Seriously? Why sinners?

The Doctor of our souls has also placed the remedy in the hidden regions of the soul, recognizing that the cause of our sickness lies there when he says, "Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). He seeks to correct not so much our inquisitive and unchaste eyes as the soul that has its seat within and makes bad use of the eyes that God gave it for good purposes.

~ John Cassian ~

Anyone acquainted with Christian thought is probably aware of the common label attributed to the human race: sinners.  Christ taught this, Paul taught this, and continuing on the Church has preserved this understanding of mankind seeking to remain faithful to Scriptures attestation to man’s condition. However, I think time and culture has somewhat manipulated the nuances of what it means to be a sinner so that what the early church thought concerning this matter differs significantly from our current conception.  

It seems at this point that a lot of Christians believe that “sin” refers strictly to particular wrong actions they do.  For example, lying to a neighbor, viewing pornography, outbursts of rage, etc.  From this perspective man’s soteriological need is only for forgiveness.  We have committed acts of sin towards God or other persons and need to receive pardon for these particular acts or else suffer eternal damnation.  Salvation then consists of God offering to forgive all past, present, and future sinful actions making us able to live eternally with Him with no fear of punishment.    

Now, as such, that story is truly beautiful.  Forgiveness is beautiful.  Indeed, Divine forgiveness is most beautiful. Truly, I would never argue with the fact that these offenses need Divine forgiveness.

But…to me this salvation story doesn’t quite satisfy some of my persistent intuitions about human nature.  And I think many of the Church fathers would agree with me.

What about those times when I so desperately want to sin on the inside, but somehow refrain from external manifestation (i.e. actions) of sin?  What is going on inside of me then? Can those desires be called sin? What if I never acted out on these desires? Would I still be called a sinner? Would I still need a savior?  Could I possibly live my entire life without ever succumbing to my fatal sin attraction? If so, then perhaps Christ did not need to die.  Maybe I could have made it safely to heaven by careful, thoughtful living.

No, I think the purpose of Christ’s death is made even clearer in light of this inner brokenness.  In fact, I think it is due to this inner brokenness, this desperate state of disarray, that we are called sinners.  Post-fall we have become disillusioned.  Our spiritual eyes cannot see straight the path before us.  Our minds have become obsessed with sensuous things and persistently distract us from our true end. This internal dysfunction of our soul (i.e. our disordered desires) makes a righteous life impossible to live in our own power and necessitates the intervention of our savior. This the reason we are called sinners.

Only at this point do I see acts of sin fitting into their proper place.  In this disrupted state people inevitably live incorrectly.  Just as a car with broken belts ceases to properly perform its function, so a person with a disordered soul fails to live the way it should.  Therefore, the essence of sin is not in actions – though they are an immediate consequence – but in the disorganized state of the soul. 

So, we are called sinners as a description of the state of our soul. We don’t just need our sins forgiven.  We need an overhaul of our nature! We need God to enter our disorganized, messy state and bring back order and peace to our internal, spiritual workings, allowing us to relate to Him, others, and the world around us exactly the way we were intended to.  Indeed, that is a beautiful story.  That is why we are called sinners. That is why we need our savior.

Manifesto for Budding Theologians

So it's beginning to come clear. I'm finally starting to understand why people get all bristly when a seminary student comes into the room at church. The fear! The dread! People wondering, "What absolutely irrelevant locution is about to spill from this young guns mouth?" I've experienced perhaps a small taste of this through several conversations I've had with people who ask what I'm studying at Talbot. When I reply, "I'm working on a Master's degree in Theology," they have one of two responses:

One, they stop talking. As if studying theology is the new swine-flu and they'd rather avoid exposure.

Or, two, they guardedly (or not so guardedly) encourage me to stay relevant and not get lost so deeply in the Divine that I lose touch with the 'real' world.

Granted, both of these responses have probably been groomed into the mindset of Christians from decades of headstrong dogmatic theologians who truly did lose their theological relevance by succumbing to the wiles of autonomous philosophy. However, I would like to offer my perspective (my opinion) on theology and see if we can negotiate a satisfying conclusion.

So, what does Theology call us to?

I would like to suggest that Theology calls us to know God, to preserve sacred knowledge of God, and to accurately integrate that knowledge with the world. In one sense, according to this definition, all believers are "theologians", but a special office exists for those who are called to devote additional vocational time and energy to comprehending and preserving the substance of the Christian faith. We call these individuals Theologians.

Now, insofar as these individuals are devoted to knowing God, preserving sacred knowledge of God, and integrating that knowledge with the surrounding world they are good theologians. To the extent that they are obsessed with themselves, their own cleverness, or their ability to conquer a conversation with the drop of a 14-syllable word they are bad theologians.

True theology is not an exercise of human reason devoid of Divine light. It is the climax of a vibrant (sometimes violent) clash between God and Man. Between Creator and Creation. True theology is the outflow of human experience integrated with the knowledge of God.

I think we do a good job of preserving doctrine these days. I think we might have even preserved the hell out of people (pun intended). Unfortunately, we often fail in our mission of integration.

We've forgotten that this is the most important task!

Nevertheless, this deficiency should not discourage us. In fact, it beautifully displays the mission for budding theologians. It is our sacred task to recall the Spirit of theology. The Spirit who does not remove Himself from human experience, but effectually penetrates and defines it. This is our task.

I look forward to the day when Theologians are seen as the greatest assets of the Church, not the biggest pain in the ____. I look forward to the day when certain theologians recognize their foolish obsession with factual knowledge and resubmit themselves first to a passionate pursuit of God and teach/write from that vantage point.

Even so....Come Lord Jesus. Use your servants for your purposes. No matter how slow the process is, help us integrate our knowledge of you with our experience of life.

Oh life! What art thou?

I suppose everyone has an opinion - that is at least every sentient being I've come across has at least one (perhaps I've even observed even two or three in myself). These are the hills that the uninlisted die on. These are the barely sub-divine.

At least one could gather this from the manner in which they are often shared.

Funny thing opinions are. They have a way of becoming fact for their host, regardless of whether sufficient evidence coheres with their particular neuroses.

Now, sometimes opinions are even so socially important that they must be shared without the slightest provocation. Often they'll just fall out of someone's mouth like grandma's dentures pre-poligrip. What's that all about?

I wonder what we could call that feeling. Sort of an amoebic, visceral compulsion to regain control of a conversation by suggesting contradictory neurotic observations to a previously amiable exchange. You know what I'm talking about. That stomach-churning-fist-tightening compulsion that instinctively occurs when someone tells you that the way you breathe air is ashamedly incorrect. Right. You know. You just thought about what happened earlier today.

Now, my question is, does humanity get any further along in the quest for knowledge when we deposit our 'two-cents' into the greater bank of culture and contemporary thought? Or perhaps more pointedly, why do you open your mouth? Why do I open my mouth? What oratory temptress seduces our lips so speech becomes irresistible in situations like these?

Truth is - I don't know. What I do know is that most times it would seem more socially profitable (even preferable) for all parties involved to "shut the hell up" (<-- Insert Stewie Griffin voice for previous assertion). Are we really convinced that our personal, subjective, piece-meal, convoluted, uninformed understanding of reality holds much water?

Hmmm....might want to reconsider there Hoss.

The reality is a staunch conviction that your opinion is always right only betrays the true fear you have of being wrong.

Let's get with it people; it's ok to be wrong. In fact, why don't you go outside right now and say, "I am an elephant." Try to muster the same amount of conviction to say that as you would to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. I am not responsible for any sudden manifestation of lightning, acts of God, etc.

I jest, but I'm serious.

Future of the Evangelical Church: Back to Roots or Forward in Spirit

I am grateful for the copious amounts of free-reading time I had over the course of my school break this last month. I forgot how preciously scarce such time is when you are in the midst of a grueling school term, so having an overwhelming amount of time to read was a great blessing (at this point your 'ridiculous nerd' alert should be going off).

During my time of reading, I directed my thoughts towards the Evangelical church. More specifically, the future of the Evangelical church. The question of where she is going has always intrigued me. What can possibly come of this splintered mess we call denominations? Are we too disjointed to ever again be 'united in Christ'? Will unity look different than us all believing the same things?

To help in my endeavors I enlisted the help of two interlocutors. The first, Dr. Harvey Cox, retired Professor of Divinity at Harvard. The second, Dr. Robert Webber, Professor of Theology Emeritus at Wheaton college. Each of these men I respect a great deal for their lucid thoughts concerning Evangelical Christianity. Although I do not agree completely with either of their positions, I found them to have interesting, albeit contradictory, perspectives on the future of the Evangelical church.

In The Future of Faith, Cox departs quite significantly from a standard, conservative understanding of the Church's future (evangelical or not). He suggests a future for religion where people no longer adhere to creeds, councils, or any type of dogmatic assertions about God. Instead, he argues religious folk are beginning to prefer expressing their spirituality in unique, personal ways. Cox labels this amorphous epoch of religious expression as the Age of the Spirit - he is unclear whether this refers to the Holy Spirit or just a vague idea of Spiritual worship. He alludes to the fact that this 'Age of the Spirit' is indiscriminate toward religious preferences (Muslim, Christian, Buhddist, etc.). No particular organized religion has preeminence over another regarding style or method of worship.

In Common Roots, Robert Webber offers a parrying prophetic word for the Evangelical church. While recognizing the significant flaws of the Evangelical mindset, Webber suggests a more hopeful project of uniting the Evangelical spirit with historic substance. This consists of a rediscovery of information from the Ancient Church regarding Church identity, worship, theology, and mission. So, instead of unleashing the church on an untethered, free-for-all discovery of the Spiritual experience, Webber claims that the Evangelical Church needs a reintegration of historical thoughts (i.e. creeds, councils, etc.) with contemporary issues.

Given the nature of this blog, you probably can guess which position I find more tenable. However, I would like to suggest a conflation of these views as a third future for the church.

While I appreciate the free-spirited nature of Cox's project, the unguarded expression of Spirituality seems incongruous with Wisdom's instruction. What the church needs is not a further license to split into ever increasing denominational divides - something Cox's view inevitably endorses - but a reformulation around structured, defining ideas. The Evangelical church needs to be informed about what the church is supposed to be. What should she be doing? What should she be thinking?

On the other hand, I think Webber's project could be unfortunately misconstrued and misappropriated. What we don't need is to start thinking that historical forms and methods of theology/worship can be applied wholesale to the contemporary church project. This would lead to further confusion and frustration. There must be an honest integration of historical substance with the present state of the Evangelical church.

So, I argue two things. First, for a zealous investigation of the historical church to mine out the gems of theology/worship that can speak to contemporary situations the Evangelical church faces. Second, for a Spirit-filled and guided (Holy Spirit that is) appropriation of that knowledge to the Church's mission and life. I think this view holds the best of both Cox and Webber. It limits Cox's unbounded experience of 'Spirit' by keeping within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, but it allows enough room to be led in the Spirit's current work and not perhaps fall into the delusion of the 'historical save-all'.

The Chicken or the Egg?

Which really does come first - the chicken or the egg? While I'm sure you've heard this proverbial question posed a million times (now a million and one - you can thank me later), I think it might actually speak to a potential methodological issue currently found within the bounds of Christian thinking. For the purposes of this entry, lets have the chicken metaphorically represent reality while the egg plays the role of our understanding of reality. Further, to tailor this discussion more specifically to the Church, I suggest we take 'God' as our particular object of reality and 'theology' or 'doctrine' for our understanding of that reality. Now hold on to those categories and let's jump in.

I'm sure I am not the only one who sits in church every week hearing over and over again from the pulpit what I should believe; perhaps you might oblige me to call it the 'Content of Christian Cognition'. I know that Jesus loves me (and all the other little red, pink, purple, green, and blue children for that matter). I know that God is good. I know that there is a Holy Spirit. Frankly, like many of you, I have gorged myself on all varieties of farm-fresh 'eggs', but have I so far failed to properly consider the the generative source of my nutrition?

The Evangelical church pushes for understanding that has only a vague correlation to the underpinning reality. We are taught to cram all this 'Content of Christian Cognition' into our gray matter in order to be a good Christian, but we all honestly doubt if it has any actual relevance to reality. Subsequently, I would like to suggest that understanding divorced from Reality produces cognitive dysfunction. And I think this dysfunction is evident in our churches - people living two distinctly separate lives (religious vs. 'normal').

You see, when theologians of the past formulated the great Orthodox creeds and doctrines of the Church, they did it not bifurcated from a dynamic interaction with the Divine reality behind the theology (the chicken behind the egg if you will), but wholeheartedly immersed in the process of loving God and seeking to understand Him.

Unfortunately, the years has distilled this approach to thinking about God down to fact-transfer. Now we are often guilty of merely passing on information from one generation to another completely void of any life-giving vitality. This methodological misfire needs to be addressed because it is seriously damaging the health of Christian integration.

So, I say knowing proper doctrine is no substitute for experiencing proper doctrine. Every piece of Orthodox theology that you know didn't appear in a vacuum. It evolved from potent interaction with the Divine reality. I encourage you to discover that reality for yourself. Bask in the wonder of our God. Speak with Him. Learn from Him. Let His Spirit permeate your heart. Sit with Him and let Him integrate all that 'Content of Christian Cognition' with the reality of His presence.

What am I trying to say? Put succinctly, understanding follows after reality (the Chicken before the Egg). Christians need to be reminded of the Reality that gives cause for their understanding. When this begins to occur, Christian theology will again find its lasting and affective foundation individually and corporately. Only then will we determinately stick with Eggland's Best and not accidentally switch out to Ener-G.