The 'T' in TULIP: Depravity

John Perry of Stanford University recently said, "Original sin is the most factual contribution of Christianity."  While this may or may not be true, certainly the idea of original sin is a concept that has caught the imagination of most Protestant believers.  The basic idea is that every person is born with evil already in their genetic code.  Some have more serious sins they are bound to do, but all have corruption in their bones.

The idea of total depravity is not just that sin exists in the soul of every person, but that every action that every person does is founded in base motives.  This means that even a good action is done with evil motivation.  In other words, a person who saves an infant from drowning may be doing it simply from the glory he or she might get from doing it and a mother sacrifices for her child because it is her progeny, her future existence on earth.

What the Bible actually says is that every person sins.  It doesn't actually describe how this is so.  It could be completely environmental-- that the fact we are raised in a sinful society that keeps sin going.  It could be because of how we are raised.  It could be that sinning is at first an accident that we find works. Personally, I lean toward the idea that our society connects with genetic factors which encourage us to act in evil ways, even when our thinking is right.  Have you ever seen someone speak all the right words about helping and hope and love but still do things that harm others?  This self-deception has to be learned, I think.

The total depravity concept is that we are born with self-deception.  It is in every person's basic nature.  This also means that no person can tell the truth.  For if we are all self-deceived, how can we possibly tell the truth to another?  How can we even tell any truth from a lie?  

Total depravity seems like an unnecessarily negative viewpoint of human nature.  Sure, all humans are sinful.  We all screw up and we all hurt others on purpose on occasion.  A few of us make a habit of it.  But is the main characteristic of humanity sin and evil?  Isn't it an equal part of humanity that we want to see our motives as good?  Are we such complete failures as a species?  Isn't it possible for us to improve?  It says in Scripture about humanity, "They can do anything they set their hands to" Genesis 6.  I agree that our track record is spotty at best, and that as a group we only can respond in the most Neanderthalian of ways.  But we intend to do good.  We may not know what the good is, but we try.  That's not total depravity.  Total stupidity, maybe.

BTW, The Human Centipede is shown simply because it was the most depraved movie I could think of. 

Calvinism: The Great Antichrist?

Some people see Calvinism as a problem.  Certainly it has led, in the past, to a lot of unbiblical thinking.  Just as people have used Catholicism, Darwinism and even Jesus himself to promote their hateful, bigoted ideas, so they have done with Calvinism. Calvinism isn't about a certain kind of economy, nor is it about plain clothes or stoicism.  Rather it is a certain view of God's sovereignty and the implications of such thought.  It is closely aligned with Augustinian thinking.  Calvin himself was a lawyer who specialized in prosecuting heretics and a biblical scholar. Calvinism may have escaped from his strict biblical grasp, but it closely resembles his thinking. 

The foundation of Calvinism as a theology is the idea that God is under complete control of all that happens in the universe: past, present and future.  There is nothing that happens outside of God's power and direction.  This does not mean that all is in accordance with God's desire.  Certainly God does not desire sin, but God is ultimately in change of every atomic particle and the direction of even the smallest movement.  This leads to a number of conclusions that we will discuss later.

The alternative that is often discussed is Arminism, named after Jacob Arminius a Dutch theologian who lived soon after Calvin and opposed Calvin's ideology on a biblical ground.  The most famous proponant of Arminism was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and the theological grandfather of the Nazarenes, American revivalists, the Pentecostals and the Charismatics.  The Arminian position emphasizes human responsibility along with God's sovereignty.

For the most part, however, I wonder about the questions that both Calvinism and Arminism ponder. Their answers go back and forth and they both seem to be focusing on their presuppositions instead of the Bible.  In the end, I wonder about whether they are asking the wrong questions.  Are they focusing on the subjects focused on in the Bible, or are they speculating on the unknowable?  What does this have to do with loving God, loving your neighbor, doing kindness and walking humbly with one's God.  In fact, the discussion seems to have little to do with humility whatsoever. Instead, pronouncements come from the minds of those discussing as if they had come from the Mount. 

Of course, I will be sharing my opinions about the main topics here the next week or so, but I think we need to remember-- these are opinions.  You are welcome to disagree with them.  We can approach theology differently, as long as we are serving God with all our heart and we are loving all humanity and meeting the needs of the poor.  All else goes by the wayside.

The Problem With Paul

Paul the Apostle has always been a controversial figure since the time he was very young.  As a young man, he persecuted the small group of Jesus disciples that grew up after Jesus' death.  He considered himself a "zealot" at that time, or one who does violence for the sake of God.  Then he claims to have seen Jesus face to face after Jesus had died, and Jesus helped him realize how wrong he was and gave him a commission: to bring Gentiles to Jesus.  That certainly didn't do much for his reputation, for either the Jews or the Jewish followers of Jesus.

Today, Paul isn't in much better shape.  Sure, he's really honored by many, especially evangelical Protestant Christians, but anyone who isn't of that fold seem to consider Paul a real problem.  He's been accused of creating Christianity, of stealing Jesus' religion away from him.  Paul has been considered a misogynist, an anti-Semite, a religious hypocrite, a bigot, and many other nasty sounding things.

The biggest part of the problem with Paul isn't what he himself did or said, but how he has been interpreted over the years. Peter summarized it the best:  "In them (Paul's letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."  (2Peter 3:1).  The fact is, Paul is difficult to understand.  Perhaps this is because Paul wasn't a really great writer-- I mean, sentences that go for ten or more verses?  A good portion of the problem is because Paul was writing letters: thus, he was speaking to a particular context, and without that context some of his writings can be used for anything.  And Paul occasionally uses some strong language, which need to be taken in their own context.

Paul himself was a pretty simple person, and his whole theology can be summed up in the experience he had with Jesus, which is described three times in the book of Acts and referred to in Galatians 1.  There are two things that really shook Paul's thinking in that experience, that can summarize his entire approach to theology.

1. Jesus is Lord.  What Paul realized, immediately, is that Jesus is a great spiritual power.  This isn't the same as saying Jesus is God (although Paul might as well have said that in his statement on creation in Colossians 1), but that Jesus is worthy of being followed and obeyed and honored as king of creation.

2. Gentiles are accepted to be followers of Jesus.  Because Jesus commanded Paul to go to the Gentiles to make disciples (which Paul refers to many times), his outlook on the gospel was different than most of the other followers of Jesus.  He demanded that Gentile believers could have their own customs and traditions because they were not under Moses' law.  He also demanded their equality in the Jesus synagogues that were popping up.

If this is Paul, he sounds more like a Christian civil rights leader than a bigot.  And if he is pointing people to Jesus, then how can he be creating a new Christianity?  This is because it isn't Paul, but people who use Paul who are the  problem.

The problem began with Marcion, the first Christian heretic.  His understanding of Paul's letters is that there were two gods: the Old Testament God and the New Testament God and that Jesus defeated the OT god.  The idea of the OT presenting a "wrathful" God and the NT presenting a "merciful" God continues to this day.  The fact is, all throughout the OT, God is presented as "compassionate, forgiving, slow to anger."  The NT helps us realize that WE need to act that way as well.

Patriarchalists also make use of Paul.  They take passages that seem to say that Paul is refusing women leadership in the church and to remain submissive (interpreted as "under their husband's thumbs") and ran with it.  In doing this, they had to ignore all the women who Paul praised in the church's leadership (Romans 16, I Corinthians 16), and the fact that they didn't understand the context in which Paul wrote (in I Cor. 14:34 Paul is quoting a letter from the Corinthians, not presenting a personal view, which he strongly disagrees with immediately after).

Antinomians, who oppose the use of any law, also make use of Paul.  Paul does oppose the specific use of Mosaic law to the Gentiles, but he certainly approves of many laws in the church, including sexual purity, no vengeance or violence, caring for the needy, and no greed, all in accordance with what Jesus teaches.

Anti-Semites have used Paul (and John) to speak against "the Jews".  However, when Paul was speaking about "the Jews" in I and II Thessalonians in negative, even harsh, terms, he was speaking of a certain kind of Jewish person (of which he was himself). More accurately the term "Jew" in the NT should be translated "Judean", or one who holds to a Judea-centric form of Judaism.  These are nationalists, who opposed and persecuted Paul because he was decentralizing Judaism.

Others, such as Augustine and Calvin, used Paul to create a new orthodoxy, and a new vision of God, who not only rules the universe, but has control over every single event.  This is not the teaching of Paul, who claimed that God controlled certain aspects, but also recognized that God gave rule to human beings, who made their own decisions.

All this to say, we should allow Paul to speak on his own, within his own culture.  Let's not put on Paul all the misunderstandings and mistakes of Christianity, simply because people want to use the ancient writings for their own purposes.

I Am Adam

There has been a discussion about the historicity of the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2-3.  While I think that there is a case to be made for its occurrence in real life, I don't think we should fail to see that Adam's story is our story as well.  Every part of the story is a part of our lives, our experience:


Adam and the woman are all of humanity, including each individual.

Humanity is granted authority/responsibility over the created earth. But he is told not to make ethical decisions on his own (the tree of knowledge of good and evil), but to rely on his relationship with God.

Satan (the serpent, the power that judges humanity) convinces humanity to take authority on their own, because if they were to make their own ethical decisions, apart from God, then they would be all-powerful.

Humanity makes the decision to separate their idea of good and evil from God's. God abides by their decision and determines to separate himself from humanity. Humanity is now devoid of God's wisdom and must depend on their own wisdom.

However, humanity is also devoid of life. Because humanity is like a toddler with the power of a king, God doesn't allow humanity the opportunity for eternal life (the tree of life)-- humanity would just be too dangerous. Instead, God puts humanity under the power of Death who limits humanity through suffering and hardship and who shortens humanity's lifespan.

That's how I see it. Again, I don't have a problem with a historical read of the story, but we need to recognize ourselves in this story as well.

First posted on the Aletheia Forum:http://aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=science&thread=3350&page=2#ixzz1QOh5M0Io

Rapture Bashing

N.T. Wright gives us this short essay about the "American obsession" about the rapture.  He raises some interesting points from a British Anglican point of view:
Farewell to the Rapture

What do I think about it?  Glad you asked!

I like N.T. Wright a lot and I think he has a lot of good things to say. But I think his eschatology is wrong. I think he has to take every single eschatalogical passage and declare them all "metaphorical". Does it make sense for Jesus to explain his metaphorical parables in Matt. 13 with more metaphor? I don't think so.

The fact is, the eschatology of Jesus doesn't make any sense to the supernaturally-critical, which the British Anglican church certainly is. So rather than let Jesus say what he says, they want to add another layer of metaphor so they can figure he says something else. It is clear that Jesus (and Daniel and Paul) are all referring to the same event-- the God-appointed coming of the Messiah to rule the earth. Not to heaven, to earth.

However, as usual, N.T. Wright gets all the cultural connections exactly correct. This description of Paul's does refer to a triumphant hero, returning to his home city. But Paul refers to more than that. He refers to the common theme of God's people ending their dispersion throughout the world and coming to the Messiah who would lead them eternally. Check out Isaiah 27:12-13 in which the gathering of God's people are associated with a trumpet sounding, which is only one of many passages in the Hebrew Bible that mentions a future gathering of all of God's people to return to the land.

I think that the focus of many rapturists is misplaced. They want to talk about a deliverance from suffering and judgment and a time of regret of all the peoples of the earth, years before Jesus' coming. I think this is unnecessary in Scripture and so just another way to make biblical eschatology more complicated than it needs to be.

There is a middle road-- that a gathering happens, it happens miraculously, as Paul said, but that it is a part of Jesus' already miraculous return to earth.

Originally posted on the Aletheia Discussion Forums. 

What Is Religion?

Religion has gotten a bad rap.  Many people define it as “man working toward God” or understand religion as empty rituals.  The fact is, religion is any organized focus on God or mysticism.  There is very little difference between religion and spirituality and relationship with God, and all three can work together.

Miriam Webster defines “religion” in this way: (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance;  (3)a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; (4) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith .  The first definition really means any kind of respectful action toward God.  The second is a specific kind of respect toward God. The third could be a doctrine or a regular practice toward God of any kind.  The final definition is completely personal,  as one might say, “MY religion is chocolate”. 

So religion, first of all, has to do with practice toward God.  That’s not a bad thing, right?  If we are devoted to God in any way, we want to do something about it, right?  Secondly, religion has to do with some kind of commitment or devotion.  This means that our commitment to God isn’t taken lightly, but it effects our lives.  That’s a good thing as well.  At least for most people.  Finally, it could be a regular practice with others or it could be completely personal.  The term “religion” isn’t exclusive.

So why is religion put down so much?  Because people are reacting to the negative aspects of ritual and of corporate worship.  Sure there’s some bad stuff in there, but is completely personal worship without it’s own problems?  Don’t all kinds of people use their “religion” whether personal or corporate, to promote bias and prejudice?  The problem is not using the term religion, but in refusing to see others’ spirituality as equal as one’s own. 

In every kind of religion there is bias.  Protestants slam Catholics, Pentecostals feel that others aren’t “Spirit-led”, orthodox bewail heterodoxy, personal spiritualists look down on those who go to church every week and on and on.  We need to realize that we are all religionists and we all see our spirituality in different ways.

And our spirituality NEEDS to be different.  God is open to being served in any of thousands of ways.  And we need to find the way that works for us.  But because someone doesn’t have the cultural features we have doesn’t make them better or worse.  We have no right to judge them because they serve God differently.  Nor do they have a right to judge us.  Instead, let’s all embrace the God who embraces us all if we have a devoted heart toward Him.

Position on Violence

I believe that we are to treat others, even those who do us harm, as the image of God and worthy to consider them as an object of compassion. This is not to put our enemies above our family, but to treat them all with consideration and hope of reconciliation.

Secondly, to do violence against anyone puts us in the place of doing evil. "Redemptive violence", as done by human beings, is a myth. To do harm to another is just that-- doing harm. We should not put ourselves in the place of doing evil to others, even should harm befall us. Better to be hurt than to do harm.

I wouldn't attack others even if my children are attacked (unless I am completely in the flesh). This doesn't mean that we wouldn't protect our children, but we would use other means than harming another.

I do not support war for any reason. In every single case, the evils that war cause are worse than the evils that war is trying to prevent. Because followers of Jesus are called upon to "love their enemies" any follower of Jesus who participates in or supports war is in direct opposition to the will of his or her Master. I have nothing against non-Christians who participate in war in obedience to their nation, or against Christians who have repented of their participation in war.