety of forms from the LDS people: 1) we are right and you are wrong; 2) you are an abomination in the eyes of God and we aren't; 3) You have some of the truth but we have it all; 4) We are going to be gods one day and you will be angels (suckers). The LDS people are coming up on nearly two hundred years of telling the rest of the Christian world a very consistent message that we alone have the legitimate access to God's full revelation, and the rest of the Christian world is floundering with only a portion of the Holy Spirit. If you can put yourself in the Christian's shoes for just one moment. That message, no matter how hard you try to soften it, is a very bold statement that is almost asking for confrontation. So it should be no surprise that confrontation and a lack of acceptance is what we get.
Where does our message come from? In the early 19th century the United States was experiencing a restoration movement. Many people were seeking to reestablish the ancient order of things - how it was back in the good old days when the apostles were alive. Notable people like Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone created a seed bed of membership for the early LDS Church in their efforts to reunite the many denominations of Christianity into one whole Church (thanks). In comparison, while Stone and Campbell attempted to reunite the many sects, Joseph Smith was starting the whole thing over complete with divine visitations, new scripture, etc. From an extremely early point in the LDS movement we have been declaring a bold message - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true church on earth. In other words, you may think you are Christian, but we are the Christians.
Our actions today continue to ring out this message of old. We continue to preach the message of being the only true church through an army of some 60,000 missionaries. We still have the glaring declaration in our scriptures that other churches are an abomination (not to mention the anti-Catholic rhetoric of McConkie that seems to have created a pretty deep wound we struggle to mend). We do not accept the baptisms of Christians even if done by immersion. We proselytize whom ever is not LDS, no matter how devout they may be to the Savior or how healthy their relationship with God and humanity. And now, while still acting out a very old message, we want the Christian world to accept us as one of their own? While we demand acceptance from the Christian world for who we are and what we believe, should we not look at ourselves and ask if we are ready to accept the rest of the Christian world for who they are and what they believe? If not, I am afraid that the Christian world will never accept us because our actions show that we do not accept them in their expression of faith in Jesus Christ. It seems that they are willing to give us just as much as we are willing to give them. Please note, I am not saying that Mormons believe Christians are not actually Christians. I am simply saying that our actions convey that message and for our relationship to change, we will have to change too.
I believe a relationship will have to form that is a bit more accepting of one another before the greater Christian world will look upon the Mormon faith as a partner and fellow Christian group. Many mainline Christian denominations have buried the hatchet long ago and approach their differences ecumenically. While some still squabble (with whom we have most of our confrontational conversations) most are accepting of each other, differences and all. I propose that if the Christian world is ever going to accept Mormons, Mormons are going to have to accept the Christians both in word and deed.
As always,
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
In this post I do not offer a defense of Mormons as Christians. Instead, I offer a reason why many Christians may not accept Mormons as part of the in-crowd. Yes, I see the peculiarity of offering such an argument, being myself, a Mormon. But this proposal is one that I have deduced during my time going to school with some amazing Christians involved in worth while ministry. So, don't be mad at me; instead, see if you can put yourself in their shoes. My hope is that non-Mormons will also weigh in on this proposal and maybe offer further insight.
So why are Mormons not accepted as Christians? I propose it is because most Christians don't trust us. Most Christians are accustomed to a very bold message that comes in a variety of forms from the LDS people: 1) we are right and you are wrong; 2) you are an abomination in the eyes of God and we aren't; 3) You have some of the truth but we have it all; 4) We are going to be gods one day and you will be angels (suckers). The LDS people are coming up on nearly two hundred years of telling the rest of the Christian world a very consistent message that we alone have the legitimate access to God's full revelation, and the rest of the Christian world is floundering with only a portion of the Holy Spirit. If you can put yourself in the Christian's shoes for just one moment. That message, no matter how hard you try to soften it, is a very bold statement that is almost asking for confrontation. So it should be no surprise that confrontation and a lack of acceptance is what we get.
Where does our message come from? In the early 19th century the United States was experiencing a restoration movement. Many people were seeking to reestablish the ancient order of things - how it was back in the good old days when the apostles were alive. Notable people like Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone created a seed bed of membership for the early LDS Church in their efforts to reunite the many denominations of Christianity into one whole Church (thanks). In comparison, while Stone and Campbell attempted to reunite the many sects, Joseph Smith was starting the whole thing over complete with divine visitations, new scripture, etc. From an extremely early point in the LDS movement we have been declaring a bold message - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true church on earth. In other words, you may think you are Christian, but we are the Christians.
Our actions today continue to ring out this message of old. We continue to preach the message of being the only true church through an army of some 60,000 missionaries. We still have the glaring declaration in our scriptures that other churches are an abomination (not to mention the anti-Catholic rhetoric of McConkie that seems to have created a pretty deep wound we struggle to mend). We do not accept the baptisms of Christians even if done by immersion. We proselytize whom ever is not LDS, no matter how devout they may be to the Savior or how healthy their relationship with God and humanity. And now, while still acting out a very old message, we want the Christian world to accept us as one of their own? While we demand acceptance from the Christian world for who we are and what we believe, should we not look at ourselves and ask if we are ready to accept the rest of the Christian world for who they are and what they believe? If not, I am afraid that the Christian world will never accept us because our actions show that we do not accept them in their expression of faith in Jesus Christ. It seems that they are willing to give us just as much as we are willing to give them. Please note, I am not saying that Mormons believe Christians are not actually Christians. I am simply saying that our actions convey that message and for our relationship to change, we will have to change too.
I believe a relationship will have to form that is a bit more accepting of one another before the greater Christian world will look upon the Mormon faith as a partner and fellow Christian group. Many mainline Christian denominations have buried the hatchet long ago and approach their differences ecumenically. While some still squabble (with whom we have most of our confrontational conversations) most are accepting of each other, differences and all. I propose that if the Christian world is ever going to accept Mormons, Mormons are going to have to accept the Christians both in word and deed.
As always,
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Sunday, January 1, 2012
VICARIOUS BAPTISM: WHAT ARE WE SAYING ABOUT GOD?
WARNING: You are about to read a long post, so grab your favorite beverage and take your time. If needed, read out loud. It's okay, reading out loud is a healthy habit.
Worship is an experience wherein God calls together God's people and God's people respond. God's people open themselves to God, and God, in complete freedom and love, responds. The worship experience is therefore a time in which we are receptive to a sovereign and loving God to whom we direct our prayers and in whom our faith rests. So worship is an experience like no other in that we as a community commune with the divine. But it is also a teaching moment like no other. In worship God reveals God's self. We learn of God because of God's self revelation. In turn, worship is affected by the new revelation. The worship experience is altered to fit that new information about God. This alteration can come in an actual change in the format and delivery of the worship or it can be a change in the individual's perception of what the worship means. Thus, worship includes symbols that point to a deeper meaning about the reality of God and the worship will conform to God's self expressions.
What does this all mean? The topic of today's post revolves around LDS forms of worship. The word ‘worship’ is not common in LDS lingo, but I believe that the highest form of service and veneration to the Lord is performed in the Temple. Specifically I would like to address a personal question concerning the theological justification for vicarious baptism. As I explained above, worship tells us something of God, and as God reveals himself, worship will adjust so that it communicates more fully the revealed truth of God. Therefore, the fundamental question for this post is: What does vicarious baptism say about God?
I believe in a just God. Worship has taught me that. And what I mean by 'just' is that I believe in a God that will one day judge the lives of each individual in a fair manner. By 'fair' I mean God will not impose a requirement on the life of a human being for which that human being had no means to fulfill during their lifetime. For example, God would be unjust to require someone to know of and have gained a deep relationship with Jesus Christ during their lifetime if that person had no access to Jesus or His teachings. God would be unjust to judge that person as a disciple of Christ if that person had no opportunity to learn what 'disciple of Christ' meant to even the most elementary degree. I believe God will judge each person in their life context and God will be just in judging.
Now imagine a man named Eli who happens to live his life in the 4th century CE. Eli yearns to have a deeper relationship with his Creator, learns of Christianity, has a genuine spiritual experience to confirm that he should become a disciple of Christ, and thus seeks after the most available source of enacting that desire. For him, in his context, the available source is the church which is emerging as the Catholic church. He is baptized by a Catholic priest, who is devoted to his station but occasionally drinks too much of the communion wine. That doesn't stop Eli from feeling the Spirit of God confirm his baptism, and he lives a life dictated by the confession, ‘Jesus is Lord.'
When Eli dies, he meets his Maker. Can you imagine? You have led a life following Christ as best you can and according to what was available to you in your context. You are now before your Creator. God, who knows the context of Eli's life better than Eli himself, will make a just judgment.
So here is my question: What would a just God do? Would God look on the devotion of this man, see how the atoning sacrifice of Christ has purified him of all sin and unrighteousness, and say, "enter, thou good and faithful servant"? Or, Would Eli be denied access to God's kingdom unless he received a baptism that was unavailable to him during his lifetime?
It might be said that Eli was baptized by an unworthy priest and therefore his baptism, although done with good intentions, is invalid in the sight of God. What does such a claim say about God? Isn't this more of a judgment on the one who performed the baptism and not on the one who was baptized? Eli sought after the appropriate manner to embrace Christianity in his context. He can't help it if his priest liked to drink too much and was therefore considered unworthy by God. How would Eli know that God had removed the priest's authority to perform baptism? Most importantly, why would God the Father discredit a man's genuine effort to follow Christ over the sins of a completely different person?
What does that say about God?
God is not weak. God conquers sin. In fact, that is the good news of this thing we call the Gospel: that God has overcome death and sin through Christ. God sends Jesus Christ who dies on a cross for the sins of all humanity and overcomes death through resurrection. God then empowers the remaining apostles and disciples to go as lights in the world. The world, who has already crucified God's Son, rejects the apostles (which really should be no surprise). At this point we must ask ourselves, does God endure with God's people after the apostles are all gone? These are people who are still searching, pondering and praying to God; these are people being killed, even slaughtered because they profess Jesus is Lord; these are people waiting anxiously for the Coming of Christ; these are people that believe whole heartedly that not even the gates of hell can stop the kingdom of God (Matt. 16:18). Does God take away his authority to perform legitimate baptisms for these people simply because the rest of the world is rejecting the Gospel (once again, rejection really shouldn't be that surprising, especially for a God who knows everything)?
What does that say about God?
Of course, persecution is an outside pressure. Let us hold to the idea that by the 4th century the Catholic Church in its entirety was so corrupt that the authority to perform baptisms was removed by God from the entire Church, even world (since only God could remove God's authority to do something). Is it just for God to judge Eli unworthy to enter the kingdom of God because of an inaccessible authority which is controlled by the very God making the judgment? In other words, what are we saying about a God that deems souls unworthy to be with God for eternity because they were not baptized by someone with the very authority that God controls? Does God reject one's baptism because of the internal corruption within a Church? Salvation, according to the Bible, is a free gift (Eph. 2:8-10). If we go back to Eli, here is a man who is functioning as best he can in his context. The only thing available to him is the Catholic Church, and therefore he seeks out what seems to him to be the correct institution in which to devote one's life to Christ. He is baptized by water sprinkled on his head. This is the only form of baptism Eli knows and he doesn't think twice about it. He feels God's confirmation and lives a life devoted to Christ. Does God reject Eli's baptism because the only institution available to him in which to be baptized was corrupt (keeping in mind that Eli doesn't know that according to God the Catholic Church is corrupt)?
What does that say about God?
If we declare that indeed God rejects Eli's baptism, than what was the whole point of God's Holy Spirit touching his life? The Spirit of God will testify of truth, so why did it send Eli to a corrupt church? Why did it confirm in Eli's heart that what he was doing was right, if in fact, it was not? It seems sadistic for God to send his Holy Spirit to direct humanity to truth, but when they adhere to the Holy Spirit in their given context, genuinely seeking after truth as you and I do, God deems them unworthy to enter His presence because they were sent by the Holy Spirit to a church that performs a baptism God rejects. That's kinda scary to me.
Would God really remove his authority to perform legitimate baptisms because of external persecution and internal corruption? I know of a story that may illustrate my perspective. God comes to Abraham to let him know that Sodom and Gomorrah are on the chopping block. Abraham asks God, "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" God declares that if there are fifty righteous, He will forgive the whole place. This conversation continues, each time Abraham reducing the number of hypothetical righteous people in the city to see what God will do (50? 45? 40? 30? 20? 10?). Each time God states that he will not destroy the city if He finds within it any number of righteous. Lucky for Lot, the angels of God direct him and his family out of the city before it is destroyed. It seems that besides Lot and his family, no one else was worth saving (Gen. 18-19; Note: Lot and family are saved because they are considered righteous by God even though Lot is willing to give his daughters to the mob that wants to get to 'know' the angels of God and even though after the ordeal these daughters get to 'know' their own father. Interesting difference in understanding of 'righteous' than what we would consider today).
To summarize, I really have a hard time believing that God - the same God who calls us to be long-suffering, if not even more (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22-23) - would not be long-suffering with all of his children on earth (Psalm 86, one of my favorites. Exodus 34:6-7, also awesome). It is so easy for us to think of history in a neat summary: They killed Jesus and the apostles, corruption ensued and so God took away his authority. But there were thousands of people, devout followers of Christ that saw the apostles die and probably cried out even more for God's direction and mercy and authority. Is God going to remove the authority for these people to access their Savior because of the wickedness of others? God is so much more powerful than our feeble attempts at destroying his work, and his mercy is something needed every day, not simply in the afterlife. Eli of the 4th century needed it just as much as you and I (remember, Christians actually died for their faith back then and it was not pretty). Here I am faced with the perplexing question of, do I continue to extract names from the Catholic baptismal records so that another baptism can be performed on their behalf in the Temple? A baptism that they accepted already in their lifetime within their context? A baptism they value as much as I value mine? Do I continue to pray and in asking God for wisdom "remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things [the Book of Mormon]", but believe that God took away the ability for close to 2,000 years worth of people to legitimately take on Christ (Moroni 10:3)? I don't see how that is mercy.
What if I accept that God will judge them in their context, appreciate the life they lived with what they had, cleanse them of all unrighteousness through the Atonement of Christ and let them enter in His abode? For myself, I can't ask for anymore.
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
Worship is an experience wherein God calls together God's people and God's people respond. God's people open themselves to God, and God, in complete freedom and love, responds. The worship experience is therefore a time in which we are receptive to a sovereign and loving God to whom we direct our prayers and in whom our faith rests. So worship is an experience like no other in that we as a community commune with the divine. But it is also a teaching moment like no other. In worship God reveals God's self. We learn of God because of God's self revelation. In turn, worship is affected by the new revelation. The worship experience is altered to fit that new information about God. This alteration can come in an actual change in the format and delivery of the worship or it can be a change in the individual's perception of what the worship means. Thus, worship includes symbols that point to a deeper meaning about the reality of God and the worship will conform to God's self expressions.
What does this all mean? The topic of today's post revolves around LDS forms of worship. The word ‘worship’ is not common in LDS lingo, but I believe that the highest form of service and veneration to the Lord is performed in the Temple. Specifically I would like to address a personal question concerning the theological justification for vicarious baptism. As I explained above, worship tells us something of God, and as God reveals himself, worship will adjust so that it communicates more fully the revealed truth of God. Therefore, the fundamental question for this post is: What does vicarious baptism say about God?
I believe in a just God. Worship has taught me that. And what I mean by 'just' is that I believe in a God that will one day judge the lives of each individual in a fair manner. By 'fair' I mean God will not impose a requirement on the life of a human being for which that human being had no means to fulfill during their lifetime. For example, God would be unjust to require someone to know of and have gained a deep relationship with Jesus Christ during their lifetime if that person had no access to Jesus or His teachings. God would be unjust to judge that person as a disciple of Christ if that person had no opportunity to learn what 'disciple of Christ' meant to even the most elementary degree. I believe God will judge each person in their life context and God will be just in judging.
Now imagine a man named Eli who happens to live his life in the 4th century CE. Eli yearns to have a deeper relationship with his Creator, learns of Christianity, has a genuine spiritual experience to confirm that he should become a disciple of Christ, and thus seeks after the most available source of enacting that desire. For him, in his context, the available source is the church which is emerging as the Catholic church. He is baptized by a Catholic priest, who is devoted to his station but occasionally drinks too much of the communion wine. That doesn't stop Eli from feeling the Spirit of God confirm his baptism, and he lives a life dictated by the confession, ‘Jesus is Lord.'
When Eli dies, he meets his Maker. Can you imagine? You have led a life following Christ as best you can and according to what was available to you in your context. You are now before your Creator. God, who knows the context of Eli's life better than Eli himself, will make a just judgment.
So here is my question: What would a just God do? Would God look on the devotion of this man, see how the atoning sacrifice of Christ has purified him of all sin and unrighteousness, and say, "enter, thou good and faithful servant"? Or, Would Eli be denied access to God's kingdom unless he received a baptism that was unavailable to him during his lifetime?
It might be said that Eli was baptized by an unworthy priest and therefore his baptism, although done with good intentions, is invalid in the sight of God. What does such a claim say about God? Isn't this more of a judgment on the one who performed the baptism and not on the one who was baptized? Eli sought after the appropriate manner to embrace Christianity in his context. He can't help it if his priest liked to drink too much and was therefore considered unworthy by God. How would Eli know that God had removed the priest's authority to perform baptism? Most importantly, why would God the Father discredit a man's genuine effort to follow Christ over the sins of a completely different person?
What does that say about God?
God is not weak. God conquers sin. In fact, that is the good news of this thing we call the Gospel: that God has overcome death and sin through Christ. God sends Jesus Christ who dies on a cross for the sins of all humanity and overcomes death through resurrection. God then empowers the remaining apostles and disciples to go as lights in the world. The world, who has already crucified God's Son, rejects the apostles (which really should be no surprise). At this point we must ask ourselves, does God endure with God's people after the apostles are all gone? These are people who are still searching, pondering and praying to God; these are people being killed, even slaughtered because they profess Jesus is Lord; these are people waiting anxiously for the Coming of Christ; these are people that believe whole heartedly that not even the gates of hell can stop the kingdom of God (Matt. 16:18). Does God take away his authority to perform legitimate baptisms for these people simply because the rest of the world is rejecting the Gospel (once again, rejection really shouldn't be that surprising, especially for a God who knows everything)?
What does that say about God?
Of course, persecution is an outside pressure. Let us hold to the idea that by the 4th century the Catholic Church in its entirety was so corrupt that the authority to perform baptisms was removed by God from the entire Church, even world (since only God could remove God's authority to do something). Is it just for God to judge Eli unworthy to enter the kingdom of God because of an inaccessible authority which is controlled by the very God making the judgment? In other words, what are we saying about a God that deems souls unworthy to be with God for eternity because they were not baptized by someone with the very authority that God controls? Does God reject one's baptism because of the internal corruption within a Church? Salvation, according to the Bible, is a free gift (Eph. 2:8-10). If we go back to Eli, here is a man who is functioning as best he can in his context. The only thing available to him is the Catholic Church, and therefore he seeks out what seems to him to be the correct institution in which to devote one's life to Christ. He is baptized by water sprinkled on his head. This is the only form of baptism Eli knows and he doesn't think twice about it. He feels God's confirmation and lives a life devoted to Christ. Does God reject Eli's baptism because the only institution available to him in which to be baptized was corrupt (keeping in mind that Eli doesn't know that according to God the Catholic Church is corrupt)?
What does that say about God?
If we declare that indeed God rejects Eli's baptism, than what was the whole point of God's Holy Spirit touching his life? The Spirit of God will testify of truth, so why did it send Eli to a corrupt church? Why did it confirm in Eli's heart that what he was doing was right, if in fact, it was not? It seems sadistic for God to send his Holy Spirit to direct humanity to truth, but when they adhere to the Holy Spirit in their given context, genuinely seeking after truth as you and I do, God deems them unworthy to enter His presence because they were sent by the Holy Spirit to a church that performs a baptism God rejects. That's kinda scary to me.
Would God really remove his authority to perform legitimate baptisms because of external persecution and internal corruption? I know of a story that may illustrate my perspective. God comes to Abraham to let him know that Sodom and Gomorrah are on the chopping block. Abraham asks God, "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" God declares that if there are fifty righteous, He will forgive the whole place. This conversation continues, each time Abraham reducing the number of hypothetical righteous people in the city to see what God will do (50? 45? 40? 30? 20? 10?). Each time God states that he will not destroy the city if He finds within it any number of righteous. Lucky for Lot, the angels of God direct him and his family out of the city before it is destroyed. It seems that besides Lot and his family, no one else was worth saving (Gen. 18-19; Note: Lot and family are saved because they are considered righteous by God even though Lot is willing to give his daughters to the mob that wants to get to 'know' the angels of God and even though after the ordeal these daughters get to 'know' their own father. Interesting difference in understanding of 'righteous' than what we would consider today).
To summarize, I really have a hard time believing that God - the same God who calls us to be long-suffering, if not even more (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22-23) - would not be long-suffering with all of his children on earth (Psalm 86, one of my favorites. Exodus 34:6-7, also awesome). It is so easy for us to think of history in a neat summary: They killed Jesus and the apostles, corruption ensued and so God took away his authority. But there were thousands of people, devout followers of Christ that saw the apostles die and probably cried out even more for God's direction and mercy and authority. Is God going to remove the authority for these people to access their Savior because of the wickedness of others? God is so much more powerful than our feeble attempts at destroying his work, and his mercy is something needed every day, not simply in the afterlife. Eli of the 4th century needed it just as much as you and I (remember, Christians actually died for their faith back then and it was not pretty). Here I am faced with the perplexing question of, do I continue to extract names from the Catholic baptismal records so that another baptism can be performed on their behalf in the Temple? A baptism that they accepted already in their lifetime within their context? A baptism they value as much as I value mine? Do I continue to pray and in asking God for wisdom "remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things [the Book of Mormon]", but believe that God took away the ability for close to 2,000 years worth of people to legitimately take on Christ (Moroni 10:3)? I don't see how that is mercy.
What if I accept that God will judge them in their context, appreciate the life they lived with what they had, cleanse them of all unrighteousness through the Atonement of Christ and let them enter in His abode? For myself, I can't ask for anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)