ἐν Χριστῷ

Church and Capitalism

2011-05-20T06:15:00.000-07:00

This is an excerpt from H. Richard Niebuhr's essay "Toward the Independence of the Church" that I think can be a prophetic voice for the Church today.

The church is in bondage to capitalism. Capitalism in its contemporary form is more than a system of ownership and distribution of economic goods. It is a faith and a way of life. It is faith in wealth as the source of all life's blessings and as the savior of man from his deepest misery. It is the doctrine that man's most important activity is the production of economic goods and that all other things are dependent upon this. On the basis of this initial idolatry it develops a morality in which economic worth becomes the standard by which to measure all other values and the economic virtues take precedence over courage, temperance, wisdom and justice, over charity, humility and fidelity. Hence nature, love, life, truth, beauty and justice are exploited or made the servants of the high economic good. Everything, including the lives of workers, is made a utility, is desecrated and ultimately destroyed. Capitalism develops a discipline of its own but in the long run makes for the overthrow of all discipline since the service of its god demands the encouragement of unlimited desire for that which promises -- but must fail -- to satisfy the lust of the flesh and the pride of life.

The capitalist faith is not a disembodied spirit. It expresses itself in laws and social habits and transforms the whole of civilization. It fashions society into an economic organization in which production for profit becomes the central enterprise, in which the economic relations of men are regarded as their fundamental relations, in which economic privileges are most highly prized, and in which the resultant classes of men are set to struggle with one another for the economic goods. Education and government are brought under the sway of the faith. The family itself is modified by it. The structure of cities and their very architecture is influenced by the religion. So intimate is the relation between the civilization and the faith, that it is difficult to participate in the former without consenting to the latter and becoming entangled in its destructive morality. It was possible for Paul's converts to eat meat which had been offered to idols without compromising with paganism. But the products which come from the altars of this modern idolatry -- the dividends, the privileges, the status, the struggle -- are of such a sort that it is difficult to partake of them without becoming involved in the whole system of misplaced faith and perverted morality.

No antithesis could be greater than that which obtains between the gospel and capitalist faith. The church has known from the beginning that the love of money is the root of evil, that it is impossible to serve God and Mammon, that they that have riches shall hardly enter into life, that life does not consist in the abundance of things possessed, that the earth is the Lord's and that love, not self-interest, is the first law of life. Yet the church has become entangled with capitalist civilization to such an extent that it has compromised with capitalist faith and morality and become a servant of the world. So intimate have the bonds between capitalism and Protestantism become that the genealogists have suspected kinship. Some have ascribed the parentage of capitalism to Protestantism while others have seen in the latter the child of the former. But whatever may have been the relation between the modest system of private ownership which a Calvin or a Wesley allowed and the gospel they proclaimed, that which obtains between the high capitalism of the later period and the church must fall under the rule of the seventh and not of the fifth commandment, as a Hosea or a Jeremiah would have been quick to point out. The entanglement with capitalism appears in the great economic interests of the church, in its debt structure, in its dependence through endowments upon the continued dividends of capitalism, and especially in its dependence upon the continued gifts of the privileged classes in the economic society. This entanglement has become the greater the more the church has attempted to keep pace with the development of capitalistic civilization, not without compromising with capitalist ideas of success and efficiency. At the same time evidence of religious syncretism, of the combination of Christianity with capitalist religion, has appeared. The "building of the kingdom of God" has been confused in many a churchly pronouncement with the increase of church possessions or with the economic advancement of mankind. The church has often behaved as though the saving of civilization and particularly of capitalist civilization were its mission. It has failed to apply to the morality of that civilization the rigid standards which it did not fail to use where less powerful realities were concerned. The development may have been inevitable, nevertheless it was a fall.

source: http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=412&C=194

Any thought about this?

"The Semon on the Mount of Intrareligious Dialogue" à la Raimon Panikkar

2011-03-20T12:13:00.000-07:00

When you enter into an intrareligious dialogue, do not think beforehand what you have to believe.

When you witness to your faith, do not defend yourself or your vested interests, sacred as they may appear to you. Do like the birds in the skies: they sing and fly and do not defend their music or their beauty.

When you dialogue with somebody, look at your partner as a revelatory experience, as you would - and should - look at the lilies in the fields.

When you engage in intrareligious dialogue, try first to remove the beam in your own eye before removing the speck in the eye of your neighbor.

Blessed are you when you do not feel self-sufficient while being in dialogue.

Blessed are you when you trust the other because you trust in Me.

Blessed are you when you face misunderstandings from your own community or others for the sake of your fidelity to Truth.

Blessed are you when you do not give up your convictions, and yet you do not set them up as absolute norms.

Woe unto you, you theologians and academicians, when you dismiss what others say because you find it embarrassing or not sufficiently learned.

Woe unto you, you practitioners of religions, when you do not listen to the cries of the little ones.

Woe unto you, you religious authorities, because you prevent change and (re)conversion.

Woe unto you, religious people, because you monopolize religion and stifle the Spirit, which blows where and how she wills.*

-----------

*Raimon Panikkar, The Intra-religious Dialogue, revised edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 1.

Who is Pilate?

2011-03-11T23:29:00.000-08:00

The account of Pontius Pilate, Roman governor in Judea, in the canonical Gospels is very short. The impression that we get from the Gospels is that Pilate was a weak leader and frightened by the the demand of people. However, the description of Pilate by Philo of Alexandria is quite different. In his writing, On The Embassy to Gauis (XXXVIII.299-305), he wrote:

(299)"...Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there. (300) But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor. (301) "But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.' (302) "But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303) Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius. (304) And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; (305) for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.

This book can be found here.

Martin Luther's Word of Advice to Preachers

2011-02-11T23:41:00.000-08:00

In a record of his table-talk, Martin Luther said this strong statement about the role of a preacher related to his message and his audience.

Cursed are all preachers that in the church aim at high and hard things, and, neglecting the saving health of the poor unlearned people, seek their own honor and praise, and therewith to please one or two ambitious persons.

When I preach, I sink myself deep down. I regard neither doctors nor magistrates, of whom are here in this church above forty; but I have an eye to the multitude of young people, children, and servants, of whom are more than two thousand. I preach to those, directing myself to them that have need thereof. Will not the rest hear me? The door stands open unto them; they may begone. I see that the ambition of preachers grows and increases; this will do the utmost mischief in the church, and produce great disquietness and discord; for they will needs teach high things touching matters of state, thereby aiming at praise and honor; they will please the worldly wise, and meantime neglect the simple and common multitude.

An upright, godly, and true preacher should direct his preaching to the poor, simple sort of people, like a mother that stills her child, dawdles and plays with it, presenting it with milk from her own breast, and needing neither malmsey nor muscadine for it. In such sort should also preachers carry themselves, teaching and preaching plainly, that the simple and unlearned may conceive and comprehend, and retain what they say. When they come to me, to Melancthon, to Dr. Palmer, etc., let them show their cunning, how learned they be; they shall well put to their trumps. But to sprinkle out Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in their public sermons, savors merely of show, according with neither time nor place.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk.v.xvii.html

A Conversational Approach to Theology

2011-01-19T11:38:00.001-08:00

After picking up some textbooks for this semester yesterday, I began to read Clark M. Williamson's A Guest in the House of Israel: Post-Holocaust Church Theology for Reading the Bible after the Shoah class with Prof. Marvin Sweeney. I find the first part of this book very challenging and helpful. After explaining about the inherited tendency of anti-Judaism in both Christian theology and practices, Williamson argues that there is a critical need for mutual theological conversation between Christians and the Jews. His statement about this, I think, would be very helpful for other interreligious dialog as well. Here what he says about it:

This "conversational" approach to theology recognizes that a genuine conversation is one in which no party to it seeks to dominate the other party or parties involves. Relationships of domination and seeking domination were the main goal of traditional Christian ways of talking to or about Jews. Both approaches are oppressive of the other partner and inappropriate to the Christian faith, which should apply its commandment of loving the neighbor as oneself to the way in which it approaches conversation. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson show that "one [metaphor] that we live by" in our culture describes argument or conversation as "war." They provide a variety of expressions ordinarily used to describe argument: "Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target." If we approach conversation as war, every conversation is a win-lose proposition. If Christianity wins, Judaism loses; if Judaism wins, Christianity loses. Some Christians and Jews still assume just this as they enter conversation with each other. This assumption derives from the prior supposition by each party that it must achieve mastery over the conversation-partner. The ideology of Christian anti-Judaism, which requires Christianity to "win" every discussion with or about Judaism, reflects the church's will-to-power over Jews and Judaism. A conversation so approached is no conversation at all, because it is motivated by Christianity's tendency to put every other voice in the conversation in its place.

A better approach is one in which each party at least attempts to let the subject of the conversation dominate. What Henry Nelson Wieman called "creative interchange" provides a constructive alternative to the understanding of conversation as war. In the social event of creative interchange, he argued, four discernible subevents take place. First, the individuals involved are open to and aware of the qualitative meanings that others in the conversation try to communicate to them. One is receptive, aware that the first moral responsibility in conversation is to listen. Second, lest one's mind become a garbage-heap of accumulated meanings deposited there by one's conversation partners, one must critically integrate these meanings with the value and perspective that one brought to the conversation. Commitment to a more supreme and embracing good facilitates this kind of integration. Third, if one has been receptive and critical of the shared meanings donated by others, then one has an expanded and enriched "appreciable world" and enjoys a "new structure of interrelatedness." Paul Tillich describes this as the power of the divine Spirit experienced as "the power of breaking through the walls of self-seclusion." It is God calling us "toward a mature relatedness." It is a growing communion among participants in the conversation and a commitment to the further extension of mature relatedness, aware that our being is a being-in-community. Fourth, the new structure of interrelatedness transforms not only the person and his or her appreciable world but the person's relations "with those who have participated with him [or her] in this occurrence." One shares a broader and deeper companionship with one's fellow human beings... It is far better that conversations be characterized by a willingness to listen, to integrate critically, to broaden one's perspective, and to engage in a deeper companionship than that they be a verbal substitute for war.

Any thought about this?

Rabbinic Judaism

2011-01-14T11:10:00.000-08:00

In order to understand the relationship between Judaism as a nation and a religion in the rabbinic period, we need to understand the background of the formation of the rabbinic tradition. Let us examine the background of rabbinic tradition from the time before Jewish revolts against Roman Empire until the formation of rabbinic literatures (Mishnah, Tosephta, Talmuds and Midrashim). In this short refection I will try to cover the Jewish history from the first century until around the seventh century. I am fully aware that there are many things that cannot be covered. The presentation here is intended to show the correlation between Judaism as a nation and as a religion in rabbinic tradition.

There are three stages we have to see here. First is the coexistence of Judaism as a nation and a religion under Roman Empire before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The second stage is after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. In this historical stage, Judaism was actually still recognized by the Roman Empire as a religion, but the Roman army had almost completely destroyed their political and national identity. The third stage is the destruction of both Judaism as a nation and a religion after the Bar Kokhba revolt. Judaism politically was banned from Roman Empire. We will discuss how the Jewish people survived and also modified their religion according to the political situation in every stage.

Stage 1: Judaism under Roman Empire before the Destruction of Jerusalem

One of the characteristics of Roman rule is that they did not directly rule the regions of their empire. They usually appointed a king as a representative of their leadership and then they mandated that each king send the wealth or tax to Rome. Herod the Great was appointed by the Roman Senate to be the king over Judea in 40 BCE. The project of rebuilding the second Temple had a great impact on Jewish religiosity. The Herodian temple became the center place for all cultic activity in Judea. It seems like Herod was really working hard to attract Jewish people because he himself was not considered a Jew by them.

Archaeological excavations have discovered that there were many different kinds of coinage used in Judea during the Roman period. Coins were made from bronze, gold and silver. It was the main means for trading at that time. Interestingly, Roman Empire is also well known for their massive network of roads. They were very concerned about having a good infrastructure throughout the Empire. Judea was not an exception. “During the Roman period the road system was organized by improving existing roads and constructing entire new roads.”[1] The natural result of the building and rebuilding of this network of road and the wide spread of coinage among people was surely the rapid growth of economics and trade. Not only that, Herod also founded two cities, Caesarea and Sebaste. [2] Especially in Caesarea, he constructed “Caesarea Maritima,” which was a massive project building of a port, palaces, theaters, etc.[3] We should be able to guess that the main purpose of creating a port city like Caesarea was primarily for trading and business because it is in this area where traveling business people first arrived when coming to Judea.

Even though Herod was not a “real” Jew, we have to see here that the Roman Empire actually allowed Judaism to exist as both a nation and a religion. Judaism still had its political power, even though it was very limited, under Rome. Jews had to be faithful to pay their taxes to Rome. The Roman government allowed them to build the temple as the heart of their religious life. They were given full freedom to develop the economics of their nation.

However, Jews always wanted to have a full freedom. A revolt against Rome broke out. Around 70 CE, after several years open rebellion in Judea, Roman army led by Titus came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem including the Herodian temple. Four years after the destruction of Jerusalem, on April 74 CE, under the leadership of a new Roman governor in Judea, Lucius Flavius Silva, the Roman army finally took over Masada, which was the last and toughest stronghold of Jewish rebellion against Rome. These series of battles between Jews and Romans had radically changed the landscape of Jewish religion and politics.

Stage 2: Judaism after the Destruction of Jerusalem

At the end of the first century, the Jews had to survive in Roman Empire without a temple. Fortunately, Judaism was still recognized as a legal religion. Robert M. Seltzer says, “The Romans penalized the Jews with a two-drachma tax in lieu of the former half sheckel contribution to the Temple, but they did not withdraw their recognition of Judaism as a lawful religion that was exempted from the emperor worship and other duties incumbent on pagans.”[4] Politically speaking, the land of Israel was totally under Roman control. Because of this painful war with the Jewish people, Rome basically did not allow them to exist as a nation anymore. In other words, they had no political power after the destruction of Jerusalem. They only existed as a religion without any national or political identity. They were not allowed to determine their own political agendas and were required to totally submit to Rome.

Moreover, after the war a great religious crisis emerged. How could the Jews practice their religion without the temple? Where did they have to worship? This is the time in Jewish history when they had to do a major shift in the center of their religious life. It was a shift from the temple to the Torah. The worship venue moved from the temple to synagogues and homes. This is the historical context where Pharisaic Judaism, a middle class working people movement, played an extremely important role. The study of the Torah in synagogue became the utmost important element in post-war Judaism. One of the key religious figures after the war was a Pharisaic rabbi by the name of Johanan ben Zaccai (זכאי בן יוחנן). With the permission of Titus, he initiated a religious gathering in the small town called Yavneh (or Jamnia). “In that town of Yavneh, near the Judean seacoast, a rabbinic blueprint for Jewish survival was articulated.”[5] A few years after that, under the leadership of Johanan ben Zaccai and Gamaliel II, the religious activities in Javneh had become a movement of “post-temple, nonhierocratric Judaism.”[6] Seltzer says,

The sages a Yavneh summarized the teachings of earlier schools of Hillel and Shammai, with those of the Hillelites prevailing on most legal matters. They completed the canonization of the scriptures, give a more precise form to the daily prayers, and transferred to synagogue and Sanhedrin some of the observances associated with the Temple, especially rituals associated with pilgrim festivals, the Passover seder, and the blowing of the shofar (ram’s horn) on the New Year.[7]

Basically in Javneh, the religious leaders of the Jewish people, especially Pharisaic rabbis, began to redefine, reformulate, and reestablish Judaism without a Temple. In rabbinic literatures, we will hear a lot about rabbis Hillel (הלל) and Shammai (שמאי), who flourished about 30 BCE to 10 CE. They are the founding figures of rabbinic tradition. Their disciples or followers formed the so called “school of Hillel” and “school of Shammai.”[8] These two schools were very prominent in Yavneh. What is the difference between them? Generally speaking, the Shammai school tended to be more idealist. Whatever the Torah said, we have to obey it. Even though they used oral Torah to interpret it, but the emphasis was more on the idealism of the written Torah. Rabbi Hillel has been known by his openness for the need of practicality. Later rabbinic tradition had tried to reconcile the difference between these schools. Shammai, on one hand, represents the hallakha as practiced in heaven, which is the idealist. Hillel, on the other hand, represents hallakha as practiced on earth.

Nevertheless, a new revolt against Rome broke out again in 133. The main cause of this revolt was to fight against the building of a temple for Jupiter on the site of the old Herodian temple (the Temple Mount). Besides this, the Jews were also unsatisfied with their condition after the destruction of Jerusalem. They wanted to take the freedom and the political rights back from the Roman Empire. The leader of this revolt was Simon ben Kosiba (כוסבא בן שמעון). According to Talmudic tradition, rabbi Akiba, one of the disciples of Rabbi Johanan, was the strongest supporter of the Bar Kokhba revolt. Based on his interpretation of Numbers 24:17, he saw Simon ben Kosiba as the “son of the Star” (Aramaic: Bar Kokhba), a messianic figure promised by God.[9]

Early in this revolt, the Jews killed almost all Roman soldiers in that area and spread a new coinage, known as Bar Kokhba coinages, as a means of trading and political propaganda in Judea. Simon ben Kosiba became the Nasi (leader of Sanhedrin) among Jewish people. This was, of course, a serious threat to Rome. A few years later, the Emperor Hadrian himself came and led the Roman army to fight against this Jewish rebellion. About five hundred thousand people died in that war. To make the story short, Hadrian won the war and over Judea back under the Roman Empire.

Stage 3: Judaism after Bar Kokhba Revolt

The outcome of the Bar Kokhba revolt was devastating. Hadrian considered the religion of Judaism as the root of all their rebellions. Basically he banned Judaism from the Roman Empire. He renamed Judea Palestine, after Philistine. He changed the name of Jerusalem to Elia Kapitalina. Anybody caught teaching Judaism would be killed. After the revolt, Judaism suffered a lot. Many rabbis were killed as martyrs. The most famous Jewish rabbi who was killed by the Roman government at that time was Rabbi Akiba. Even though Judaism still existed, they were not legally allowed to do their religious activities. They were now a nation without a land and a religion without a sacred Temple. They lost almost all their identity. This period has been known in Judaism as “galut” (גלות) or exile. The reality they were facing was not very different from the exile that they had experienced many centuries ago in Babylonia.

Since there was practically no longer a land and a temple, the Jews had to fight for survival. In the early third century, Rabbis began to write down all the oral tradition. Rabbi Judah haNasi (יהודה הנשיא) compiled the oral interpretation of great rabbis of the past (e.g. Hillel and Shammai) according to halakhic topics. This compilation of oral tradition within rabbinic tradition is known as Mishnah (משנה). Mishnah is divided into six different categories: 1) Zeraim (זרעים), which means seed, deals primarily with agricultural and economic matters. 2) Moed (מועד), which means festivals, deals with holiday observances and Jewish festivals. 3) Nashim (נשים), which means women or wives, discusses questions regarding marriage, divorce and family affairs. 4) Nezikin (נזיקין), which means damages, deals primarily with criminal and civil laws. 5) Kodasim (קדשים), which means holy things, deals with cultic worship, rites and sacred structure of the temple. 6) Tohorot (טהורת), which means purities, discusses everything related to purity (foods, personal purities, etc.). The first half of the Mishnah is related to the secular law (1-3), and the other half (4-6) is related to sacred law. Everything was compiled in one book. This shows that they do not see a separation between secular and sacred. Both of them are one. Mishnah became the standard teaching of rabbinic Judaism. They basically tried to make sense of the Torah in light of the contemporary situation. Beside Mishnah, rabbinic tradition also developed another book, namely Tosefta (תוספתא), which literally means additional. Tosefta is the later addition of Misnah formed around 200-300 CE.

The other body of literature that was produced by rabbinic tradition is the Talmud. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the ban of Judaism from Roman Empire, Jewish rabbis, especially in Babylonia, often gathered in a place called Kallah (כלה) in order to discuss and explain the Misnah. They ended up, in 500-600 CE, producing two different Talmud (תַּלְמוּד): Talmud Yerusahalmi (יְרוּשָׁלְמִי תַּלְמוּד) and Talmud Babil (בַּבְלִי תַּלְמוּד). A Talmud basically is the explanation or the interpretation of Mishnah. Therefore, the content of Talmud consists of two part: 1) a quotation from Mishnah, and 2) an elaboration. The explanation of the Mishnah is usually called Gemara (גמרא), an Aramaic word that literally means to study. “The term Talmud refers to the total material, Misnah plus Gemara.”[10]

They also produced a series of biblical commentaries called Midrash (מדרש). Midrashic literatures are presented in two different forms: 1) halakhic midrashim, and 2) aggadic midrashim. Halakhic midrashim, on one hand, are commentaries on texts related to law or legal matters in the Tanakh (e.g. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc.). Aggadic midrashim, on the other hand, deals with non-legal part of the scriptures. The purpose of aggadic midrashim was “to convey general moral and religious truths, to offer inspiration, and to give consolation in times of trouble.”[11]

Conclusion

The development of Rabbinic Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem and the Bar Kokhba revolt should be understood in light of the political situation at that time. Judaism had to survive without a land and temple worship. The center of the religion moved from the temple to the written Torah. I think within this historical context, it is very understandable that working class Pharisaic Jews would be able to exist and survive. Main rabbinic literatures (Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud, and Midrash) were written basically to give light to the people at that time how to understand and apply Torah. Judaism was no longer a religion of the elite, but religion of the people.

----------------------

[1] James D. Anderson, “The Impact of Rome on the Periphery: The Case of Palestine – Roman Period (63 BCE – 424 CE)” in Thomas E. Levi (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (London: Leicester University Press, 1995), 456.

[2] Mark A. Chancey and Adam Porter, “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine,” Near Eastern Archaeology 64:4 (Dec. 2001): 170.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Robert M. Seltzer, Jewish People, Jewish Thought: The Jewish Experience in History (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1980), 245.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 247.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 218.

[9] Hanan Eshel, "The Bar Kochba Revolt, 132-135" in Steven T. Katz, The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 4: The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 109.

[10] Seltzer, 265.

[11] Ibid., 269.

Happy New Year!!

2010-12-31T08:51:00.000-08:00

We just want to wish everyone a happy New Year! There will be a great transition that my wife and I as a family have to go through next year, but we will do our best, fully trust in God, and move forward in faith. We look forward to seeing greater things in 2011.

Oedipus the King

2010-12-28T00:57:00.000-08:00

After reading this play, I felt extremely disappointed, frustrated, and could not believe what I just read. There is nothing a man can do to change one’s fate. Fate is always final. There is no negotiation and bargaining. This is basically the main message from the story of Oedipus the King. He was fated to kill his own father and marry his mother. Everything that he does in his life is only the journey of fulfilling that fate.

The story begins with the pollution in the land of Thebes. Oedipus was trying to search for the cause behind this plague. He sent Creon, his brother, to ask the priest of Apollo. When Creon came back and brought the news from the priest that the pollution was caused by the murder of King Laius, the former king of Thebes. But who is the murderer? Interestingly, Creon said, “The clue is in this land [Thebes]” (110). That means that the killer of Laius was a native of Thebes. Because of his love to the land and the people of Thebes, Oedipus strongly said this concerning that murderer,

I forbid that man, whoever he be, my land… I forbid any to welcome him or cry him greeting or make him a sharer in sacrifice or offering to Gods, or give him water for his hands to wash. I command all to drive him from their homes, since he is our pollution… So I stand forth a champion of the God and of the man who died [Laius]. Upon the murderer I invoke this curse – whether he is one man and all unknown, or one of many – may he wear out his life in misery to miserable doom! (235-249).

This is indeed a very strong statement. He was not aware that he had cursed himself. In the subsequent scenes, Teiresias, a blind man, entered into the drama. After a short conversation with Oedipus, Teiresias plainly said, “I say you are the murderer of the king whose murderer you seek.” (361-362). This, of course, was bad news to Oedipus.

When Oedipus was still a boy, he was raised in the home of Polybus, the king of Corinth. One day, he heard a prophecy that he would kill his father and sleep with his mother. He, of course, loved his father and mother. He did not want to do such shameful thing, killing his father and sleeping with his mother. So, he decided to run away from Corinth for good. He thought that Polybus and his wife were his parents. On his way to escape from home, he met a group of people. They had a quarrel with him that he ended up killing all of them.

When he heard that Polybus had died in Corinth, he felt extreme relief because the prophecy did not take place. The drama slowly shows, through the conversations of Oedipus with the shepherd and the messenger, that Polybus was actually not his father. He was abandoned by his real mother and father. Because Polybus and his wife could not bear any children, they had decided to take him as their son. One of the persons that he killed on his journey running away from Corinth was actually Laius, who was his own father. Furthermore, he did not even realize that he was married to his mother. Having discovered this painful reality, Oedipus “struck his eyes again and yet again with the brooches” (1275). He ended up as a blind man. He declared, “It was Apollo, friends, Apollo that brought this bitter bitterness, my sorrows to completion. But the hand that struck me was none but my own. Why should I see whose vision showed me nothing sweet to see?” (1329-1335).

Again, the message of this story is quite clear that one not can change his own fate. Fate is determined by the gods and the role of human beings is only to follow. I think we can ask this question: Is this really the philosophy of life in Greek culture? Or is this only a drama that is intended to entertain people, like modern movies today? It probably has both sides.

Bacchae and Christianity

2010-11-02T23:43:00.000-07:00

Bacchae is basically a story about Dionysus and his action to reveal his divinity to Pentheus, king of Thebes. Dionysus said, “…I shall prove to him [Pentheus] and every man in Thebes that I am God indeed” (47-49). After reading the story, I can say that the revelation of Dionysus is really a tragedy for Pentheus. It is sad to the point that Agave did not even know that she has killed her own son, Pentheus. How does this story view humanity in its relation to the divine world? There are several things we can clearly see from the story.

First, humans are weak. The story, I think, shows blatantly the weakness of humanity. Because humans are weak, then they should not mess around with gods. Semele, the mother of Dionysus, died because Zeus blasted her with lighting. Even the King Pentheus’ prison could not hold a god inside. Dionysus easily can get out of the prison. These are some examples in the story that show that humans are weak and gods are a lot stronger.

Second, humans can be fully controlled and possessed by god. When Agave and the other women are possessed, Dionysus was able to use them to do whatever he wanted. He used Agave to kill Pentheus, her own son. Even though Pentheus screamed to let her know that he was her son, Agave still does not recognize him. She has lost the control over her consciousness. Again, this is closely related to the first point, humans are weak.

Third, human life is determined by fate and one cannot do anything about it. Dionysus says to Pentheus, “You are worthy of your fate.” Pentheus’ fate was to suffer and be killed by his own mother. He could not run away from his fate. Interestingly, after Agave killed Pentheus, she was very depressed and Dionysus told her, “Long ago my father Zeus ordained these things.” Agave then said to her father, “It is fated, Father. We must go.” The fate of Agave and Pentheus had been ordained by Zeus.

Now, let us discuss how this Greek tragedy story may have affected later religious tradition, especially Christianity. If we read the whole drama carefully, we can see many parallels between Dionysus and the story of Jesus. There are several similarities I can list here. First, both of them were born from a mortal mother and a divine father. Second, Jesus is called son of God in the New Testament whereas Dionysus is called son Zeus. Both are called Lord. Third, both are able to perform miracles. Fourth, Jesus was persecuted under Pilatus and Dionysus under Pentheus. Fifth, Dionysus broke out from prison and Jesus rose from the dead.

However, we also can find some significant differences between them. Let me list some of them. First, Dionysus’ mother died when he was born. In the story of the birth of Jesus, they were under death threat too by Herod, but no one died. Everybody in the Jesus’ family was saved. Second, Dionysus revealed his divinity as a god by killing Pentheus. Jesus revealed his divinity by his death on the cross and his resurrection. Third, Jesus forgave those who persecuted him whereas Dionysus gave them a tragic punishment. Even Cadmus, his grandfather and also the grandfather of Pentheus said, “We have learned, but your sentence is too harsh” (1346). Fourth, Dionysus was very clever to trap Pentheus so that he could be killed by his own mother. When Jesus died on the cross, he told John to take care of his mother. Fifth, Jesus delivered other people from possession by evil spirit whereas those who worshiped Dionysus were completely possessed. The list of both similarities and differences can go longer.

If it is true that the author of the Gospels knew the story of Dionysus because they were educated in that context, then I think they are probably portraying Jesus as better than Dionysus. That clearly made the gospel narratives attractive to those who are trained in Greco-Roman education. The gospel becomes really good news because even though humans have sinned against God, God does not kill and destroy them like Dionysus in order to show his divinity, but God forgives them and died for them. In other words, according to the Gospel writers Jesus Christ is better than Dionysus.

Theology of Religions by Gavin D’Costa

2010-10-30T11:27:00.000-07:00

Gavin D’Costa's suggestion that we need to move beyond the old debate between exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism is well-taken. I'm just wondering about how he relates his 'universal' soteriology to the passage in 1 Peter on Jesus' descending and preaching in hell to the people in prison. It seems to me that he is probably proposing a postmortem soteriology. I need to read his latest book, Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions, before commenting further on his theological proposal.

A Leadership Lesson from the Iliad

2010-10-29T20:19:00.000-07:00

The story of Iliad has been one of the most fascinating and famous ancient Greek epic poems written by Homer. The story is intended to teach a moral value to its readers. The main theme of this story, I think, is about the price that must be paid for arrogance. The dignity and honor that Agamemnon and Achilles tried to maintain have resulted in a bloody war between the Achaeans and the Trojans. Agamemnon’s pride is shown very clearly in the first book of the Iliad. He refused to return Chryseis to her father, Chryses, an Apollo priest, even though many of his troops had been killed by a plague from Apollo. Achilles was very angry at Agamemnon because he thinks that Agamemnon is too egoistic and self-centered. They get into a heated debate. Agamemnon finally sent Odysseus to bring back Chryseis to Chryses and offered a sacrifice to appease Apollo. He, however, demanded a replacement for Chryseis. He thought that as a leader he could do whatever he wanted. He then forcefully took Achilles’ gift, Briseis, to replace Chryseis. This humiliation, of course, made Achilles mad. Achilles prayed to his mother, Thetis, and asked her to restore his honor by asking Zeus to bring suffering to Agamemnon and the Achaeans. This simple incident becomes the main cause of a long series of wars between the Achaeans and the Trojans throughout the book of Iliad. Zeus then sent evil Dream to Agamemnon and told him that he would give the Achaeans a great victory over the Trojans. Agamemnon thought that it was a good sign to start an attack on the city of Troy. This is how the war began in the book of Iliad. The gods were deeply involved in this drama of war. Some were the side of the Trojans, others on the side of Achaeans. Agamemnon was not aware that the war is caused by his pride.

War after war took place. Many troops died in the battle ground. Homer lists name after name and describes in details how each man was killed. To make a long story short, the Achaeans were in a difficult situation, Agamemnon finally thought that they probably had to give up and go home (Book 9). Nestor advised Agamemnon to ask Achilles for help and be reconciled with him. Agamemnon, according to the suggestion of Nestor, then sent Phoenix, Ajax, and Odysseus to come to Achilles. In book 9, we can see clearly the pride of Achilles. These delegates tried as best as they could to convince Achilles to return to the Achaeans and help them to fight against the Trojans. They were not able to convinced Achilles. He still felt the great pain of humiliation that Agamemnon has caused. Achilles refused to return. Phoenix finally stepped into the conversation. Phoenix told him the story of Meleager.

The story of Meleager matches the narrative in the Iliad as a whole in many ways. First, it starts with the anger of the goddess Artemis. The story of the Iliad also starts with the anger of Apollo. Second, there was a war between the Kouretes and the Aitolians. This is parallel, I think, to the war between the Achaeans and the Trojans. Third, the reason Meleager withdrew from the Aitolians was because he had a painful quarrel with his mother. The main reason Achilles withdrew from the Achaeans was because he was angry at Agamemnon. Fourth, some people came to Meleager to ask him to go back and help the Aitolians. Some delegates from Agamemnon came to Achilles to ask him to return. Fifth, Meleager refused to return. Achilles also refused to return. Sixth, Meleager’s wife came to him in tears to ask him to come back and he agreed. Patroklos came to Achilles in tears to ask him to come back, and Achilles finally agreed to return. There are many other parallels between the larger story of Achilles in the Iliad and the story of Meleager. Phoenix intentionally told this to Achilles in order to persuade him that to go back and help the Achaeans. Just as Meleager did not gain anything from his pride, Achilles also did not gain anything from his pride. He had to lose his closest and dearest comrade, Patroklos. Agamemnon, on the other hand, paid a great price for his arrogance too. He and his people suffered a lot because of this war.

The ending of this story is important to note here also. After Achilles killed Hector, he took Hector’s body with him. Priam, the king of Troy, came to ask for the body of his son from Hector and provided a ransom. Achilles did not make the same mistake that Agamemnon made to the priest of Apollo, Chryses, in the first book. He respected Priam and accepted his gifts. He gave the body of Hector back to his father with honor. They finally ate together in peace, even though Priam was in a great grief because of the loss of his son.

The message of this epic poem can be seen quite clearly. Homer wants to remind his reader to not be self-centered and arrogant. One’s arrogance will cause a lot of problems in his/her life and the lives of other people.

Ontological Dimension of Imago Dei

2010-08-23T10:22:00.001-07:00

Augustine provides a very good explanation about the ontological aspect of the concept of Imago Dei. He says,

We do indeed recognize in ourselves an image of God, that is of the Supreme Trinity. It is not an adequate image, but very distant parallel. It is not co-eternal and, in brief, it is not of the same substance as God. For all that, there is nothing in the whole of God's creation so near to him in nature, but the image now needs to be refashioned and brought to perfection, so to become close to him in resemblance. We resemble the Trinity in that we exist; we know that we exist, and we are glad of this existence and this knowledge. In those three things there is no plausible deception to trouble us. For we do not apprehend those truths by bodily sense by which we are in contact with world outside us - perceiving color by sight, sound by hearing, odour by sense of smell, flavours by taste, hardness and softness by touch. We can also summon up in thought the immaterial images which closely resemble those material things apprehended by senses; we retain them in our memory; and through those images we are aroused to desire the things they represent. But the certainty that I exist, that I know it, and that I am glad of it, is independent of any imaginary and deceptive fantasies.

In respect to those truths I have no fear of the arguments of the Academics. They say, 'Suppose you are mistaken?' I reply, 'If I am mistaken, I exist.' A non-existent being cannot be mistaken, therefore I must exist, if I am mistaken. Then since my being mistaken proves that I exist, how can I be mistaken in thinking that I exist, seeing that my mistake establishes my existence? Since therefore I must exist in order to be mistaken, then even if I am mistaken, there can be no doubt that I am not mistaken in my knowledge that I exist. It follows that I am not mistaken in knowing that I know. Just as I know that I exist, I also know that I know. And when I am glad of those two facts, I can add the fact of that gladness to the things I know, as a fact of equal worth. For I am not mistaken about the fact of my gladness, since I am not mistaken about the things which I love. Even if they were illusory, it would still be a fact that I love the illusions. For how could I be rightly blamed and forbidden to love illusions, if it were an illusion that I loved them? But since in fact their truth is established, who can doubt that, when they are loved, that love is an established truth? Moreover, it is as certain that no one would wish himself not to exist as it is that no one would wish himself not to be happy. For existence is a necessary condition for happiness. - emphasis is mine -
(St. Augustine, The City of God, XI.26)

If I may ask Augustine a question, there is one thing that bothers me while I was reading this chapter. If he is right that our existence is a sure reflection of Imago Dei in us, would Augustine extend his concept of Imago Dei to animals and other things (stones, trees, etc.) as well simply because they exist?

Karl Barth Interrupting an Academic Conference

2010-08-05T18:42:00.000-07:00

This is a story from James Luther Adams, a professor of Christian Ethics at Harvard Divinity School (November 12, 1901 – July 26, 1994).

In 1936 I attended in Switzerland an international conference of students and faculties of Protestant theology, a conference in which the Swiss theologian Karl Barth was a participant. At the very first session of the conference Dr. Barth filled every expectation of controversy. The first paper, presented by a theologian from the University of Geneva, dealt with the concept of religious experience, and it employed the language of psychology as well as of Christian theology. Before the speaker was well under way, however, Dr. Barth suddenly arose in the audience, interrupted the speaker, and addressed the chairman. "I shall not wait any longer. I want to ask the speaker a question now," he said, thereby of course throwing the meeting into an uproar of consent and dissent. The chairman replied that it is customary for questions to be withheld until a paper is finished, but that he would leave the decision to the speaker. With questionable judgment the theologian reading the paper agreed to accept the question immediately. Barth thereupon made frontal attack. "Is the speaker reading to us a paper on Christian theology or on the psychology of religious experience? If the paper is on the psychology of religion, why should we here listen to it? This is a conference of Christian theologians; only the Word of God, not talk about psychology and religious experience, is appropriate here." Immediately the assembly plunged into heated argument, a debate on the place, or lack of place, of secular science and of even apologetics in a Christian discourse. The heat of the controversy pervaded the remaining sessions of the conference. Indeed, the Barthian students within the week, I was told, delivered a formal petition to the Dean of the Theological Faculty at Geneva, pleading for the dismissal from the University of the beleaguered author of the paper and for the appointment in his stead of a Christian theologian. The Dean did not comply; he could not accept the presuppositions of the avowedly Barthian framers of the petition.*

This can be interpreted as either an act of honesty or arrogance. It seems to me that Barth probably has a very narrow understanding of theology. What do you think?

-------------------
*James Luther Adams, "Forward," in Dimensions of Faith: Contemporary Prophetic Protestant Theology, ed. William Kimmel and Geoffrey Clive (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1960), 7-8.

All Life is Interrelated

2010-08-02T22:32:00.000-07:00

Reading Martin Luther King, Jr.'s book "Strength to Love" has been a wonderful spiritual journey for me. In chapter seven, he explains about the wealthy young man in Luke 12 whom Jesus called a fool (Luke 12:20). There is one aspect of the story that I have never thought before. I hope we all can think about it seriously. We all depend on one another. Here is what he wrote:

The rich man was a fool because he failed to realize his dependence on others. He soliloquy contains approximately sixty words, yet "I" and "my" occur twelve times. He has said "I" and "my" so often that he had lost the capacity to say "we" and "our." A victim of the cancerous decease of egotism, he failed to realize that wealth always comes as a result of the commonwealth. He talked as though he could plough the fields and build the barns alone. He failed to realize that he was an heir of a vast treasury of ideas and labor to which both the living and the dead had contributed. When an individual or a nation overlooks this interdependence, we find a tragic foolishness.

We can clearly see the meaning of this parable for the present world crisis. Our nation's productive machinery constantly brings forth such an abundance of food that we must build larger barns and spend more than a million dollars daily to store our surplus. Year after year we ask "What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?" I have seen an answer in the faces of millions of poverty-stricken men and women in Asia, Africa, and South America. I have seen an answer in the appalling poverty in the Mississippi Delta and tragic insecurity of the unemployed in large industrial cities of the North. What can we do? The answer is simple: feed the poor, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. Where can we store our goods? Again the answer is simple: we can store our surplus food free of charge in the shriveled stomachs of the millions of God's children who go to bed hungry at night. We can use our vast resources of wealth to wipe poverty from the earth.

All of this tells us something basic about the interdependence of men and nations. Whether we realize it or not, each of us is in eternally "in the red." We are everlasting debtors to known and unknown men and women. We do not finish breakfast without being dependent on more than half of the world. When we arise in the morning, we go into the bathroom where we reach for a sponge which is provided for us by a Pacific Islander. We reach for soap that is created for us by Frenchman. The towel is provided by a Turk. Then at the table we drink coffee which is provided for us by a South American. Before we leave for our jobs we are beholden to more than half of the world.

In a real sense, all life is interrelated. All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.

The rich man tragically failed to realize this. He thought that he could live and grow in his self-centered world. He was an individualist gone wild. Indeed he was an eternal fool!

--------------------
Source:
Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love, (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963), 69-71

What Indeed is a Man?

2010-06-25T08:25:00.000-07:00

"For what indeed is man? Consider the earth within the endless darkness space in the universe. By way of comparison it is a tiny grain of sand; between it and the next grain of its own size there extends a mile of more of emptiness; on the surface of this grain of sand there lives a crawling, bewildered swarm of supposedly intelligent animals, who for a moment have discovered knowledge. And what is temporal extension of a human life amid all the million of years? Scarcely a move of the second hand, a breath. Within the essent as a whole there is no legitimate ground for singling out of this essent which is called mankind and to which we ourselves happen to belong." (Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, p. 4)

I found this profound statement of Martin Heidegger this morning while I was reading his An Introduction to Metaphysics. I really paused for a few minutes to think and some questions came to my mind. If the universe is all there is, then where can we find the meaning of life? Is it necessary for us, human beings, to live after all? Life is obviously so short, can I do something meaningful in/through it? If there is no God, we are just a tiny meaningless grain in this grand universe.

Religious Violence in Ambon - A Painful Memory

2010-06-17T04:42:00.000-07:00

Last week I wrote a short blog post in which I expressed my full support for the Claremont School of Theology Interreligious University Project. In that article, I mentioned the violent clash between Muslims and Christians in my hometown, Ambon. This has been a really painful memory for most of Ambonese people. Many of us do not even want to remember it. However, I think we all should learn from this painful past so that we will never repeat the same mistake again. The purpose of this is not to trigger or provoke another religious war, but to remind us of the need for religious understanding and harmony. The city of Ambon has been doing very well today. Many people (refugees) have returned to their place and rebuilt their homes. The economics is growing. We hope and pray for a better future of Ambon. In 2007, ABC Australia produced a short documentary movie on this religious riot in Ambon. Here is the video.

Bridging Science and Religion

2010-06-16T22:17:00.000-07:00

The debate between science and religion is in a terrible shape today on the one side, but on the other side, we can see also that many scholars have tried to bridge this huge gap between these two kingdoms. I think John Haught has done a great job in categorizing at least four common models people might hold to with regards to the relationship between science and religion: 1) Conflict model, 2) Contrast model, 3) Contact model, and 4) Confirmation model.[1] Those who hold the conflict model tend to see religion and science as two different irreconcilable worlds. There is no way for us to put them together or build a bridge between them.[2] The second model (contrast) sees religion and science as two different ways of seeing reality. They ask different questions and they employ completely different methodologies. They both play a different game. Even though they are not in conflict with each other, their conclusions are obviously different.[3] The contact model basically sees these two worlds as different but they can still discuss and talk to each other. “Contact proposes that scientific knowledge can broaden the horizon of religious faith and the perspective of religious faith can deepen our understanding of the universe.”[4] Furthermore, the confirmation model goes into a deeper or intimate relationship between science and religion. Haught defines it as:

...religion's claim that the universe is a finite, coherent, rational, ordered totality, grounded in an ultimate love and promise, provides a general vision of things that consistently nurtures the scientific quest for knowledge and liberates science from association with imprisoning ideologies.[5]

In other words, for Haught, religion can play a role to provide a metaphysical ground for scientific inquiry. He makes it very clear in his book that we cannot do science without this underlying “faith” that grounds its search. Science does not emerge out of nothing. This is the place where religion can play its role.

In order to have a better grasp of the problem, we have to discuss two major pressing issues. First, what is the nature of reality in the evolutionary framework? The second question is what is the ultimate reality? The goal of this discussion is to give a general picture of the metaphysical and theological discussions regarding religion and science. I believe that the systems that I will present in this following part will surely affect my view. In the last part of this essay, I will also present my personal position on this matter. I hope I will be able to locate myself within the framework provided by John Haught above.

Metaphysical Nature of Reality

We need to acknowledge that reality is complex, especially when we posit an ontological question to it. There are many competing views about the nature of reality. In this essay, I will briefly list four basic views. The first position is represented by naturalistic-reductionism view. This view is held by many today’s leading atheist philosophers and scientists. Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, even claims that the age we live today is an age of reductionism.[6] What exactly does reductionistic naturalism means? It is naturalism because it is the opposite view of the supernaturalism. There is no such thing as a reality beyond or above the natural materialistic world. It sees no difference between brain and mind. There is no such thing as mind. Matter is all there is, and no more. Since process thinkers also consider themselves naturalists as well, I will specifically use the term naturalism in a very narrow atheistic (not generic) sense, which David Ray Griffin specifically calls it naturalism-sam (sensationist-atheist-materialist) view.[7] I think Griffin is right about this. This narrow naturalism is not a science, it is a metaphysical position. This kind of naturalism is usually combined with a reductionistic view. The following is the definition of reductionism from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Reductionism encompasses a set of ontological, epistemological, and methodological claims about the relation of different scientific domains. The basic question of reduction is whether the properties, concepts, explanations, or methods from one scientific domain (typically at higher levels of organization) can be deduced from or explained by the properties, concepts, explanations, or methods from another domain of science (typically one about lower levels of organization).[8]

The key concept to understand reductionism is that the higher level of organization of reality is determined strictly by the lower levels.[9] There is no such thing as downward causation in this system. The behaviors of a more complex organism are reduced to the mechanistic system within less complex levels that make up that organism. For example, if a dog barks at a cat, the dog’s act of barking is understood not in its relation to the environment but merely in the atoms and molecules that make up that dog. The interaction of the dog itself as a living and complex organism in its relationship to external environment will not affect the atoms or molecules of the dog. It is an upward causation.

The second metaphysical position about reality is the dualist position. Dualists believe that the world is divided into two different ontological orders: physical world and spiritual world. This is a classical position of Christian theology, following a platonic worldview. J.P. Moreland, a conservative Christian philosopher, rightly admits, “Plato's version of dualism is quite sophisticated in its totality, and much of what Plato taught is very much at home in Christian worldview….”[10] Since God is in a different ontological order from cosmos the doctrine of creation ex nihilo or out of nothing is then invented. This doctrine is necessary because it stands “against the notion that the world was an emanation of God, and thus against philosophical monism, which blurred the difference between creator and creation and reduce everything to a common substance.”[11] Furthermore, this dualistic ontological view of the world also leads to a dualistic view of mind and body. Mind is a different entity from body. Mind is a spiritual or immaterial entity, whereas body is a physical entity. Murray Miler has rightly pointed out that “the 'scandal of Cartesianism' [Cartesian dualism] was no doubt fueled by the Platonic-Agustinian tradition…”[12] This is a dominant view of Christians today, especially within a more conservative circle.

The third view is trying to find a middle ground between the two views I just discussed above. It is the emergence theory. Philip Clayton is one of the leading scholars behind the idea of emergence today. The importance of Clayton is well stated by James W. Haag: “Clayton’s use of emergence theory is an important contribution to the religion-and-science community and I encourage further dialogue on the exchange that Clayton commences.”[13] What is emergence? Clayton’s simple definition of this term is “the theory that cosmic evolution repeatedly includes unpredictable, irreducible, and novel appearances.”[14] The theory of emergence is historically rooted in the doctrine of emanation in neo-platonic worldview, and most importantly, the thought of a great German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.[15] It is also tied to cosmic evolution. It is not impossible for life to emerge from physics and chemistry. The whole evolutionary process is going in this path of emergence. Clayton draws the following diagram to describe the emergence theory.[16]

^ ^ ^
1 2 3 4
^ ^ ^ ^
A B C D E

This diagram at least shows two important things. First, there are many different levels of reality. Will Clayton consider this as multi-ontological levels? It is not quite clear in his writings. Second, it shows that there is a relationship between many disciplines of study in science. A, B, C, D, E… can represent, say, physical chemistry. The arrow upward is the emerging process of 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., say biochemistry, from the previous discipline, physical chemistry. This link can go further upward to genetics, neurology, psychology, etc. One discipline is built upon others. The higher it goes the more complex it will be. Clayton, therefore, says that emergence is “a theory about relations between relations between scientific disciplines.”[17] This means that disciplines in science, for the emergentist, should not be seen as fragmental and isolated individual body of knowledge separated from others. They are interconnected and emerged out from one another.

The most distinctive characteristic of emergentism is the downward or top-down causation. It is so essential that Jaegwon Kim of Brown University says that without it the whole emergent system will “lose its rationale.”[18] Clayton explains, “Such a causal influence of an emergent structure or object on its constituent parts contrast with the claim that all causation is ultimately to be analyzed in terms of micro-physical causes.”[19] Even though the higher level of reality is made and formed by a lower level reality, it doesn’t mean that the lower level always determine the higher level.[20] Higher level reality can also affect the lower level of reality. This view, of course, has a huge impact on our understanding of human responsibility. Nancy Murphy and Warren Brown have done an incredibly fascinating job explaining how this theory is related to ethics.[21] If a person is caught in a grocery store because he steals a can of Pepsi, would we say that he, as a whole, is not responsible for that theft? Is it the atoms and molecules that we have to ask for the responsibility? If he is fully determined by his atoms and molecules, then we cannot hold him responsible. However, top-down causation would say that even though this man consists of atoms and molecules, the act of stealing is done by him as a whole. His decision as a whole complex being is the determining factor that stimulates the atoms and molecules of his body to go and take that can of Pepsi. This is a very simple example of downward causation and its relation to ethics. Therefore, top-down causality is a direct opposition to the physical reductionistic view that we have discussed above. According to Murphy and Brown, the physical reductionistic view would make human beings merely “zombies”[22] who are totally controlled by the atoms and molecules.

The fourth view, process thought, stands also between dualistic and reductionistic views. Process metaphysics is mainly based on the thoughts of a British mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead. David Ray Griffin, one of the leading process thinkers today, argues,

Whitehead’s major contribution to this issue was to provide a philosophical worldview that, while radically different from the worldview of naturalismsam presupposed by neo-Darwinian, likewise embodies naturalism in the generic sense (naturalis-mns). Whitehead’s philosophy embeds this generic naturalism in a specific type of theistic naturalism that provides a middle ground, and hence a potential mediating position between neo-Darwinism and intelligent design.[23]

The basic idea of process thought is that everything in the universe, either complex or simple ones, consists of two poles, mental and physical.[24] The mentality of the reality exists all the way down from the more complex organisms to the simplest ones. Griffin says that this idea leads to the position that subjectivity and objectivity exist together. Everything is objective, and everything is subjective. This idea of pansubjectivity or “panexperientalism”[25] is the key to process system. Since it is panexperientalism, everything is then interconnected to one another. In this sense, process philosophy is in a strong disagreement with the theory of emergence. In the emergence system, subjectivity can be emerged out of objectivity, or a non-living entity can produce a living entity. This idea, according to Griffin, is the “emergence category mistake”[26] meaning to say emergence theory cannot see the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.

Like Griffin, John Cobb also places a strong emphasis on the idea of agency or subjectivity. According to Cobb, the problem of many scientific conclusions today is actually in the underlying materialistic metaphysics. Therefore, he suggests three things to scientists. 1) Scientists have to “acknowledge and affirm that people are subjects and agents who act and are acted upon; who have purposes, hopes, and memories; who makes decisions and are responsible for what they decide; and who, in and through all of this, influence the behavior of their bodies and, through them, events in their environment.”[27] 2) Scientists have to “give up those assumptions and formulations that contradict this view of human subjects.”[28] 3) The evolution of animals “should be studied on the assumption that they, too, are subjects sharing in some of the characteristics of human subjectivity.”[29] The main point of the three suggestions above is that the reality of subjects has to be taken seriously into consideration by scientists. Scientists have for so long perceived the world as an objective mechanistic system. They forgot the subjective dimension of the world. The decision of an animal or a human being as a subject will surely affect the course of the evolution. This is what Cobb calls the “contingency”[30] in the evolutionary process. This notion of subjectivity is the main contribution of process philosophy to the metaphysical discussion in seeing the nature of reality.

So far I have discussed four different metaphysics by which people perceived the world and the process of evolution. Even though they are very brief, my hope is that I can present them as representative as possible. Now I will discuss how these positions view God or the ultimate reality.

What About God?

From the discussion above, it is quite obvious that our metaphysical position will determine our view of God. The only position that does not give any room for the existence of God is the first one (reductionistic-naturalism). Since God is always understood as a subject in himself, the rejection of a notion of an agency in nature tends to logically lead toward atheism. The idea of God in religion, for them, is basically an “illusion”[31] or “delusion.”[32] Evolutionary process is taking place in a godless universe without any purpose and goal. Evolution is a thoroughly random and arbitrary process based on a set of mechanistic laws of nature. Richard Dawkins makes it very clear that “natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.”[33]

The position of dualistic worldview, I think, is very straightforward. God is outside the world in a sense that God does not exist in the same ontological order with the universe. Dualists usually do not only believe that God exists, but he also created the world. In other words, borrowing the Thomistic term, God is the causa prima of the world. This is a classical theological understanding of Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Not only that, God created the world in an open system in which He is able to intervene and perform miracle.[34] However, there are some dualists who cannot believe in the ability of God to intervene or interrupt the natural law that he has set when he created the world. We call this position Deism. Deists view the world as a mechanistic system governed by a set of predictable natural laws. Apparently they were trying to reconcile the development of science, especially Newtonian physics, and their religious belief of the existence of God in the late 17th century and early 18th century.[35] The result of this struggle was not the rejecting the existence of God, like many atheists today, but the idea of a God detached from the world he created. Therefore, there is no such thing as miracle.

What does process metaphysics perceive the existence and the involvement of God in the world? Since Griffin and Cobb consider their view of the world as naturalistic and reject the existence of the reality outside the material world. That also affects their view of God. God is not outside the world, but God contains the world. Since God contains the world, there is no need for creation ex-nihilo. Cobb and Griffin argue,

Process rejects the notion of creatio ex nihilo, if that means creation out of absolute nothingness. That doctrine is part and parcel of the doctrine of God as absolute controller. Process theology affirms instead a doctrine of creation out of chaos... A state of absolute chaos would be one in which there is nothing but very low-grade actual occasions happening at random, i.e., without being ordered into enduring individuals.[36]

God and the world co-exist from the eternal past to the eternal future.[37] Furthermore, it is metaphysically necessary, according to Griffin, that “God cannot occasionally interrupt the world’s causal nexus.”[38] In other words, for process theology, there is no miracle at all. The Whiteheadian God, for Cobb, looks similar to the Deist God in that “it rejects supernatural intervention in the course of events.”[39] However, they are also radically different. Deism places God’s work only in the remote past, and He is so far from the world now. For Whiteheadian theology, “God’s act is taking place now, in every now. God is now the giver of order and novelty, of the ability and necessity of self-determination or freedom, and of the grounds of morality. God’s gift is different in every moment and founds every new event.”[40] The power of God is not a controlling or coercive power, but a persuasive power.

One of the most distinctive characteristics of Clayton’s emergence and its relation to his panentheistic theology is that Clayton believes in the creation ex nihilo.[41] Here Clayton is different from the majority process thoughts like Cobb, Griffin, Catherine Keller, etc. [42] When most process theologians believe that the subjectivity is all the way down to the lowest level of reality, Clayton holds that subjectivity emerges from non-subject entities. If we observe the debate between Clayton and other process thinkers, it seems like Clayton tends to be more accommodative to science, whereas Griffin and others insists scientists to embrace process metaphysics.

The purpose of this discussion is actually to set my position in a larger context of the contemporary debate/conversation among scholars regarding religion and science. In other words, what I believe will be clearly seen in this wider context and not an isolated personal opinion. I have to take seriously what other scholars have to say about science and religion. The following section is an attempt to construct my personal position on this very problem.

My Position

The more I think about the problem between science and religion, the more I realize that problem is actually not within science itself or religion itself. The problem is only the different underlying metaphysics and epistemology that ground these two groups. We should be able to formulate a better metaphysical-epistemological system that can bridge this large gap between them. I will call my position, which I think can be the best bridge, as emergence-dualism, a term widely used by William Hasker to describe his position too. In the following section I will also interact with the views that we have seen above.

What do I think about those positions? It is very hard for me to accept reductionistic-naturalism position for two main reasons. First, if everything is reduced to physical entity then we actually cannot run away from making human beings into a bunch of zombies. This conclusion is unavoidable. I am the slave of my atoms and molecules. They control my decisions. They control my behaviors. They control my actions. If this is the case, then I am truly no more than a zombie.[43] I have no mental state at all. I am fully helpless because I (as a whole and complex being) cannot control the atoms and molecules that make up my body. Is it possible for us to talk about the “I” at all? Does the “I” a whole conscious being ever exist? This view is practically disastrous. Second, this view has a great impact on our view of morality. How can we talk about morality and moral responsibility without having the existence of an agent? It is simply impossible. There is no moral responsibility without agency. If a building collapses and it kills many people, we will never see the bricks or cement or nails or woods as responsible for that accident. Why? It is simply because we don’t see them as moral agents. We usually look for an agent behind that might have caused its collapse. This puts reductionistic-naturalism in a difficult position in which I find it hard to accept.

Process thought is very attractive for me. Process philosophy has shed a light on the importance of an agent. We are clearly agents who have ability to make a genuine moral decision. However, I have a problem with the idea that the agency should exist all way down to the lowest level of reality. Again, with my analogy of a collapsed house above, the question we should ask is do we hold nails, bricks, etc., responsible for that accident? Do we have to sue that building in charge of killing innocent people? This doesn’t make any sense. Process thinkers would, of course, answer yes to the question because bricks and nails are basically agents in themselves. But how can we do that? It is still very hard for me to accept.

I find that Clayton’s emergence theory a lot more compelling than classical process metaphysics represented by Cobb and Ray. Yes, agency is important, but agency is an emergent entity from non-mental entities. So, there is a strong distinction between non-mental being and mental being. However, I think Clayton and other physical emergent thinkers have not been able to make a strong distinction between body and mind, and therefore, it seems like brain and mind are the same thing. According to William Hasker, they are not willing to take a step further to acknowledge the ontological status of mind. Apparently Clayton (emergent monism) and also Murphy (non-reductive physicality)[44] put mind in the level of materiality. Hasker takes this step beyond Clayton and Murphy by granting a different ontological status to mind. The short quotation from Hasker, I think, has captured the essence of emergent-dualism view:

The fundamental idea is actually rather simple. As a consequence of a certain configuration and function of the brain and nervous system, a new entity comes into being – namely, the mind or soul. This new thing is not merely “configurational state” of the cells of the brain (as, e.g. a crystal is a configurational state of the molecules that make it up). The mind, on this view, is a “thing in itself”; it is what some philosophers call a “substance.” It is not made of the chemical stuff for both its origin and its continuance. It is this mind – the conscious self – that thinks and reasons and feels emotions and makes decisions; it is the central core of what we mean by a “person.”[45]

I think I will move with Hasker to this new stage of explaining the substance of mind. It is what Hasker calls emergent-dualism.[46]

There are several reasons I think emergent-dualism is the best view. First, it clearly defines the ontological distinctive boundary between mental and physical entities. If mind doesn’t have independent ontological status, then we will be in a terribly difficult position to define it. Supposedly mind is a physical entity, so why bother calls it “mental”? Nancey Murphy has seen this problem in Clayton’s usage of the term “emergent monism.”[47] She says, “… while ‘monism’ is a proper contrasting term for ‘dualism,’ it means that humans are composed of only one kind of substance, but does not tell us whether that substance is a physical or something else.”[48] Murphy seems to be more straightforward. Instead of being ambiguous about this, she makes it as straightforward as possible that there is no such thing as soul/mind. Clayton, on the other side, seems to be a bit ambiguous. He says that the universe was “both physical and mental,”[49] but he is not clear about the ontological status of that “mental” side. Again, if it doesn’t have any ontological depth, I think, there is no point then to make it distinct from physical reality. Apparently Clayton is trying to corporate process metaphysics with his strong emergent theory. However, I think he fails, and process philosophy too, to be clear about the ontological status of mental pole of reality. If he wants to be faithful with his strong emergent monism he should go to the position of Murphy instead of process philosophy. Combining process and strong emergent makes his theory a bit clumsy. I, and Hasker, will be willing to embrace both emergent theory and dualism. I see the necessity to give mind/mental an ontological ground to exist. Therefore, it becomes clear that reality is both physical and mental.

Second, the emergent-dualism view will be a good bridge between Christian classical theology and science. On one side, classical Christian dualism view that the soul is eternal and God put it in human body at the moment of conception doesn’t have strong scientific (and biblical) basis. This view becomes a great stumbling block to many scientists because it simply cannot give a solid argumentation scientifically to prove it. On the other side, Clayton’s emergent-monism, which then leads him to panentheism, has modified Christian theology too much for the sake of science. A better view that can bridge the Christian traditional view of reality and science has to be able to embrace both. My point is if we greatly modify science for the sake of Christian theological tradition, then our view will not be accepted in a larger scientific society. If we greatly modify Christian theology a lot for the sake of science, then that view will not be accepted by larger Christian community. If we do not have a middle ground between them that can hold both views without greatly modifying them, the war between science and religion will never end. Emergent-dualism would be the best option for this. It is still faithful with Christian dualistic worldview, but it also embraces scientific understanding of emergence.

The last reason, but not least, I will speak as a Christian theologian. I think emergent-dualism would be the best view because it can provide a better explanation for the existence of life after life after death. The Christian view of life after life after death is described in one important term, resurrection. Probably people from other religions will not take this notion seriously, but I, as a Christian, would do because it is one of the important messages in the scriptures about Christian eschatological hopes. William Hasker rightly states, “These hopes have been a matter of serious belief for large numbers of people over many centuries, and they offer the prospect of survival to all human beings rather than to technologically advantaged few.”[50] How can we understand identity or personality after the resurrection? The Classical dualist view believes that after the resurrection we will still maintain our personality simply because the soul is inherently immortal. Even though we die, the soul will never die. Resurrection would take place in physical/bodily level only, and not in spiritual level. In the moment of resurrection, the human soul and body are reunited. I cannot see any good philosophical and biblical ground for the idea of immortality of the soul. The New Testament describes human soul as something that God can destroy (Matt. 10:28), and only God who possess immortality (1 Tim. 6:16).[51] Nevertheless, I think emergent-dualism gives a better scientific and theological explanation for the resurrection. For an emergent dualist, soul is not inherently immortal. It can be destroyed by God and by death. However, since it is an emergent substance from the body, it has a potential to be revived again if the body is resurrected. In the moment of resurrection, it will not be a reunification of living soul and dead body, but a new re-emergent of body and therefore soul as well. This position is a lot better than dualism.

Now, let me discuss briefly about God. I would put God in a totally different ontological order from the world. In this sense, I am affirming a dualistic position. The main reason for this is that if God is in the same ontological order with the world (Process/Panentheism/Pantheism) then it is metaphysically impossible for God to be the creator of the world. This is why process theology will not accept the idea of creatio ex nihilo. Creation out of nothing grants a deep ontological separation between cosmos and God. Thomas Weinandy has done an incredibly great job describing Christian traditional view of God and his relationship with the world, which I think can represent my personal conviction. The reality of suffering in the world, for Weinandy, should be understood in light of evil and sin. There is a direct correlation between them. When God created the world, since he is ontologically good, everything that he created is good. This is what makes Christianity different from platonic thought. “There is no ontological principle inherent within created order which is the cause of evil. Ontologically, the whole of created order is entirely good.”[52] This ontological goodness that God gives to the created world includes the freedom to choose. Freedom is necessary for the sake of love because “love is only love if it is freely given.”[53] However, humankind has misused this freedom to rebel against God. Therefore, Weinandy defines sin as “the free misuse of God’s good gifts.”[54] Furthermore, the source of suffering in the world is sin. It is sin “which has brought evil of suffering into the world.”[55] Evil is privation of that good. Because of the lack of good we have injustice, poverty, war, etc., that eventually bring suffering in the world. In the incarnation of the Word, God himself came and experienced firsthand the suffering of the world. God provides the atonement or redemption to human suffering through his suffering. God came and united himself with human ontological order in order them back to the fullness of goodness, which is the original intention of Creation. From the creation to the restoration of the world is an underlying meta-narrative of the evolution of the world.

Conclusion

As I have promised above in the introduction of this short essay, I will now place my position regarding relationship between science and religion. My position is best represented in the fourth model, which is the confirmation model. Religion should provide a bigger view of the world for science and support all scientific enterprises. It should liberate science to pursue the truth. The assumptions provided by religion are the frame of reference that shapes and confirms the scientific discoveries. Again, I think emergent-dualism position is for me a position that can describe this relationship. The dualistic view is the bigger frame of reference provided by religion to see the scientific theory of emergent. In other words, the religious metaphysics of dualism is the underlying assumption behind the scientific inquiries.

I am fully aware that the position that I just explained is not a perfect view. Every single position that people have to take on the metaphysical level, consciously or unconsciously, has some degree of speculation. I have to acknowledge that my position is still very speculative. The main purpose of this short essay is to describe my position. However, I will never take it as a final statement. It should be an open ending process of discovering the truth. This essay is to be seen only as the representation of my convictions at this moment. When I read philosophy more, theology more and science more, I believe someday I will very likely modify or completely change this position.

------------------

Endnotes:

[1] See John F. Haught, Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation (New York: Paulist Press, 1995), Chapter 1.

[2] Haught, Science and Religion. Cf. Colin A. Russell, “The Conflict of Science and Religion,” in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, ed. Gary B. Ferngren (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 3-11. Russell discusses in a great detail the arguments of those who hold conflict model and he shows the weaknesses of their position.

[3] Haught, Science and Religion, 12-17.

[4] Ibid., 18.

[5] Ibid., 22.

[6] Robert Nozick quoted in Richard H. Jones, Reductionism: Analysis and the Fullness of Reality (Cranbury, NJ: Bucknell University Press, 2000), 13.

[7] David Ray Griffin, “Neo-Darwinism and Its Religious Implications,” in Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, ed. John B. Cobb (Grand Rapids, MI.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2008), 271. Griffin makes clear distinction between naturalismns (nonsupernaturalist) and naturalismsam (sensationist-atheist-materialist). The former is a generic term, whereas the later is a more restricted and narrower understanding of naturalism.

[8] Ingo Brigandt and Alan Love, “Reductionism in Biology,” n.d., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/.

[9] Reductionism itself, according to Ernst Mayr, can be divided into three main camps: 1) constitutive reductionism, 2) explanatory reductionism, and 3) theory reductionism. For a more detailed discussion on this division see Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 1982)., quoted in Lynn J. Rothschild, “The Role of Emergence in Biology,” in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, ed. Philip Clayton and P. C. W Davies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

[10] J.P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 22.

[11] Peter Crafts Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit: A Constructive Christian Theology, 1st ed. (Louisville, KY.: Westminster J. Knox Press, 1994), 176.

[12] Murray Lewis Miles, Insight and Inference: Descartes's Founding Principle and Modern Philosophy, Toronto studies in Philosophy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 380. Cf. Keith Maslin, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001), 42-44.

[13] James W. Haag, “Between Physicalism and Mentalism: Philip Clayton on Mind and Emergence,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 41, no. 3 (2006): 633-648.

[14] Philip Clayton, Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness (Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press, 2004), 39.

[15] For further discussion on the history of emergent theory, see Philip Clayton, “Conceptual Foundations of Emergence Theory,” in The Re-Emergence of Emergence: The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion, ed. Philip Clayton and P. C. W Davies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 4-7.

[16] Philip Clayton, “Process and Emergence,” in Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, ed. John B. Cobb (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2008), 290.

[17] Clayton, “Process and Emergence.”, 290.

[18] Jaegwon Kim, Philosophy of Mind, Dimensions of Philosophy Series (Boulder, Col: Westview Press, 1996). Clayton himself acknowledges that the idea of downward causation is very controversial. See Clayton, Mind and Emergence., 50.

[19] Clayton, “Conceptual Foundations of Emergence Theory.” 4. Cf. Pier Luigi Luisi, The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)., 119-120; Nancey C. Murphy, “Reductionism: Falling into and Emerging from It,” in Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons, ed. Nancey C. Murphy and William R. Stoeger (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 27-29.

[20] This is also the point of contrast between strong emergence and weak emergence. Both of them agree that in the evolutionary process, a lower level of reality produces a higher and more complex reality. However, weak emergence cannot accept the downward causation. Weak emergentists tend to use the term “whole–part constraint” rather than top-down causation. For further discussions on weak emergence and the debate with strong emergence, see Clayton, Mind and Emergence., 50-51; Mark A. Bedau, “Weak Emergence,” in Philosophical Perspectives: Mind, Causation, and World, ed. J. Toberlin, vol. 11 (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1997), 375-399.; Murphy, “Reductionism: Falling into and Emerging from It.” 29-31.

[21] See Nancey C. Murphy and Warren S. Brown, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007)., 62.

[22] Ibid., 217-220

[23] David Ray Griffin, “Whitehead's Naturalism and a Non-Darwinian View of Evolution,” in Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, ed. John B Cobb (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 366.

[24] Ibid., 369.

[25] Ibid., 370.

[26] Ibid., 374.

[27] John B. Cobb, “What God Does,” in Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, ed. John B. Cobb (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 394.

[28] Ibid., 395.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid., 397. In one sense it seems like Cobb also believes in downward causation. However, he does not make it clear in his writings.

[31] Victor J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2007), chapter 2.

[32] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 2006).

[33] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: Norton, 1987), 21.

[34] Richard L. Purtill, “Defining Miracles,” in In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God's Action in History, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61-72.

[35] For the historical development of Deism in England see William Stephens, An Account of the Growth of Deism in England: (1696) (Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles, 1990).

[36] John B. Cobb and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 65.

[37] David Ray Griffin, “Creation out of Nothing, Creation out of Chaos, and the Problem of Evil,” in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T Davis, New ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press, 2001).

[38] Griffin, “Whitehead's Naturalism and a Non-Darwinian View of Evolution,” 382.

[39] Cobb, “What God Does,” 409.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Philip Clayton, “Open Panentheism and Creatio Ex Nihilo,” Process Studies 37, no. 1 (Spring-Summer 2008): 166-83.

[42] See Catherine Keller, The Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming (London: Routledge, 2003).

[43] Charles Birch, “Why Aren't We Zombie? New Darwinism and Process Thought,” in Back to Darwin: A Richer Account of Evolution, ed. John B. Cobb (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 250-262.

[44] Nancey C. Murphy, “Nonreductive Physicalism,” in In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem, ed. Joel B Green, Stuart L Palmer, and Kevin Corcoran (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 116-138.

[45] William Hasker, “On Behalf of Emergent Dualism,” in In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem, ed. Joel B Green, Stuart L Palmer, and Kevin Corcoran (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 78.

[46] See William Hasker, The Emergent Self (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1999).

[47] Clayton, Mind and Emergence, 128.

[48] Murphy, “Nonreductive Physicalism,” 116.

[49] Clayton, Mind and Emergence, 128.

[50] Hasker, The Emergent Self, 205.

[51] I wrote my undergraduate thesis on this topic of immortality of soul and its relationship with Christian understanding of Hell.

[52] Thomas G Weinandy, Does God Suffer? (Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000), 148.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Ibid., 152.

Some Personal Thoughts on Claremont Interreligious University Project

2010-06-12T06:15:00.000-07:00

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:39)

I am writing this short response as a Pentecostal who grew up in an Assembly of God pastor’s family in Indonesia. Before going further, let me just clarify two things. First, I need to write this response from an Indonesian Christian perspective because in the last decade the peaceful relationship between Christians and other religions, especially Muslims, was terribly destroyed by violent riots in several cities in Indonesia. From January 1999 until 2004, my hometown, Ambon, was tore apart by an extremist religious conflict between Muslims and Christians.[1] Many of my friends, neighbors, relatives lost their homes and stayed for years in refugee camps. Some of them were killed in that riot. Some of my close Muslim friends had to leave Ambon for good.

The legacy was a deeply segregated society, but not one in which either side ‘controlled’ more territory than could be expected, based on the religious distribution of the population. Ambon’s economy lay in ruins. Displaced persons had no visible prospect of returning to their homes if they belonged to a local minority religion.[2]

So, it should be clear from the very beginning that religious violence is very close to my life. It is a fact, and not imagined. Second, let me clarify also my theological positions. As a Christian, I believe in Jesus Christ and I devote all my life to serve Him. I believe the Bible as the word of God and in the Trinity. I am working on my degree in biblical studies simply because I love the Bible. Spiritually, I grew up in Church as a preacher’s kid. My parents taught me to love God and respect others. I always remember the time when I sneaked into my parents’ bedroom, and there I saw my father was on his knees praying. This spiritual legacy is an important part of my life. In fact, I am still an Assembly of God minister in Indonesia. This is my theological background.

Yesterday, Dr. Jerry Campbell, president of the Claremont School of Theology, announced in a press conference the actual step to move CST from a traditional seminary to an interreligious University. You can read about it here, here and here, or watch the video of the press conference here. The plan is that this fall Claremont will begin to include clergy training from Islam and Judaism, and hopefully from other religions as well in the future. This is what Dr. Campbell said in an article he wrote for the Washington Post yesterday,

My own institution, a United Methodist-related theological school in Southern California, is taking the lead in light of these new realities. Claremont School of Theology announced today a new interreligious collaboration with the Academy for Jewish Religion, California, and the Islamic Center of Southern California, both located in Los Angeles. While each group will continue to teach its own tradition, together, we are working toward the establishment of an interreligious university, where students, faculty and practitioners from these and other traditions will have the opportunity to experience a multi-religious curriculum designed to teach understanding, cooperation, and collaboration among religions. The idea is simple: Students from different religions will learn together today so they can lead together tomorrow. (emphasis is mine)

In order to have a better understanding of this project, we need to read the mission, vision and values of the school.

MISSION. An ecumenical and interreligious institution, Claremont School of Theology seeks to instill students with the ethical integrity, religious intelligence, and intercultural understanding necessary to become effective in thought and action as leaders in the increasingly diverse, multireligious world of the 21st century.

VISION. In addition to being a leading school of theology training exemplary ministers for service to their specific religious organizations, Claremont has a vision of being a leading theological university where scholars and practitioners of the world's religions can come together, learning and practicing how to treat others as they would like to be treated. This will enable religious organizations, leaders, and individuals, regardless of their matters of perspective on faith, to work collectively to bring about harmony and understanding at all levels - individual, organizational, and governmental.

VALUES. With a free and liberating spirit, Claremont nurtures a diverse international community that passionately pursues intellectual rigor, vocational formation, and responsible social engagement. We commit ourselves to think deeply, act ethically, embrace diversity, work for justice and peace, and care for the earth, its people, and its resources so that all life may flourish.

However, there have been all kinds of responses to this announcement, from very negative to positive ones. The pressing questions that people might ask about this project: Will I still be a Christian if I am educated at Claremont? Yes, of course. Do I have to give up all my Christian beliefs simply because I invite Muslims and Jews to discuss and sit together in classrooms? The answer is obviously NO. I can really understand this fear. Many people, of course, don’t want to come to a school and give up their faith. However, it is very naïve if we think that we have to give up our Christian beliefs in order to be able to talk or sit in a classroom with people from other religions. This is a theological suicide, and not interreligious relationship. The spirit behind this project, I believe, is to help people from many different religious backgrounds to understand each other, and not to make people give up their faith. What in the world is wrong with that?

The response from Albert Mohler, Jr., the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, particularly has disturbed me a lot. Over and over again he uses the word “liberal” for Claremont as though it is a four-letter word. The label “liberal” is usually used to ‘demonize’ those considered not conservative or orthodox. In that short article, the term liberal appears at least 11 times. It seems to me that it has become a “kiss of death” for many evangelical Christians, especially in America, to stereotype and marginalize all non-evangelical Christians. Any hint of liberalism is bad. Is this really true? Let us think about this. The opposite of freedom (or liberal) is bondage or closeness or oppression. The message of Christianity is always freedom, not oppression. Christ did not come to oppress people, but to give people freedom. The truth will not be found in dogmatic oppression, but in freedom to seek and think. So, in this sense I believe “liberal” is a very positive word. Even those within the conservative camp should be “liberal” to a certain degree because there is no such thing as unified theology within Christianity. Pentecostals are different from Reformed, Reformed are different from Lutheran, and so on. Christianity is a tremendously diverse movement. If we don’t have an open (read: liberal) attitude within Christianity, it will be a disaster. We have to be willing to listen to one another, work together, and care for one another. This is the essence of liberalism. Therefore, I think, “liberal” is not to be understood as a system. There is no such thing as liberal theology. It is rather an attitude. If “liberal” becomes a system and oppresses people to embrace that system, it is actually no longer liberal. It is fundamentalism. Liberalism as an attitude is precisely what I have been experiencing in Claremont in the last two semesters studying here. We are free to choose responsibly the things that we believe. When we write papers, the conclusions are not determined by the theological position of the professors. We are encouraged to formulate our system of belief. As a Pentecostal, I have never been forced to believe in Reformed theology or process theology, etc. We learn from a variety of approaches to theology. We deal with them all seriously with an open-mind. We read books from Daniel Dennett to Brother Yun in China; we have also read philosophy from Immanuel Kant to Emmanuel Levinas, and so on; we read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew. This academically rigorous setting is intended to help us to think critically. Therefore, it is terribly misleading to think that studying at Claremont will force one to hold a particular theological system called “liberal theology.”

Now, let us discuss the interreligious theological education. I personally do not have any problem with that. I think this is a brilliant and very innovative idea, however, this is not really unique. We can see it in almost all non-Christian theological educational settings (community colleges, universities, etc.). Please think about this, if ordinary Christians can do it, why not clergy? It is very hard for me to understand why people oppose this idea. Again, this is not about blending all theologies together. This is about living and studying together. This is about understanding each other. There are at least three main reasons why I see this project positively. First, it can help Christian pastors and ministers to live within a non-Christian community. In America, of course, we cannot see this as a pressing issue. Since Claremont School of Theology is an international institution and students are from all over the world, I think we should take this seriously into consideration. I can now only speak as an Indonesian. In my personal observation and my conversation with many Christian leaders in Indonesia, one of the main reasons why some churches are closed by Muslims is because many pastors do not know how to relate to Muslims. They are very exclusive. They have no other language beside Christian language. The problem, for me, is in their theological education. Many seminaries in Indonesia have adopted uncritically western or American old style of segregated theological education, and this is no longer relevant. Therefore, I can see the pressing need for this university project from an international, especially Christian Indonesian, perspective. Many people cannot see this need because they probably always live among Christians or people from the same religious background. It blinds them to see the need for an interreligious theological education.

Second, the university project will also help the leaders from Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, etc., to work together to bring peace in this divided and violent world. They will be able to work together for justice. They “care for the earth, its people, and its resources so that all life may flourish.” Is this a bad idea? Not at all. Everybody needs justice, not only Christians. Everybody needs love. When we forget this I believe we need to read again our Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) which contains the heart of God for justice and peace in the world. I am tired of religious hatred and violent. I am tired of the news that Christians are treated badly in a Muslim community, or Muslims are treated badly in a Christian community. Everybody has to be treated equally. I believe this is the spirit behind the university project. Dr. Sheryl Kujawa-Holbrook wrote this in her blog:

The University Project is not about watering down religious traditions or reducing them to an amalgam of platitudes and positive thinking. We have no intention of being a "food court of religions." Rather, we are interested in creating an environment that challenges each of us to become educated in our own traditions, as well as those of others, to promote mutual respect, and to work together on common issues and concerns.

We all will work together for the common good even though we are different in our theological understandings. Our difference will not be a hindrance for us to work together and love one another. Again, who can say that this is a bad idea? I will question one’s Christianity if he/she says that this is a bad idea. Maybe he/she reads a different Bible from what I read.

Third, this university project will help pastors and ministers not only to live with people from other religions, but also able to communicate Christian beliefs in a genuine dialog with other religions, just like early Christians (Paul, Peter, etc.) formulated their theology within the context of Judaism. In fact, many New Testament scholars today (e.g. N.T. Wright, E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, etc.) believe that Christians for many centuries have misunderstood Paul simply because they don’t understand the context of the second temple Judaism in which Paul was writing his letters. The context in which we live today is obviously a pluralistic world. We live among Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. This is a reality. Therefore, this university project, I believe, can possibly create an appropriate setting for Christian leaders to think and develop a more responsible theology. If we do not do Christian theology within the interreligious context, our theology will be very likely exclusive, irresponsible, arrogant, and irrelevant.

These are three random reasons I agree with and support fully this University Project. I believe that CST will be a place where Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc., can have harmonious loving relationships, and the light of this love will shine in the world.

------------------------

[1] For a more detailed discussion on the religious riot in Indonesia, especially in Ambon, see Birgit Bräuchler, “Islamic Radicalism Online: The Moluccan Mission of the Laskar Jihad in Cyberspace,” Australian Journal of Anthropology 15, no. 3 (December 2004): 267-285.; H. L. Sapulete, “Some Thoughts on the Riots in the Moluccas.,” Asia Journal of Theology 16, no. 1 (April 2002): 17.; Patricia Spyer, “Blind Faith: Painting Christianity in Postconflict Ambon,” Social Text 26, no. 3 (Fall2008 2008): 11-37.; John Thayer Sidel, Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious Violence in Indonesia (Singapore: NUS Press, 2007).

[2] Gerry van Klinken, “The Maluku Wars: 'Communal Contenders' in a Failing State,” in Violent conflicts in Indonesia, ed. Charles A. Coppel, Routledge Contemporary Southeast Asia Series (Abingdon, OX: Routledge, 2006), 132. Cf. Sherly Turnip and Edvard Hauff, “Household Roles, Poverty and Psychological Distress in Internally Displaced Persons Affected by Violent Conflicts in Indonesia,” Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology 42, no. 12 (December 2007): 997-1004.

Stephen Hawking on God - Religion will Lose

2010-06-07T22:01:00.000-07:00

Diane Sawyer from ABC News today reports a really striking statement from a world leading theoretical cosmologist and physicist, Stephen Hawking, on religion and science. Hawking's statement is worth quoting in full:

What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God,... They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible... There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works. (emphasis is mine)

See the complete report here. What do you think about this?

Jesus the Jew - But What Sort of Jew? (John P. Meier)

2010-06-05T09:36:00.000-07:00

This is a very good lecture on the historical Jesus. John Paul Meier is a Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. He attended St. Joseph's Seminary and College (B.A., 1964), Gregorian University [Rome] (S.T.L, 1968), and the Biblical Institute [Rome] (S.S.D., 1976). Meier is the author of nine books and more than 60 scholarly articles. He was editor of The Catholic Biblical Quarterly and president of the Catholic Biblical Association. Meier is Professor of New Testament in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Before coming to Notre Dame, he was Professor at The Catholic University of America. (Source: Wikipedia)

Does God Suffer?

2010-06-05T08:31:00.000-07:00

This blog post is based on Thomas G. Weinandy's book Does God Suffer?, chapter 1, 7 and 8. I find this book very intriguing because it stands for a very traditional view of God in spite of modern theological trend that demands for a suffering God.

The God Who Suffers

In this chapter Thomas G. Weinandy attempts as objectively as possible to describe the development of the idea of the suffering God. The general mood in modern theological discussion is to reject the concept of the impassibility of God. This new understanding of God, according to D.D. Williams, should be seen as a “structural shift within theology” (p. 1). Why does this extreme theological shift take place now? Weinandy argues for three main reasons: 1) contemporary social and cultural conditions, 2) biblical understanding of God, and 3) contemporary philosophy.

1) Social and Cultural Condition.
The idea of the suffering God does not emerge from an academic or merely speculative theological setting. It came out of a terrible suffering in the world from World War I to the present. The key event that turned out to be “the interpretative experience” for this theological enterprise is Auschwitz. Regarding Auschwitz, Weinandy says, “No other event has so impacted the contemporary conception of God, especially concerning his possibility” (p. 3). In light of this horrible experience of Jewish people, Jürgen Moltmann argues that “to speak here of a God who could not suffer would make God a demon.” (p. 4) Moltmann demands a radical change in our understanding of God.

Not only Moltmann and other European theologians, but Asian theologians also struggled with the very idea of a loving God and the suffering world. Kazoh Kitamori, a Japanese theologian, also wrote his well-known book, Theology of the Pain of God, in which he argues that “only a God who suffers can theologically ground and make sense of the immense pain and suffering within the contemporary world.” (p. 4) J.Y. Lee from North Korea also argues that “the concept of divine suffering is not only the core of our faith but the uniqueness of Christianity” (p. 5). This growing demand for a suffering God is mainly based on the problem of evil, or theodicy. “How can an all-powerful and invulnerable God, is the creator and ruler of the world be justified in the face of the enormity of human suffering?” (p. 6)

2) Biblical Notion of God.
Weinandy traces biblical texts that confirm a modern demand of a more personal and passible God. In the Old Testament, God is a “living personal God who acted in time and history, and thus who can be experienced by human beings.” God suffers when he sees the suffering of his people (Ex. 2:23-25; 3:7-8). He enters into a covenant relationship with human beings. God shows an emotional quality by grieving over the sin of humans. Especially in the book of Hosea, the relationship between God and Israel is dramatized by a distressed prophet waiting for his unfaithful wife, Gomer.

A. Herchel’s book, The Prophets, has been very influential in which he argues for God’s pathos. God suffers for the sake of his love for his people. “Love is the foundation of God’s pathos, and thus the foundation of his suffering.” (p. 9) God cannot be a loving God, if he cannot suffer with people that he loves. There is no love without suffering.

Because God’s very nature is love, many authors point out that God’s suffering, and thus his passibility, is not something, that is forced upon him, but something that flows from his willingly assumes out of love. His passibility is something that flows from his willingness to create human beings and to love them even if it means he must suffer with them and because of them. (p. 11)

The logic is quite simple, if God is capable of love and relationship, he has to be able to be moved by emotion and therefore he cannot be impassible.

In the New Testament, God’s Incarnation requires a movable and changeable God. Weinandy discusses three important points related to Incarnation that have been raised by contemporary theologians. Those are: 1) God in himself, 2) Son as man, and 3) relationship between Father and Son. First, the Incarnation takes place in history because God loves the world. “Thus the Incarnation is the supreme paradigm and exemplification of God’s passible pathos towards and empathy with humankind.” (p. 14) The suffering of Christ on the cross should be understood as the chief manifestation of the suffering God. E. Jungle argues that “the cross has destroyed the axiom of absoluteness, the axiom of apathy, and the axiom of immutability, all of which are unsuitable for the Christian concept of God.” (p. 15) Second, when Jesus lived and died on the cross, it is the Son of God sent by God who suffered and died on the cross. He is, therefore, passible. Weinandy explains, “…if the son of God did actually become man then it would seem, by necessity, that the Son suffered not only in his humanity but in his divinity as well.” (p. 15) Third, the relationship between the Father and the Son is revealed in the suffering Christ. The experience of Christ’s suffering on the cross is the experience of both the Father and the Son. “On the cross then it is not only the Son who suffers the loss of the Father, it is equally the Father suffering the loss of the Son.” (p. 17)

3) From the God of the Greeks to the God of Process
Weinandy observes that many contemporary theologians have accused traditional theology of having been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. “The static, self sufficient, immutable, and impassible God of platonic thought hijacked, via Philo and the early church fathers, the living, personal, active, and passible God” (p. 19). The church fathers and early Christians had “uncritically” accepted and assimilated the notion of God from pagan Greek Platonic philosophy. “The cancer was transmitted to the Scholastics and thus deformed the whole body of Christian Theology” (p. 20). Thomas Aquinas’ idea of God as pure act (actus purus) becomes the philosophical foundation for the impassibility of God.

If the classical platonic philosophy maintains the impassibility and static view of God, process philosophy “champions a much more dynamic view of reality and of God within it.” Whiteheadian notion of prehension (both physical and mental prehensions) make everything in the universe as interrelated to one another. God is not an exception. Whitehead states, “God is not to be treated as an exception to all metaphysical principles, invoked to save their collapse. He is their chief exemplification.” (p. 23). This leads to process panentheistic theology, that God contains the world. He is not ontologically separated from the world. Therefore, God is “the greatest companion – the fellow sufferer who understands” (p. 25).

God’s Love and Human Suffering

The reality of suffering in the world, for Weinandy, should be understood in light of evil and sin. There is a direct correlation between them. When God created the world, since he is ontologically good, everything that he created is good. This is what makes Christianity different from platonic thought. “There is no ontological principle inherent within created order which is the cause of evil. Ontologically, the whole of created order is entirely good.” (p. 148) This ontological goodness that God gives to the created world includes the freedom to choose. Freedom is necessary for the sake of love because “love is only love if it is freely given.” However, humankind has misused this freedom to rebel against God. Therefore, Weinandy defines sin as “the free misuse of God’s good gifts” (p. 148). Furthermore, the source of suffering in the world is sin. It is sin “which has brought evil of suffering into the world.” There are some results of sin. 1) The moral (not ontological) relationship between God and human beings is broken. 2) The relationship among human beings has been devastated by sin. 3) Sin affects the world (the cosmos) in which human beings live. 4) Sin also has ruined human beings themselves. Weinandy concludes,

Because God created everything good, the nature of everything, along with its ability to act in accordance with what it is, is good…. Human beings are good in their ability to freely perfect themselves physically, intellectually, and morally is good. Evil then, founded upon reality of sin, is by necessity a privation of good – of some good given to it by God as creator. Evil, while a reality, is not something then that exists in itself (as within the philosophical ontological dualism), but is always attached to some good as the corruption of that good. (p. 151-2)

Now, in light of this discussion, is it possible for God to suffer? Weinandy definitely answers no to the question. Evil and suffering is always a corruption of good. If God is ontologically good and there is no evil in him, how can it be possible for him to suffer? There are some reasons for this. First, God and human beings are ontologically separated or distinct. If God is the creator of the world and of human beings, he cannot be in the same ontological order with human beings. Since God is good, everything that he created must be good. Weinandy therefore argues, “To be is to be good, for existence itself is good… Thus, evil, for it to exist, must be caused by sin, a free misuse of what is good, and so evil is a deprivation of good. It is this deprivation that causes suffering.” (p. 153) Demanding God to suffer is actually placing him in the same ontological order with the world. If God is in the same ontological order with human beings, then he is actually no longer the creator. It is metaphysically impossible for God to be a creator if he is part of the creation. At this point, Weinandy has a very strong criticism of process theology (see footnote 19 in p. 156 & graphic). Process theology, while God sounds relational and loving, has led to a pointless unending process. The process, in process theology, will never find its ultimate goal or end because there is no ontological ground for “good” and God cannot do anything about it. Second, God’s perfection will not allow him to suffer. Weinandy argues, “Because evil, due to the reality of sin, is a privation of some good or perfection which in turn causes suffering, God as pure act, and thus pure goodness itself in act, can never be deprived of a good or perfection which would cause him to suffer” (p. 157). This is true also in the Trinitarian relationship within God. If the trinity is infected by sin, and therefore suffers, it will surely affect their eternal pure loving relationship. “They would no longer be subsistent relations fully in act possessing fully actualized love and goodness, but would now be in potency to obtaining or re-obtaining the good they did not possess.” (p. 158) This concept should be understood within the philosophical framework of God as pure act (actus purus), and therefore there should not be potentiality in him. Weinandy strongly criticizes, “While a suffering God may have some intellectual and emotional appeal (often more emotional than intellectual), such an understanding of God is philosophically and theologically disastrous in its consequences.

How do we understand the concept of God’s love or the God of love without suffering? Weinandy argues that we can still have a perfect and pure God of love without suffering. Why do people need love? Love is needed because we lack it. In this sinful world where everything has been depraved from the ultimate good, love is expressed in the context of suffering. When we love, we want our loved ones to have the fullness of good. When they suffer, we express our love by suffering with them. Our suffering is not for the sake of suffering alone, we fight and strive to take our loved ones out the evil that has caused them to suffer.

Suffering is not a good in itself, but rather an evil. It is not a good in itself for suffering is always caused by the absence of some good, and suffering love is always caused by the absence of some good that the one we love (even if the one we love is ourselves) should possess – health, justice, etc. Suffering then, as evil, is never sought for its own sake, and if it is, it is rightly seen as aberration. Suffering is an evil even when attached to the good of love, for love rightly cries out in suffering at the absence or loss of some good, and seeks, if possible to restore it. The reason human beings willingly suffer is for the good of love and so the suffering entailed in love is seen as good, but it is precisely the love that is good and not the suffering itself. (p. 160)

What do human beings look for? Love or suffering? Saying that God has to suffer is to say that he should lose some good. But what is the point of losing that good? He will only suffer for the sake of suffering? His love then will demand others to fill the emptiness of goodness in his part. If God possess a fullness of love and good, and therefore he does not suffer, He will freely love others without asking them to fill his need of love/good. It is no longer a self-centered or self-seeking love.

Weinandy then relates this concept of the God of love and God as pure act. “God ‘is’ love because God’s love, as reciprocally expressed within the Trinity, is fully in act” (p. 161). If this premise is true, then God will be able to freely actualize love in any situation or circumstance. All facets of love (goodness, commitment, affection, forgiveness, joy, kindness, generosity, strength, courage, power, passion, etc.) are fully actualized in God. However, can suffering become part of the multi-faceted love of God? He answers, “I’m reluctant to say ‘yes’ since ‘suffering’ when applied to God has traditionally meant, especially now within the contemporary theological context… that God undergoes some passible change of state and that, as consequence, he experiences some inner emotional distress or anguish” (p. 168).

The Incarnation – The Impassible Suffers

This chapter basically discusses the importance of Incarnation and how it is related to the suffering of the Son of God. The key concept is that “the Son of God does indeed suffer as man” (p. 173). In order to understand this concept, Weinandy does a short historical analysis of the development of the so-called “communication idioms” (Latin: communicatio idiomatum), such as “the Son of God is born of Mary” or “God suffered and died on the cross.” God in his very essence cannot be born and suffer, but it is precisely Incarnation that makes this odd reality possible. Many heretics in the church history have tried to make sense of these communication idioms. Docetism, on one hand, tries to preserve the divinity from the weakness of human beings by denying his humanity. Arius, on the other hand, attempts to make sense of the weakness of Jesus by rejecting his divinity. Nestorius thinks that these two natures cannot be united. They must be independent from one another so that the divine nature can be fully God and the human nature can be fully man. They are trying hard to make sense of this communicatio idiomatum so that three main truths in the Incarnation can be understood. “It is truly the Son of God who truly is man and so suffers truly as man.” (p. 175) According to Weinandy, this is the primary “test of Christological orthodoxy.” Athanasius had successfully defended the first truth, the divinity of God, against Arianism. Ignatius of Antioch also had successfully advocated the second truth, the humanity of Christ, against Docestists and Apolinarius.

What about the third truth? Nestorius (and the Antiochenes) has tried to answer this by maintaining the full divinity and full humanity of Christ. For Nestorius, we should not see Incarnation as we see a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. God does not change and become man. These two natures cannot be mixed because if they are united, then Christ will no longer be God nor man. So, Nestorius basically argues that in order to maintain the integrity or the fullness of human nature and divine nature (physis), they have to be exclusively independent. However, they are so close that they produce one “common appearance.” (p. 179) There are two distinct substances (ousia) but they are one in their appearance (prosopon). “It is this common appearance that is called Christ… It was merely the phenomenological interplay between the divine and the human qualities due to the close relationship between the two natures.” (p. 179) It is like someone seeing a bright star in the sky, but he doesn’t realize that what he is seeing is actually two stars joined together in their appearance. Nestorius also sees this as Christological perichoresis of divine and human natures in Christ. Weinandy calls this idea as “phenomenological Monophysite.” (p. 180, n. 12)

Weinandy argues that the best way to explain the communication of idioms is the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril’s Christology has been misunderstood by many scholars, including Nestorius, his greatest opponent. This misunderstanding is due to the soul-body model (parts that combine becomes one) that many Christian thinkers have used to understand Incarnation, and they think that Cyril is using this model to explain the relationship between humanity and divinity of Christ. The soul-body model is the source of a lot of confusion in Christianity. This “false” model has been employed by Monophysite (third nature), Apolinarius (human body, logos mind), Cappadocian fathers (e.g. Gregory Nissa – “a drop of vinegar in the sea of the divinity”), Luther (one existential reality of the God-Man), Calvin (humanity and divinity are united in one reality as body-soul --> relationship), Morris and Swinburne (two mind or divided mind) etc. After dealing with these thinkers one by one and showing the weakness of their positions, Weinandy states, “However one uses the soul-body as a model for Incarnation it is completely inadequate, misleading, and even false, and equally then for properly interpreting the communication of idioms” (p. 189).

Cyril uses a whole different model. Weinandy calls it “personal/existential conception.” The key concept to understanding Cyril is the mia physis (one nature) formula. Weinandy explains,

…by mia physis Cyril is not saying that Christ is one nature or essence (physis) in a sense of quiddity, as if the divine nature and the human nature were ontologically united, through mixture and confusion, so as to form a common third nature (quiddity) which would be neither fully divine nor fully human…. Rather, Cyril primary used mia physis to emphasize that Christ is one being or reality – one entity. (p. 192)

Christ is one entity. The unity in Cyril’s Christology is not a combination of two different parts (humanity and divinity). Cyril argues that in the Incarnation the Son of God became human. He took human nature to himself. The son of God exists in a different mode of existence. It is human existence. “The subject (the who) of the mia physis (of the one entity) is the Word. The manner or mode of the Word’s existence as mia physis (as one entity) is as man.” (p. 196)

There are three aspects that Cyril has helped us to understand the mystery of Christology. First, Cyril makes a distinction between person (the who - subject) and person’s nature (the manner of existence). The Son of God, who existed eternally with the Father, in the Incarnation, now exists as man. Second, Incarnation does not mean that the two natures change or mix. The Logos takes on a new mode of existence as a man. Change takes place not in the existence of Logos, but the mode of existence. It is newness in the mode (or manner) of existence, and not newness within existence. “The son now newly exists as man.” (p. 197) Third, because “Jesus is the person of the Son existing as a man,” then he can be truly God who exists as truly man.

It is interesting to note here also that the council of Chalcedon (451 CE) had largely follow the ideas of Cyril of Alexandria. Statements such as “the Son made know in (and not ‘out of’) two natures” or “one and the same…” (five times) or “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” are all echoes of Cyril’s Christology. The series of “without’s” in Cyril’s theology are not understood only in a negative way. They have a positive side as well. The natures of Christ are not to be confused or changed because Incarnation is not “compositional union of natures.” (p. 198) Again, it is not compositional union (like soul and body). “The Incarnation act, the ‘becoming’… is the person of the Son uniting to himself a human nature so as to exist personally as man.” (p. 198) They are without division and without separation because they find the unity in the one person of the Son.

What about the suffering of Christ? Since it is the Son of God who takes this new mode of existence to himself, then “the person of the Son of God is truly born, grieves, suffers, and dies, not as God, but as man for that is now the new manner in which the Son of God actually exists” (p. 200) However, the problem is that Cyril does not allow the Son of God to directly experience human experience. The experiences of birth, grieving, suffering, and dearth are through mediation of the human mode of existence. If the Son of God experiences the suffering of man in his divinity, then he will be no longer the impassible God. But by his impassibility, it makes sure that when Christ suffers as man, it is God who suffers in his impassibility and wholly otherness. Moreover, the reality of the suffering of Christ as man shows that God experiences what humans experience as man and not as God. If the Word experiences human suffering as God, then he cannot authentically or genuinely experience the suffering of human beings. It has to be done in the human mode or human way in order for God to fully experience what human beings experience. Everything that the Son of God experience in the Incarnation, he experiences as man (See “Dr. Weinandy’s carrot example”).

There are three things that Weinandy adds to Cyril Christology. First, in the Incarnation, since the Son exists as actus purus, according to Aquinas, the Son does not need any mediation to take humanity to himself. Weinandy also takes Aquinas’ concept that the Son exists as esse personale and its relationship to human nature.

The Son precisely as he exists divinely as Son, is the exclusive experiencing and active subject within humanity. Thus because the humanity is united to the very esse personale of the Son so as to allow the Son to exist as an authentic man, it can be said in truth that the Son, at the very heart of what defines him as Son – his own distinctive divine esse personale – was born, rejoiced, grieved, suffered, and died.” (p. 208)

Second, even though the subject (the who) of the Incarnation is the Son, Weinandy argues that Jesus still has human “I” (subjectivity or consciousness). Jesus does not have two “I’s” (divine and human). His divine “I” is one and the same “I” as his human “I” (p. 210). Third, the Son of God came to take not a “generic humanity,” but “our own sinful humanity.” In the Incarnation, the person of God lived in a sinful fallen world and experienced every evil and suffering that humans experience. “The Son did not quarantine himself from our sinful and suffering plight, but instead immersed himself within it.” (p. 212)

The James Ossuary

2010-06-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

The publication of the James ossuary has been a great controversial issue in the last decade. In their collaborative book, Jonathan Reed and John Dominic Crossan classify “the top ten discoveries to excavating Jesus.”[1] Interestingly, they put James Ossuary on the top of the list.[2] I think it is appropriate because there are no other archaeological discoveries that trigger more controversy than the James Ossuary. The James Ossuary, if it is genuine, is the closest artifact to the historical Jesus. What is this so-called James Ossuary? Why does it create so many problems? What should we do about it? In this short essay, I will try to argue that an unprovenanced artifact like the James Ossuary, no matter how spectacular it is, should not be taken as a serious archaeological discovery.

What is an ossuary? In modern time we do not see this small box in burial customs in many cultures. Jewish people in the ancient world, especially Greco-Roman period, would put a corpse on a cave with a rolling stone that sealed it. After a year or so the flesh of the corpse decomposed, they would take the bones and put them in the small box called ossuary.[3] Eric M. Meyers did extensive research on burial customs among Jewish people in antiquity, and he found that the ossuary practice had existed in Palestine as far back as sixth century BCE.[4] In the time of Jesus, this practice of secondary burial was very common in Palestine.

The story of the James Ossuary began in the 1970s. Oded Golan, an artifact collector from Tel Aviv, bought an ossuary from a black market for a couple hundred dollars. Golan said, according to Time Magazine, “I didn’t know that Jesus had a brother.”[5] We do not know the motivation of Golan when he purchased this stone box. If he is a collector, then probably he bought it just for personal enjoyment. Ben Witherington and Hershel Shanks report that when Golan bought it, "the dealer told him that the ossuary had been found in Silwan, an Arab village in Jerusalem just south of the Mount of Olives and in plain view of the nearby Temple Mount."[6] Again, we do not have a clear identity of the dealer and where he got this ossuary. It is interesting to note that Oded Golan himself actually refused to expose his identity.[7] Because the Israeli government has been very strict[8] about the black market and forgeries, probably he did not want to get into trouble with the authorities. So, basically there is no information at all about the origin of this ossuary. This makes the James ossuary very problematic.

After keeping it in his unused toilet for some years,[9] Golan then showed this ossuary to epigraphist André Lemaire of Sorbonne University in April 2002. When Lemaire saw it, “he could hardly believe his eyes.”[10] He then closely examined the ossuary and was convinced that it was original. A month after that, Lemaire showed the ossuary to Hershel Shanks,[11] the editor of a popular magazine Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR). Shanks was also intrigued by the thing that he saw. Lemaire agreed to write an article for the next edition of BAR.[12] In October 21, 2002, Shanks arranged a press conference sponsored by the Biblical Archaeological Society and Discovery channel in Washington, D.C. Shanks presented the ossuary in front of international mass media (CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, NBC, etc.) saying that this is “the first ever archaeological discovery to corroborate biblical references to Jesus.”[13]

Lemaire published the article that he had agreed to write in the Biblical Archeology Review in November 2002, entitled “Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Jesus Found in Jerusalem.”[14] Let us examine the arguments that Lemaire tried to build in this article to prove the authenticity of the James ossuary. In the first part, Lemaire basically explains in general what an ossuary is, its history, its size, etc. In the second part, he began to build a case for the authenticity of the James ossuary. There are two main arguments. First, the cursive writing style in the inscription (עושי ד יוחא ףסוי רב בוקעי - Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua) should be dated to the first century.[15] We need to remember that Lemaire is a professional paleographer by training and experience. He is, therefore, used to examining and interpreting ancient inscriptions. Based on his expertise, he says, “… the cursive shape of three of the letters (dalet, yod, and aleph) indicates an even narrower span of time; the last decades before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. – the exact period when James, the brother of Jesus, would have died.”[16] Second, if this ossuary is dated to the first century, how can we make sure that it is really the brother of Jesus in the New Testament? The name James was a very common name in Jerusalem. Lemaire did a short statistical approximation analysis to the combinations of the names James, Joseph, and Jesus.[17] He said that the estimated population in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was more or less 80,000 people. That means the male population was about 40.000, or half the total population. Lemaire argues that if the combination of James, Joseph and Jesus is only about 0.05% of the population, then the possibility of the number of persons who had the combination of these three names in their family is only around 20. From these 20 persons, according to Lemaire, we will not be able to trace who among them would be buried in an ossuary. However, Lemaire states,

Does the fact that the inscription on this ossuary mentions not only the father of the person whose bones are enclosed but also the brother help us in our identification? It is common to mention the father in this context, but to mention the brother is very unusual, although it does happen (we have only one example in Aramaic, in a similar formula). The mention of the brother probably means that the brother had a particular role, either in taking responsibility for the burial, or more generally because the brother was known, and the deceased had a special connection with him.[18]

Lemaire then concludes that this must be James the brother of Jesus in the New Testament. He argues, “If so, this would also mean that we have here the first epigraphic mention – from about 63 C.E. – of Jesus of Nazareth.”[19]

In November 2002, the ossuary was shipped to Toronto, Canada, for a short exhibition at the Royal Ontario Museum.[20] Since at that time Society of Biblical Literature was having their annual meeting as well, it was the first time this artifact was introduced to scholars. We need to remember that Shanks and Lemaire only published for the popular audience. Eric M. Meyers, a world leading archaeologist, was one of many scholars who saw the ossuary for the first time in Toronto. After Meyers took a closer look to the ossuary, he stated frankly, “To say at least, I have a bad feeling about the matter.”[21] When the ossuary was brought back to Israel in February 2003, Israel Antiquities Authority appointed a special team to examine and investigate the ossuary. On June 18, 2003, IAA announced the result of the investigation. They basically concluded that the ossuary itself is original, but the inscription is not.[22] This report obviously confirmed Meyers’ bad feeling.

There are some important reasons IAA committees[23] concluded that the inscription is not authentic. First, Esther Eshel of the Bar-Ilan University believes, after a close examination of the ossuary, that the inscription shows “variations in handwriting, thickness, and depth.”[24] She observes that the first phrase יעקוב בר יוסף is different in writing style from the second one, אחוי ד ישוע. Eshel argues,

The first part is written in the formal style of a scribe and the second part is cursive… In summary, the different handwritings of the two parts indicate that the inscription is not authentic, although the original ossuary may possibly have contained the first part of the inscription, and the second part was added later. Based on the depth of the letter, I am uncertain of even this possibility, and it seems more likely to me that the forger wrote the inscription in two stages. [25]

Second, Avner Ayalon did a special study of the patina in the laboratory on the inscription of the ossuary. He specifically defines patina as “an outer surface of worn, coated material, resulting from dissolution of the rock by water seepage through soil and rock and reprecipitation.”[26] Ayalon did a double test of the patina on surface of the ossuary (surface patina) and in the letters (letters patina). Furthermore, the result of this chemical study was compared with the original ossuaries in the Rockefeller Museum. He took eight samples from different areas on the surface of the ossuary, and the result is that their oxygen isotope values fit to the normal range (-4 to -6 0/00). However, the he found that the only word in the inscription that shows a value within the expected range is ישוע.[27] Therefore, the examination of patina shows that the ossuary itself is original, but the inscription is very likely a fake. In the final report published by IAA’s website, Uzi Dahari, the committee coordinator, wrote, “We, members of the committee for the examination of the content and script in… the James Ossuary… conclude that to the best of our scientific judgment… the James Ossuary inscription is a forgery.”[28]

Based on this report, in July 23, 2003, Oded Golan was arrested and put on trial for forging antiquities. His trial has been going on for several years and the court has not come to a final decision. It seems like both sides (pros and cons) have strong evidence to support their arguments. Let me briefly give some of my personal opinions about this phenomenon of the James ossuary.

First, from the very beginning of the process of discovering and publishing about this ossuary, I think something strange and unnatural was going on. Why did Golan not want to expose his name? If he believes it was authentic and he did nothing wrong, he shouldn’t be afraid to let the public know. By hiding himself Golan actually was showing that he did not want to be responsible for this ossuary. Second, as I have stated above, Lemaire and Shanks should not have published it to the public before confirming their judgment with other scholars. They could have published in the more scholarly journals and asked other scholars to give their judgments too. If they had had the scholarly consensus on the subject, it will be probably less problematic. However, I think Lemaire and Shanks did not want to waste their time and let the public know about this. The process of inviting the scholarly community would take more time. Lemaire knew about the ossuary in April 2002 and only within a relatively short time, in October they had a press conference in Washington D.C., and the publication of BAR in November the same year. We do not have any idea why Lemaire and Shanks were so hasty. I think that the publication was very premature. Third, regarding the ossuary itself, I strongly agree with what professional scholars, such as Jonathan Reed, Eric Meyers, etc., have said about the unprovenanced artifacts. All archaeological finds have to be examined and interpreted within proper context (in situ). Without that, the meaning of an artifact is very slippery. Anybody can come up with anything they want to say about it because there is no clear context to govern a responsible interpretation of it. I think no matter how remarkable an artifact is or how close it is to the Bible, if it is from the black market, we should never take it as a serious discovery. The motive behind black market trading of ancient artifacts is primarily money, not the truth. Reed states:

By placing an intrinsic value on an isolated artifact like the James ossuary (and a high cash value – it was insured and offered for sale for $2 million!), demand is created by the black market, so that looters try to find more ossuary for sale, with forgers adding inscriptions… The problem is so serious that many archaeologists and all professional archaeological societies refuse to publish or analyze unprovenanced artifacts from private collections, since that implies an endorsement that also enhances the object’s value (and encourages more looting).[29]

I think Reed is right. We have to learn from this experience with the James ossuary. Two million dollars is a lot of money that can be used to fund many archaeological excavations rather than purchasing a problematic artifact. The James ossuary might be able create an excitement for some people, but it is not worth $2 millions. The result of the responsible archaeological excavations is a lot more useful to expand human knowledge of the past than the James ossuary.

In conclusion, I need to give a word of caution to people who are interested in looking for ancient artifacts to confirm their theological or religious beliefs. Everybody wants to know whether their religious beliefs are true or not. This is very natural. However, since black market antiques traders can use this opportunity to make a lot of money, we have to be really careful and critical. Adding one or two words in an inscription can increase the value of an artifact from just a couple hundred dollars to millions dollars. As Reed has pointed out in his essay, and I think he is right, no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus.[30] The James ossuary actually does not prove anything.

--------------------------------

Notes:

[1] Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus, 1-14.

[2] Ibid., 2

[3] For further discussion, see Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries (Waco, Tex. USA: Baylor University Press, 2003), 17-29. Evans says that this practice is radically different from the burial practice among other people in wider Greco-Roman world who usually burn the corpses (cremation). To the question of why there are so many ossuary found in the Herodian period, Evans has a very interesting hypothesis. He said that it must have something to do with the Herod’s massive building project, especially the temple. After the project was completed, according to Evans, many people were unemployed and they used their skill to craft limestone to produce ossuaries. He says, “The number of ossuaries, made of limestone, increased dramatically during the one century of temple-related building in Jerusalem, not because of a shift in theology, or foreign influence, but because of great number of stone-cutters, quarries, and rejected blocks of limestone.” (see p. 29). Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices, and Rites in the Second Temple Period, Supplements to the Journal for the study of Judaism v. 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 355-374.

[4] Eric M. Meyers, “Secondary burials in Palestine,” Biblical Archaeologist 33, no. 1 (February 1, 1970): 2-29.

[5] David Van Biema, “The Brother of Jesus?,” Time, October 27, 2002, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101021104-384797,00.html.

[6] Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington, The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 80.

[7] Biema, “The Brother of Jesus?.”

[8] Israel Antiquities Authority plays a very important role in controlling all excavation and trading of ancient artifacts in Israel. For further information about IAA and its work to control all the excavations in Israel, one can easily access their website at http://www.antiquities.org.il See also Michele A. Miller, “Introduction to Feature Section: Looting and the Antiquities Market,” Athena Review 4, no. 4 (2007): 18-26.

[9] Bob Simon, “The Stone Box And Jesus' Brother's Bones,” CBS News, October 27, 2002, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/20/60minutes/main3954980.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody. It is interesting to note here that Shanks and Witherington said that it was actually Israeli police who came to arrest Golan that put the ossuary on a toilet, not Golan. See Shanks and Witherington, The Brother of Jesus, xi.

[10] James D. Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 16.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Eric Cline thinks that what Lemaire did was very unusual. For him, Lemaire actually should publish it first in a peer-reviewed journal, and not popular magazine like BAR. I think Cline is right here. Lemaire had to show it to scholars first so that they can together examine this incredible discovery. Probably Lemaire thinks that it would take too much time for this remarkable ossuary to be exposed to public if it had to go through the hand of experts fist. It seems like he wanted to be the first person who introduced this finding to public. See Eric H. Cline, Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press US, 2009), 119

[13] Hershel Shanks, quoted in Karen D. Vitelli and Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh, eds., Archaeological Ethics, 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Altamira Press, 2006)., 50. See also Neil Asher Silberman and Yuval Goren, “Faking Biblical History,” Archaeology Magazine, October 2003, http://www.archaeology.org/0309/abstracts/ossuary.html.; Jeordan Legon, “Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus?,” CNN, October 22, 2002, http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/.;

[14] The hard copy of this article is still not available at CST library. However, Biblical Archaeological Review has posted this article online. So, I will base my discussion here on the online version of it. See André Lemaire, “Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Jesus found in Jerusalem,” Biblical Archeology Review, November 2002, http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=28&Issue=06&ArticleID=01.

[15] Ibid. In 2004, Lemaire wrote a more scholarly article to defend his position that the inscription is original. He presented this article at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. See André Lemaire, “The Ossuary and Inscription are Authentic” (presented at the Cornerstone University's James Ossuary Lecture Series, Cornerstone University, April 22, 2004), http://www.gesustorico.it/webdocs/bswbOOossuary_Lemaire.pdf.

[16] Lemaire, “Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Jesus found in Jerusalem.” In the same issue of BAR, Lemaire also published another article that he entitled, “Epigraphy – and the Lab – Say It’s Genuine.” He basically expanded the argument from epigraphic perspective. He argues an epigrapher should develop a suspicion toward an inscription. He has to ask: “is this genuine or fake?” After that, he needs to answer the question with at least two procedures: 1) examining the object, and 2) examining the inscription itself. The object should be carefully analyzed with magnifying glass that can enlarge it at least 10 times or binocular microscope with 50-100 magnifying power. The inscription should also be studied in detail. Lemaire says, “All this has been done with James ossuary inscription, and I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake.” Not only this, Lemaire also argues that he has taken the ossuary to be checked in a laboratory. In this article, he attached the official statement from the Geological Survey of Israel stating that they have done ESD (Electron Dispersive Spectroscopy) analysis to the patina of the inscription and they conclude that it is authentic. See André Lemaire, “Epigraphy—and the Lab—Say It’s Genuine,” Biblical Archeology Review, November , http://members.bib-arch.org/search.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=28&Issue=06&ArticleID=11&UserID=0&.

[17] He bases his mathematical analysis from two researches done by L.Y. Rahmani and Rachel Hachlili. Rahmani did a research of the names on 233 inscriptions on ossuaries in Jerusalem. According to this research, the name Joseph appears 19 times, Jesus 10 times, and James 5 times. Hachlili’s research is on “all types of incstiptions.” He finds that the name Joseph appears in 14% of all inscriptions, Jesus 9%, and Jacob 2%. So, he said that the combination of Joseph, Jesus and Jacob, would probably only 0.05%. See Lemaire, “Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Jesus found in Jerusalem.”

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] See Thomas S. Bremen, “The Brother of Jesus in Toronto,” in Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus: The James Ossuary Controversy and the Quest for Religious Relics, ed. Ryan Byrne and Bernadette McNary-Zak (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 31-58.

[21] John Noble Wilford, “Experts Question Authenticity of Bone Box for `Brother of Jesus',” The New York Times, December 3, 2002, sec. Science / Social, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/science/social/03JAME.html?pagewanted=1.

[22] John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, 2nd ed., Studies on Personalities of the New Testament (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2004)., xix.

[23] IAA appointed two committees to investigate James ossuary. 1) Writing and content committee is responsible to “investigate whether the material content and language used are compatible with the Hebrew and Aramaic of the designated period.” 2) Materials and patina committee is responsible to “examine the substance of the materials present and perform any and every possible examination, including morphological study of the items.” For further discussion on these two committee, see Uzi Dahari, “Final Report of the Examining Committees for the Yehoash Inscription and James Ossuary” (Israel Antiquities Authority, June 18, 2003), http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=17&sub_subj_id=185.

[24] Esther Eshel, “IAA Committee Report” (Israel Antiquities Authority, June 18, 2003), http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Committees_report.shtml.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Avner Ayalon, “Examination of Authenticity of the James Brother of Jesus Ossuary and Yehoash Inscription” (Israel Antiquities Authority, June 18, 2003), http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Committees_report.shtml.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Dahari, “Final Report of the Examining Committees for the Yehoash Inscription and James Ossuary.”

[29] Jonathan L. Reed, “Overcoming the James Ossuary and the Legacy of Biblical Archaeology,” in Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus: The James Ossuary Controversy and the Quest for Religious Relics, ed. Ryan Byrne and Bernadette McNary-Zak (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 189.

[30] Ibid., 194.

Faith and Hope

2010-05-31T05:34:00.001-07:00

"Without faith's knowledge of Christ, hope becomes a utopia and remains hanging in the air. But without hope, faith falls to pieces, becomes a fainthearted and ultimately a dead faith. It is through faith that man finds the path of true life, but it is only hope that keeps him on that path. Thus it is that faith in Christ gives hope its assurance. Thus it is that hope gives faith in Christ its breadth and leads it into life."

Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 20

Meister Eckhart's Concept of Mystical Union With God

2010-03-31T16:14:00.000-07:00

This is taken from my presentation in "Theology of God in the Age of Globalization" class with Professor Anselm Min at Claremont Graduate University. I found that Meister Eckhart's concept of mystical union with God is extremely fascinating. Therefore I decided to share it here with the readers of this blog. This presentation is based on Reza Shah-Kazemi's book Paths to Transcendence: According to Shankara, Ibn Arabi & Meister Eckhart.

------------------------

Part I: Doctrine of the Transcendent Absolute

Beyond the Notion of God

Just like in other parts of this book, Eckhart also emphasized the apophatic element of our statements about God. Verbal expressions will not be able to fully grasp the deepest nature of the Absolute. He said, “Whatever can be truly put into words must come from within, moved by its inner form: it must not come in from without but out from within. It truly lives in the inmost part of the soul.” (132) A word should be expressed from within the object. If a concept is put into that word, it means that that word “is not realized there”, because “any verbal formulations, however technically accurate they may be, will not truly convey the reality in question; inner realization must come first, and then verbal expression deriving therefrom will effectively convey, if not the thing itself, then at least that aspect of the realization which is communicable.” (132) When people communicate something through words, there must be a full realization of both the speaker and the hearer.

Human understanding of God is limited only to outward expressions of God. Expressions, such as God is good, just, wise, etc., are actually projecting “something of one’s own understanding of these attributes unto that which transcends all such limitative attributions.” (133) It is only our “mental understanding.” So, how do we come to a fuller understanding of the Absolute? Eckhart thinks that “the essential precondition for the highest realization is precisely the absence of any limiting conceptions, for the sake of a state of pure receptivity to the divine influx.” (134) This does not mean that one has to be in a position of “absence” from all ideas or concepts about God. For him, this ignorance is “methodically precipitated on the basis of both clear understanding of the reasons for this spiritual necessity, and of a certain necessary knowledge of fundamental doctrine concerning religion.” (134) Those concepts are only a hindrance to human true knowledge of God through the mystical union.

The basic data that one has about God is only a starting point for the journey towards union. When one moves further and deeper to the next level in this journey, one has to be in a state of “unknowing” or “forgetting”. Kazemi explains, “Union with the source of revelation thus presupposes an emptiness of all conceptions, even those derived from the data of revelation itself.” (135)

From God to Godhead

Furthermore, for Eckhart the threeness of God in the Trinitarian theology should be understood as expressions of Godhead, which is one. For him “anyone who could grasp distinctions without number and quantity, a hundred would be as one. Even if there were a hundred persons in Godhead, a man who could distinguish without number and quantity would perceive them as only one God.” (136) For example, we can see a book in its many different dimensions and manifestation, without number and quality. That book is still one book. There are many expressions but only one essential core of being.

The one essence of God is dwelling inside the “citadel” of the soul. “God never looks in there for one instant, in so far as He exists in modes and in the properties of his Persons.” (136) God is the “solitary one” who is staying quietly behind the wall of the citadel. God is “residing in the innermost essence – the citadel – of soul as well as surpassing the level of Being, the plane presupposed by the modes, properties and names of God.” (136-7) So, Eckhart makes a strong distinction between “God qua Trinity” and “God qua Godhead”. God qua Trinity is the outward expressions of his revelation, and God qua Godhead is the very essence of God hidden beyond those expressions and beings. Godhead transcends God’s persons. The theological statements of God and Godhead, therefore, can be expressed also in an ontological distinction between “being” and “beyond being”. Eckhart states, “God and Godhead are as different as heaven and earth… God becomes and God unbecomes… God works, the Godhead does not work: there is nothing for it to do, there is no activity in it. It never peeped at any work.” (138)

Eckhart further understands divinity in three levels: Persons – Work – Pure absoluteness of free being. Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are the very outward expression of God’s work. Behind the work (en-actment), there is “the pure absoluteness of free being.” Free here is understood as “unconditioned and non-delimited Beyond Being” (140-41).
The relationship between Godhead and other beings is described as creator and creatures. Other beings ground their existence in God qua Godhead. Eckhart argues, “God works beyond being… and He works in non-being, before there was being, God was working: He wrought being where no being was.” (139) He is the source of all beings. “God’s first ‘act’ was to establish being.” In other words, every being finds their being in the Beyond Being. Therefore we cannot say that God “is”, because He is non-being, in a sense that he is beyond being. The exact relationship between Being and Beyond-Being is explained by Eckhart in the analogy of copper. “Being is in Beyond-Being as traces of copper may be in gold, without this meaning that gold in itself loses any of its value in regard to the value of copper; insofar as copper – or Being – stands apart from gold – or Beyond-Being – it is in that very measure devaluated – or relativized.” (140)

Moreover, Eckhart argues that God is only understood as God of creatures. “Before there were creatures, God was not ‘God’.” He never becomes God for himself. He is only God of creatures. Human intellect cannot fully understand, therefore dissatisfied, because God defines himself below the creatures. The human mind can only understand being, and will not be able to grasp or comprehend the Beyond-Being. Because of the limitations of human ability to comprehend God in his pure essence, therefore the language of in explaining God is necessary.

Not only God is nothing in a sense that he is beyond thing, Eckhart also says, “All creatures are pure nothing. I do not say that they are little something, or anything at all, but they are pure nothing.” (141) Since God is the source of all being, if anything exists outside God, it is simply nothing. Eckhart calls it “pure nothing”. So, if something still exists, that means that God is sustaining its existence. Once it departs from God, it becomes nothing. In this sense we can understand God’s immanence and transcendence. God is imminent within all beings, and at the same time he transcends them.

Part II: The Spiritual Ascent

Virtue and Transcendence

For Eckhart, God will work only within a perfect soul or good man. Why? It is because those who are not disciplined in their lives are “entirely remote from and totally ignorant of this birth.” This natural virtue will enhance the realization of the divine union. It is “the prerequisite for union”. Later, after the experience of union with the source of ultimate virtue, a person will be raised to “an even higher degree of perfection.”

Furthermore, a pure motive is also related to the virtuous life. It seems like a man will be in the middle of two poles.

Outward objects <------------------- MAN -------------------> GOD

Eckhart says, “For the greater delight in outward things the harder it is to leave them, the stronger the love, the sharper the pain.” (143) The pain in the process of unification with God takes place because of man’s desire of other things outside himself. Eckhart moved further by saying that even self-interest is a hindrance to the union.

God cannot be treated as the means to some individualistically conceived end; this would be to love God as one would a cow, ‘for her milk and her cheese and your own profit.’ God himself must be the intention of all actions and orientations, inward and outward, not just because true love excludes all selfish motivation, but also for the metaphysical reason that everything other than God is, as noted above, nothing. (143)

God should be the main focus of one’s life. Everything outside that man searches and desires for is actually nothing because outside God everything is nothing. Eckhart states:

Remember, if you seek anything of your own, you will never find God, for you are not seeking God alone. You are looking for something with God, treating God like a candle with which to look for something; and when you have found what you are looking for, you throw the candle away... Whatever you look for with God is nothing. (143)

When one gives up everything for God, he will experience the so-called “transferral of merit.” Giving up things for God, which is the source of every being, one will have everything with God. “When you have God, you have all things with God.” (145) He also says, “He who seeks God alone, in truth finds God but he does not find God alone – for all that God can give, that he finds with God.” (145) Again, God should be at the center of one’s focus of life.

Eckhart, moreover, tied this act of detachment to the concept of pure love. He argues, “In the love that a man gives, there is no duality, but one and unity, and in love I am God more than I am in myself.” The end goal of this love is a unification of a human soul and God. “This totally detached love transforms the lover into the Beloved: the particular is universalized by its love of – and union with – the universal.” (146) Again, these good works have to be understood as the good disposition for the union or birth to take place. “Good works will thus be useful to a man insofar as they create the readiness for union and likeness, work and time being of use only to enable man to work himself out.” In other words, it is not the end to itself. It should lead a man to a deeper experience of union with the Beyond-Being. “The raison d'être [reason for being] of good works is… union.” (147)

This notion of self-denial or detachment is related also with Eckhart’s understanding of prayer. As a scholar who came from a Dominican order, we should know that Eckhart placed a very strong emphasis on contemplative prayer. According to Kazemi, his understanding of prayer is “highly unconventional”. The key to understanding his teaching is his identification of being spiritual as being universal. “The more spiritual a thing is the more inclusive and thus universal it becomes: [A]ll spiritual things are raised above material: the higher they are raised, the more they expand and embrace material things.” (150) Spiritual is more real than physical things. Eckhart, furthermore, says:

When I pray for aught, my prayer goes for naught: when I pray for naught, I pray as I ought. When I am united with That wherein all things are existent, whether past, present, or future, they are all equally near and equally one; they are all in God and all in me. Then there is no need to think of Henry or Conrad. If one prays for aught but God alone, that can be called idolatry or unrighteousness… if I pray for someone I pray at my weakest. When I pray for nobody and for nothing, then I am praying most truly, for in God neither Henry nor Conrad. (150)

This means that a true prayer will not ask for anything. It is a prayer for nothing. When one prays for something outside God, one actually prays for “evil” because anything outside the ultimate being is evil. He says, “Whoever prays for this or that, prays for something evil and in evil wise, for he prays for the denial of good and denial of God, he prays for God to deny Himself to him.” (151) That means that when one prays for evil he is actually asking God to deny Himself for the sake of his prayer. He also says, “… whoever prays wants God to grant him something, or else wants God to take something from him. But a detached heart desires nothing at all, nor has it anything to get rid of. Therefore it is free of all prayer, and its prayer consists of nothing but being uniform with God” (151). The main emphasis here is a total detachment, in prayer, for anything outside the soul.

In conclusion, detachment is needed to achieve union with God. Kazemi says, “The principal value of detachment and its concomitant virtues is derived from the extent to which it enhances receptivity to the Birth of the Word in the soul, or union with the Godhead which this Birth implies” (152).

Unitive Concentration, Raptus, and the Birth

Man has to do his/her part in this process of unification, which is a complete detachment. God is not passive waiting for man. He bestows his grace to reach human souls. Kazemi explains, “…it could be said that the pure emptiness which spiritual detachment effects is the inner receptivity to the influx of grace; God continuously seeking the creature, who for his part, is unreceptive to God by reason of his preoccupation with – hence fullness of – himself and the world.”(152) Beside detaching one’s life from outside world, one has to work hard also to be open to the grace. So, at least we can see here that both parties do something in order to attain the union.

In this process of Birth, Eckhart takes the scriptural principle that “no one knows the Father but son” (Matthew 11:27). He argues that in order to know God, one has to not only like the Son, he has to be the Son himself. The union is understood as the process of the birth of the Word, which is the Son, in one’s soul. In this union, human nature is lifted to the level of divine.

God took on human nature and united it with His own Person. Then Human nature became God, for He put on bare human nature and not any man. Therefore, if you want to be the same Christ and God, go out of all that which is the eternal Word did not assume… then you will be the same to the eternal Word as human nature is to Him. For between you human nature and His there is no difference: it is one, for it is in Christ what it is in you. (153)

This Christological understanding is the key to the concept of Birth or union. Just as the humanity of Christ is united with divinity and becomes God, our human nature also has the potential to be God too. “It is clear that Eckhart is here stressing the necessity of the divinization of the human and not humanization of the Divine: The lower must extinguish itself in the face of the higher and only then be reabsorbed by it.” (153) If we are all like Christ, an important question needs to be addressed: “why then do we praise and magnify Christ as our Lord and our God?” Eckhart answered that Jesus came to remind us, human beings, about “the blessedness within them, a blessedness derived from God, in the first instance, inasmuch as each human soul is made in the image of God – that is, in essence, each soul is born as the Son, and thus with all the blessedness of the son; a blessedness which is clouded, only, and not abolished by the Fall.” (155).

Regarding unitive concentration, it is just the same concept in principle with the detachment that we have discussed above. However, the emphasis on this unitive of concentration is on being ignorant or unknowing, which is “a complete stripping away of all contents of thought.” Everything must be emptied from one’s mind. In order to attain union, one must not think about any image or concept or picture. There should be a complete stillness or silence of mind. “All images, insofar as they are received from without, must be firmly excluded. Even the image of Christ is held to be a hindrance to the highest realization.”(156) Sermons will not help either. It is a complete stillness. Soul, according to Eckhart, works in two ways: higher and lower. The lower part of soul is intellect, anger, desire, and senses. It is related to capturing images from outward. But, the higher work of soul looks inside her and transcends the lower one to reach the “essence of soul”. Both of them must be in total silence or ignorant.

Now, the next stage is the so called raptus, gezucket or “enstasy”. Kazemi prefers the term “enstasy” rather than “ecstasy” because the experience is not outside of one’s self, but within or inside. The scriptural example of this experience of enstasy, or the highest status of the union, is found in the testimony of Paul’s raptus in his second letter to the Corinthians. Eckhart comments,

If only you could suddenly be unaware of all things, then you could pass into an oblivion of your own body as St. Paul did, when he said: “Whether in the body I cannot tell or out of the body I cannot tell: God knows it” (2 Cor. 12, 2). In this case the spirit had so entirely absorbed the powers that it had forgotten the body: memory no longer functioned, nor understanding, nor the senses, nor the powers that should govern and grace the body, vital warmth and body-heat were suspended, so that the body did not waste during the three days when he neither ate nor drank. (158)

In this experience the soul will be completely immersed in God. “When two are to become one, one of them must lose its being. So it is: and if God and your soul are to become one, your soul must lose her being and her life.” (159). They truly become one, not only unified. It is a stage where a human being begins a new life, a one life, with God. It is the birth.

Intellect and Grace

For Eckhart, there are two lights in the human soul: one is the light of intellect, and the other one is the light of grace. The main function of intellect in the human being is “to establish the distinction between itself – consciousness – and that of which it is conscious – things outward or inward.” In order to have a total concentration, the intellect has to strip all the outward images and look into the soul for the divine spark in her. However, within this inner part of the soul, intellect can no longer “shed light on this source”. This is the moment where the work of grace takes over the function of intellect. Eckhart says, “A master who has spoken best of all about the soul says that no human wit can ever come to know what the soul is in her ground.. what we can know of it must be supernatural: it must be by grace.” (161)

The final stage of union is what Eckhart calls, “breakthrough.” This is “a stage higher than the Birth”. God breaks through the human soul and unites himself with her. Will God lose his universality and greatness after being united with a spark in the human soul? No. Eckhart gives an analogy of a drop and the ocean to explain this condition. “If you were to cast a drop into the ocean, the droup would become the ocean, and not the ocean the drop.” (166) It means that in this breakthrough “the soul turned into God… the soul becomes divine, but God does not become the soul.” (166) This condition in the state of union affirms both the transcendence and immanence of God. The ocean still transcends the drop, but at the same time it is within the drop.

Part III: Existential “Return”

Kazemi discusses four different issues regarding the life of a saint after he/she experiences the Birth or union: 1) the way of life of the saints, 2) his ability to see God everywhere in all things, 3) suffering, and 4) poverty and their relationship with God.

Thought and Action in the world

The first question that Kazemi asks regarding someone who has experienced the Birth is: “how does he act, think, and move ‘outside’ his state of supra-phenomenal union, in the world, and with the awareness of diverse outward phenomena and images.” (173) From reading Eckhart’s works, Kazemi concludes that he would very likely answer that it is “God himself who acts through such a man.” Once one is united with God, it is God who acts on behalf of him.

The next question is still related to the first one: is his intellect still working? Eckhart makes a strong distinction between “active and passive intellect.” The main function of the active intellect is to grasp the image from outside and store it in the passive intellect.

Under normal functioning, the intellect thus works with one image at a time, but if a man’s active intellect be stilled for and by God, then God perforce takes over its role and impregnates the passive intellect, not only with one image, but ‘many images together in one point,’ those images, that is to say that are necessary for the proper accomplishment of a particular work in question. (173)

In other words, those who have attained union with God will be smarter than ordinary people. God will enhance their intellectual ability to achieve the goal of their works. However, do they become infallible after attaining this mystical union? Eckhart said, No. They may “slip” or “err in speech”, but they are not capable of sin, especially mortal sin. The outer man can err, but the inner man is incapable of sin.

Seeing God Everywhere

After attaining the union, a saint will be able to see God and bring the presence of God anywhere. There are some ways he can do that. First, since he has been sanctified, Eckhart believed that when one is united with the Absolute, the ultimate holiness that he gains from that union will impact everything that he does. "Do not think to place holiness in doing; we should place holiness in being, for it is not the works that sanctify us but we who should sanctify the works.... In so far as we are and have being, just so far do we hallow all that we do." (175) That is one of the ways he brings the presence of God everywhere he goes.

Besides that, because he has been one now with the Beyond-Being, which is the ultimate being, he will be able to relate to the inner being in other things as well. When a saint sees something outside himself, he will not only see the outward part of it, but the divine element within himself will enable him to grasp the “uncreated substance of the divine” within that thing. So, he can see God in all things. Eckhart says, “All things become simply God to you, for in all things you notice only God, just as a man who stares long at the sun sees the sun in whatever he afterwards look at.” (177) Furthermore, Eckhart believes that with this awareness of the divine, the saint will be able to produce blessedness everywhere he goes.

The Saint and Suffering

Can the saint, who has experienced the Birth, suffer? “For if awareness of God is perpetual, and if this awareness produces blessedness, how is it possible for such a man to undergo suffering?” (178) The answer is yes, but only on an emotional level. The inner part of their soul is still impassible. The analogy for this concept is “a well-anchored boat.” When the boat is hit by the wind, it will be surely moved. However, “it cannot be carried away.”

Furthermore, we should make a distinction between psychological pain and spiritual pain. Kazemi explains, “What Eckhart appears to be saying is the following: it is possible to experience a painful state of being – physical, psychic, and emotional – without the pain penetrating into the spiritual core of the individual; in this core there subsists the awareness of the reality of God’s nature and will..” (179) Christ, for example, when he was suffering on the cross, the pain only penetrated the physical or emotional level of his being, his “noble soul” or “true being” was not moved and “no sorrow or pain or death could penetrate there.”

Poverty

Eckhart based his theology of poverty on Jesus’ statement “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 3:5). For him, this text should be understood in the metaphysical union frame of reference. If a man is poor in spirit, it means he “wants nothing, knows nothing, and has nothing.” He is in a total loss of his will, knowledge and possession.

Total loss of will takes place because he is no longer living for or in himself, he is one with God. “The man’s subjectivity is absorbed within that of the Divinity, in such wise that he as a man cannot be said to exist, and yet his essence is and is one with the Absolute.” (184) His will is no longer separated from God’s will. In other word, God’s will is his will. Consequently, one that has experienced the union would surely lose his free will. His will has been totally subjected and blended into the will of God, “so that there is no distinction between the will of the creature and the will of the Creator.” (185)

He also knows nothing. What does this mean? Again, the Birth makes a saint completely unified with God, even on the level of his knowledge. His knowledge is lost in the knowledge of God. “There must be no individualistic awareness of one’s ‘own’ knowledge as a distinct element, for this is not only belies in the reality that all knowledge and truth belong exclusively to the One, the only true agent of knowledge, but it also contradicts the integral holy life in which one’s knowledge is effectively and totally identified with one’s being.” (186) The concept of total loss of knowledge is also closely related to Eckhart’s ontological perspective. This is what Kazemi says about it:

Only the man who has realized the true source of his own being and knowledge can thus be ontologically “poor” of his own creaturely knowledge; this is because he is utterly pervaded by the awareness that universal truth is inseparable from the absolute being of the Godhead; and that, consequently all possible creaturely knowledge is pure nothing in comparison. (187).

The idea of having nothing or total loss of possession is strongly related to the concept of detachment that we have discussed above. The detachment finds its climax in the experience of the Birth. Kazemi adds “while a degree of detachment is the prerequisite for the attainment of the Birth, its complete realization is a fruit of the Birth, only one who has realized the immanence of the Divine within the soul can properly reflect within the world, the transcendence of the Divine with regard to creation.”

Archaeology and Biblical Studies

2010-03-27T13:49:00.000-07:00

In order to understand the relationship between text studies and archaeology, we have to know the nature of both fields. Let me discuss about the text first. There are several important things we need to know about the nature of the text before we see its relationship to archaeological studies. First, a text is an expression of human culture in a written format. If we understand artifact as “any object made by humans,”[1] then the text should be seen as a form of human artifact too. Second, texts, especially biblical texts, are ancient documents. That means that texts can represent the reality of the past. They can be the witness of the past. In other words, texts are bound in their historical context. Text should be understood in a particular historical context, but at the same time it can enlighten our understanding of its history as well. History can explain and be explained by text. It is one of the windows for us to see the past. Third, texts are relatively easy to interpret compared to other non-literary artifacts, because text is presented in the form of language. We need to remember that language is the highest means of communication for human beings. This is the reason why it is easy for humans to understand the meaning of a text compared to other non-linguistic means of communications.

What about archaeology, specifically archaeology of southern Levant? The meaning of the term archaeology itself has been highly debated among scholars. However, for the sake of discussion, let me take a very broad definition by Ann E. Killebrew: “Archaeology is the study of humanity’s past and its interpretation based on a stratified but incomplete and complex material-culture.”[2] If this definition is applied to Southern Levant [3] archaeology, then it would simply mean a study of the past of humanity and its interpretation in southern Levant (Palestine and Transjordan). There are several things we have to note here from this simple and broad definition. First, in its broad sense archaeology is a discipline to uncover the past. Its main purpose, therefore, is to help us to see and understand what the past actually looked like. In other words, archaeology is an historical endeavor. Second, archaeology involves the act of interpretation. Archaeology is not only a discovery endeavor, because discovering an artifact requires interpreting it. It means that without interpretation, I think, archaeological discovery becomes meaningless and useless. However, many times archaeologists have to deal with non-linguistic artifacts, meaning things that are non-text. How can archaeologists understand or interpret the meaning of their discovery? How can they reconstruct the past by using non-text artifacts? Usually archaeologists will examine the context, or in situ, of the discovered artifacts in order to interpret them. That means that if an artifact is published or discovered with no clear provenance, it would be extremely difficult for archaeologists to understand the value or meaning of that finding. There is an ethical issue to such findings too, but we are not going to discuss it here. This is why scholars like Jonathan Reed strongly rejected the publication of unprovenanced artifacts, like the James Ossuary.[4] Context is extremely important. Third, archaeology will never be a purely objective study. The meaning of an artifact will depend on the hand of the archaeologist. That is why post-processual archaeology has played a very important place in today’s discussion. Everyone has his/her own right to come up with a particular interpretation. Subjectivity should have its room in the archaeological house as well. In light of this discussion, I would completely agree with the statement of Michael Shanks and Ian Hodder: “The interpretive practice that is archaeology is an ongoing process: there is no final and definite account of the past as it was.”[5] Yes, it is an ongoing process. Everyone has the right to contribute their understanding or perspective to an archaeological discovery.

Now, let me discuss further the relationship between text and archaeology, especially in the southern Levant context. There are three things to which we need to pay a close attention here. First, if a southern Levant archaeological discovery is dated as being in the same time as the texts of either the Bible or Apocrypha or Josephus or Misnah, and so on, then I think we have to put them (artifacts and the texts) in dialogue. Archaeologists must not forget that there is a text written at the same time with the artifact that he found. Since both of them are witnesses to the past, then logically speaking both of them should be able inform the other. If archaeologists in southern Levant take a stand to reject the significance of the text in helping them to interpret their findings, then I believe it will be a disaster. Where can they get the better information about certain a historical context other than from the people of that time? Even though in situ is important for an archaeologist to understand his discovery, text also can play a significant role for providing the historical context for not only an artifact but also for the location of excavation.

Second, regarding the role of archaeology in proving the historicity of a specific story in the Bible, I think it would be extremely difficult. A search for archaeological evidence that, say, Paul during certain time in the past stayed in a certain house in Ephesus is not an easy thing to do. I think it is even more impossible for archaeology to prove historically the work of God in the Bible. Can we use archaeology to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead? Or, can we prove historically from an archeological finding that God gave Moses the commandments on the Month Sinai? No, archaeology surely will not be able to do that. However, even though archaeology cannot prove specific narrative or theological statement in the Bible, it is still possible to use archaeological findings to give a general historical context to understand the stories or events or statements in the Bible. This is precisely the position of Reed, and I strongly agree with him. He said, “… in light of their patterns and associated artifacts found on archaeological excavations, help us to understand the more general context in which Jesus and James lived and from which the early church emerged.”[6] In other words, archaeology helps biblical scholars to read behind the text.

Third, is it still possible to use the term biblical archaeology? This issue has been debated for many years. Let me explain my personal position on this matter. I think the term “biblical archaeology” can still be an appropriate designation, even though we should use it in a very narrow sense. What I mean by “narrow sense” is precisely related to the role of the Bible to interpret and be interpreted by archaeology. It is narrow because the field of archaeology itself is actually a wider and larger discipline than the label “biblical”. Therefore, by putting an adjective behind the term archaeology, we are actually narrowing the field to a certain specific interest. Just as I have noted above, archaeology is not the business of finding things only, but also interpreting them. In the process of interpretation, anyone can come with any perspective to contribute to the meaning of the text. There is no such thing as purely objective interpretation. Biblical scholars, therefore, have the same right to come up with their interpretation to the archaeological discoveries. At the same time, it is not possible to study the Bible without archaeology. I think I will agree with Reed, when he argues, “Archaeology is imperative for the study of the New Testament. There is no chance of understanding Jesus or Paul, Peter or Mary, without understanding their world.”[7] Again, the relationship between text, especially the Bible, and Archaeology should be only in the context of interpretation of either archaeology or the Bible.

----------------------

[1] Nancy Marie White, Archaeology for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2008), 12.

[2] Ann E. Killebrew, “Between Heaven and Earth: Educational Perspective on the Archaeology and Material Culture of the Bible,” in Milton C. Moreland (ed.), Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 11.

[3] For further discussion on this geographical area, see Barry J. Beitzel, “Geography of the Levant,” in Suzanne Richard (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 3-9.

[4] Jonathan L. Reed, “Overcoming the James Ossuary and the Legacy of Biblical Archaeology” in Ryan Byrne and Bernadette McNary-Zak (eds.) Resurrecting the Brother of Jesus: James Ossuary Controversy and the Quest for Religious Relics (Chapel Hills: The University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 189-90.

[5] Michael Shanks and Ian Hodder Processual, “Postprocessual and Interpretive Archaeology” in David S. Whitley (ed.), Reader in Archaeological Theory: Post-processual and Cognitive Approaches (Abingdon: Routledge. 1998), 70.

[6] Reed, James Ossuary and Biblical Archaeology, 202.

[7] Jonathan L. Reed, The HarperCollins Visual Guide to the New Testament: What Archaeology Reveals about the First Christians (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 2.

CST Website Features Me as a Star of the Week

2010-03-01T20:20:00.000-08:00

Today I was featured by CST Website to be a star of the week. They do this every week to introduce current students to alumni, prospective students, sponsors, and others. Here is the link.

Claremont School of Theology on CNN

2010-02-07T09:02:00.000-08:00

Many people asked me, why do you come to study at Claremont School of Theology? One of the most important reasons I choose this school is because of its openness to learn and respect other religious traditions. In this more and more pluralistic world that we live today, it is very easy for people to develop negative prejudices toward other religions. That has triggered terrible religious wars and riots all over the world. Coming from a place where we had a horrible religious fight for some years between Muslims and Christians, I understand well enough how important it is to live together in peace and integrity. Tolerance should not be an empty symbol or slogan only. It has to be manifested in our real everyday life. CST is the place where we are trained, with a strong intellectual rigorous, to extend the grace of God to other people regardless of their religious or racial/ethnic background. Do I lose my Christian faith if I learn to respect other people? This is a horrendously bad question. I become more and better Christian by doing it. Christianity is all about love and grace. When a religion teaches us to hate other people, it is actually not a religion we should follow. Religious leaders have to be able to teach their people to respect and love their neighbors as they love themselves. Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I'm really proud to be a student of Claremont School of Theology.

N.T. Wright and the Historicity of Genesis 1

2010-02-02T10:27:00.000-08:00

Lectures on Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)

2010-01-29T13:28:00.000-08:00

Christine Hayes is a professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale University. I found her lectures very insightful and rich. According to Yale's website, this is the course description:

"This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the Ancient Near East."

Here are the links to the lectures.

Lecture 1: The Parts of the Whole

Lecture 2: The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Biblical Religion in Context

Lecture 3: The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Genesis 1-4 in Context

Lecture 4: Doublets and Contradictions, Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method

Lecture 5: Critical Approaches to the Bible: Introduction to Genesis 12-50

Lecture 6: Biblical Narrative: The Stories of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12-36)

Lecture 7: Israel in Egypt: Moses and the Beginning of Yahwism (Genesis 37- Exodus 4)

Lecture 8: Exodus: From Egypt to Sinai (Exodus 5-24, 32; Numbers)

Lecture 9: The Priestly Legacy: Cult and Sacrifice, Purity and Holiness in Leviticus and Numbers

Lecture 10: Biblical Law: The Three Legal Corpora of JE (Exodus), P (Leviticus and Numbers) and D (Deuteronomy)

Lecture 11: On the Steps of Moab: Deuteronomy

Lecture 12: The Deuteronomistic History: Life in the Land (Joshua and Judges)

Lecture 13: The Deuteronomistic History: Prophets and Kings (1 and 2 Samuel)

Lecture 14: The Deuteronomistic History: Response to Catastrophe (1 and 2 Kings)

Lecture 15: Hebrew Prophecy: The Non-Literary Prophets

Lecture 16: Literary Prophecy: Amos

Lecture 17: Literary Prophecy: Hosea and Isaiah

Lecture 18: Literary Prophecy: Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum and Habbakuk

Lecture 19: Literary Prophecy: Perspectives on the Exile (Jeremiah, Ezekiel and 2 Isaiah)

Lecture 20: Responses to Suffering and Evil: Lamentations and Wisdom Literature

Lecture 21: Biblical Poetry: Psalms and Song of Songs

Lecture 22: The Restoration: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah

Lecture 23: Visions of the End: Daniel and Apocalyptic Literature

Lecture 24: Alternative Visions: Esther, Ruth, and Jonah

Review of "Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God" (Part 2)

2010-01-25T10:27:00.000-08:00

In the first part of this three parts review, we have summarized the first part of this book, which is examining the problem of Divine behavior. Now, let me describe the content of the second part of the book.

2) Understanding the Nature of Old Testament Narratives.

Just like the first part, this second part also is divided into four chapters. Chapter five is extremely crucial in the book’s discussion. This is the place where Seibert lays out his proposed solution to the problem. When one reads title the “Asking the Historical Question: Did It Really Happen?”, he/she can easily predict the content of it. He is questioning common people understanding of the narratives in the Old Testament. Did it really happen? Many people would say, YES. This is the source of the problem. The Old Testament, for Seibert, should not be seen as completely historical. He argues, “If the Old Testament’s stories about Israel and the way God dealt with Israel (and others) are essentially accurate, then the best option for dealing with problematic portrayals of God would seem to be one of those discussed in chapter 4. On the other hand, if some Old Testament narratives are not historical accounts or do not accurately report what happened in the past, new options for handling disturbing divine behavior can be pursued” (pp. 92-93). In other words, a new solution to the problem lies in the assumption that narratives are not historical accounts.

Two examples he gives in this book are the story of Jonah and Joshua 6-11. Many people would see the story of Jonah as a historical account because it is written in the Bible and it refers to historical places like Nineveh. However, Siebert questions this simple understanding of the Bible. He says, “Just because a story refers to a real people and places does not necessarily mean it took place. Authors who write historical fiction routinely use real people and places to make their stories believable even though particular stories they write never actually happen.” Why is Jonah not a historical record? Siebert offers some considerations for his readers thought. First, the most memorable part of the story is when Jonah was in the belly of the big fish. Could this really happen? Many people would say that it is a miracle. But for Siebert, “Unfortunately, this story has no factual basis.” Scientifically, it is impossible for a person to stay alive in the belly of a fish for three days. The second argument for the non-historical approach to the book of Jonah is the enormous size of Nineveh. It is said in Jonah 3:3 that the city of Nineveh can be crossed in a three days walk. That means that the city is about fifty miles wide. However, the archaeological excavation of the site discovered that the city actually was a lot smaller than that size.

Third, there are too many miraculous events in the book of Jonah. He says, “While I do not question that God performs miracles, the fact that this prophetic book contains so many miracles when other books in the same category contain none at all raises serious questions about what kind of story we are reading. The writer seems to be sending the reader important signals suggesting that this book is not to be read as straightforward historical reporting.” Fourth is the beauty of literary artistry in the book of Jonah. This is an indication, according to Siebert, that it is not a historical account. It is a literary play. What about Joshua 6-11? Again, Siebert argues that those stories about how Israelites conquered other nations in order to enter Canaan, the promised land, are not real events historically. Based on a careful and detailed reading of the internal evidence within the Bible itself, the historicity of the stories is questionable. Siebert sees a contradictory account between Joshua 11:43 and 13:1-6. Another historical difficulty also arises when this book is read together with the book of Judges. The struggle of the Israelites in the book of Judges shows, according to Siebert, that the land was actually not yet fully occupied or conquered. They were still struggling with other nations. “Various statements in the second half of Joshua combined with the picture that emerges from the book of Judges suggest that Israel’s hold on the land was only partial at best.” (p. 101). Beside this internal conflict within the book itself, archaeological evidence also shows that the stories in Judges 6-11 are probably not historical. According to Siebert, archaeological findings “…did not match up with the biblical record. Ironically rather than providing the historicity of the conquest narrative, their efforts had the opposite effect.” (p. 101).

Then, “What is an Old Testament Narrative?” Siebert believes that basically the Old Testament narratives are not careful historical records of the events in the past. If we use the historical record framework to see them, we will find a lot of problems. In order to have a better grasp of the stories in the Bible, modern readers have to be able to an utilize ancient understanding of narratives. He says, “Assuming that Old Testament narratives were written to preserve a record of what actually happened is a modern – not an ancient – historiographic assumption.” (p. 105). Siebert gives several statements to explain what the Old Testament narrative genre really is. First, "Old Testament narratives often reveal more about the author’s timeframe than the story’s." When an ancient author was writing a story of the past, he always had a purpose in mind for his contemporary readers. For Siebert, the author’s concern to the issues in his timeframe will determine the direction of his writing, rather than maintaining the historicity of the past. In other words, the auther was willing to intentionally change the story in order to fit it with his situation. “In biblical literature, the situation is commonly reversed. For many ancient writers, it was more important to use the past to serve their interests in the present than it was to explore carefully what actually happened in times past.” (p. 106). Second, "Old Testament narratives were more concerned with literary persuasion than with historical objectivity." For these writers, historical objectivity is not a goal at all. It is a modern historiography, and not ancient narratives. The main purpose of those stories is to teach and to persuade the readers of something. Sometimes biblical writers felt that they had to intentionally omit facts that did not fit to their purpose. Third, "Old Testament narratives put words in people’s mouth." Siebert uses the important book of a German theologian, Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History to support his argument. In other words, Old Testament writers would not be hesitant to make up speeches in order to fit the story with their intention. Is this a lie? No! Modern historiographers, of course, will not be happy with this, but they are common practices in Ancient world, according to Siebert. He says that with this fact, “we are reminded how different Old Testament narratives are from modern historiography.” (p. 110). Fourth, "Old Testament narratives view the world theologically." They would prefer a theological explanation of an event. Modern historiographers see the world from human perspective (from below), ancient writers saw the world from theological perspective (from above). The difference between history from below and history from above causes many modern readers to not fully understand Bible stories. Siebert puts it very blatantly, “… some of the things Old Testament narratives claim happened never did. I am keenly aware that some readers may find it very disheartening to learn that Jonah probably was not swallowed by a whale and that the walls of Jericho probably never came tumbling down, at least not in miraculous way described in Joshua. Such revelations are often disappointing, especially for those who have always believed these stories referred to real people and actual historical events.” (p. 112).

Chapter six deals with the objections people probably would have to his views. Siebert apparently had anticipated that many people, especially conservative/fundamentalist Christians, would attack him for his view of the Bible. Let us examine those objections one by one. First, it sounds historical. Yes, there are many actual places or names in the Old Testament, but, for Siebert, “just because a piece of writing contains certain ‘historical elements’ does not automatically render it historical” (p. 116). Second, it is unnecessary and irreverent to question the Bible. This objection has everything to do with the divine nature of the Bible. If the Bible is inspired, then it should be perfect. Siebert basically argues that this is not the only view about the inspiration of the Bible. “Various perspectives on the question of the divine inspiration of Scripture exist, not all of which suggest that God was concerned with ensuring that people only wrote about all things that actually happen” (p. 117). The third objection is it involves doubting, and doubt is bad. Doubt is always equated with lack of faith, then doubt is not good for Christian life. For Siebert, this is a very narrow understanding of faith. I think I have to quote the whole paragraph of his response to this objection because it is extremely important. He says,

The church has historically done a fine job of teaching people about importance of belief, and belief is very important. The problem, however, is that the church sometimes encourages – even pressures – people to believe in the wrong things. It is vitally important to believe in the goodness of God, the forgiveness of sin, and the hope for life eternal, among other things. But is it really necessary to believe in the historicity of every Old Testament narrative, especially when evidence clearly seems to point to other direction? Why is it regarded as a lack of faith to express genuine doubts about the historical reliability of the flood story, or about God’s incineration of Nabad and Abihu, or about divine mandate to wipe out entire Canaanite population? Instead, I would argue that it honors God when we use all of our critical faculties to probe, question, and even challenge with we read in the Bible. God is pleased when we engage with the text with our minds, not upset by such inquiry. Given the nature and function of Old Testament narratives, it is entirely appropriate – and sometimes even necessary – to raise questions about the historical reliability of these stories. This constitutes a faithful reading of this particular literary genre.

The fourth objection is that it leads down to slippery slope. Siebert’s response is the Old Testament writers were not interested in drawing a line between what did and did not take place. He says that in order to distinguish between the historical and fictional accounts, we have to “weight all the evidence textual, archaeological, social-scientific…” (p. 119). Fifth, It undermines my faith. Basically Siebert responds to this objection by saying that there is no good reason to base our Christian faith on the historicity of events in the Old Testament. Sixth, it diminishes biblical authority. Siebert says, “Does the presence of ‘fictional’ stories in the Bible undermine its credibility?” For him, we need to be able to distinguish between “history” and “truth”. There are several examples he gives in this book to show that people can communicate “truth” with non-historical stories. Jesus’ parables are not based on historical events. Siebert argues, “If a story must be historical to be true, then this parable [good Samaritan] is most certainly false.” The truth of the parable does not depend on the historicity of it, but on its message that reveals God’s will to human beings.

Siebert moves even further by showing the danger of demanding historicity of Old Testament narratives. If some Christians stubbornly push their ideas that these narratives are historical events, then it can “misconstrue the nature and function of Old Testament narratives in its original place in ancient Jewish society”. “It will jeopardize Christianity’s credibility.” It also will distort the character of God. He argues, “… demanding the historicity of all Old Testament narratives causes us to conceive of God in ways that are highly problematic” (p. 128).

Chapter seven primarily deals with the functions of Old Testament narratives. Why did ancient people wrote these stories? They were written (1) to explain national failures and disasters; (2) to support the ruling elite and to promote their policies; (3) to encourage certain behaviors and beliefs. The book of Joshua, for example, was written not to show the “historical information” about Israel’s past events. For him, the function of the story, even though it is hard to detect, probably was (1) to justify territorial expansion. They had to have a divine approval for living in the land that they were dwelling in. So, what they do? They created a story to show that it was God’s will for them to have that land. Other possible reasons are (2) to build a sense of national identity and (3) to inspire hope and confidence in face of powerful threats. Israel was a small nation in the ancient near east world. They were threatened from many different people around them. These stories helped them have confidence that God is with them and he will be able to help them to survive the tough times dealing with other nations. Besides this, the narrative was needed also (4) to urge obedience to the laws of Moses and unswerving loyalty to Yahweh.

In chapter eight, Siebert discusses Israel’s theological worldview. Why do they portrait God as a killer? This, of course, doesn’t make any sense and is very disturbing for many modern readers. For Siebert, it happens because we have a very different worldview than the ancient Israelites’ worldview. The following are several statements that can describe the israelites’ worldview. (1) God controls the natural world. (2) God causes personal fortunes and misfortunes. (3) God rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient. (4) God sanctions warfare and brings victory and defeat in the battle. And (5) God is the sole divine causal agent. There are two additional non-theological assumptions in their worldview as well that Siebert lists in this book. (1) On the level of cosmology, they believed in underground pillars and a flat earth. The earth is believed as the center of the universe, and it is flat. “Pillars were thought to be underneath the earth supporting it.” (2) They believed in polygamy, many wives for one man. Furthermore, the crucial question that people have to deal with is do we have to adopt their worldview? To what extend can we do it? Siebert asks, “How accurate and reliable are Israel’s theological worldview assumptions, particularly in terms of how God interacts with the world? If Israel’s nontheological worldview assumptions were culturally conditioned and sometimes in need of revision, might the same be true of Israel’s theological worldview assumptions? If so, it would seem we should proceed with caution, being carefully not to uncritically adopt Israel’s theological assumptions as our own.” For Siebert, because Christians have the incarnated God in Jesus Christ, then it should give Christians a clearer picture of God. This question will be developed further in the third part of this book.

Review of "Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God" (Part 1)

2010-01-22T22:23:00.000-08:00

Bibliographical Entry: Seibert, Eric A. Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. ISBN: 9780800663445

About the Author:

Eric A. Seibert is an Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Messiah College. He earned his master's degree from Asbury Theological Seminary and his PhD in the Old Testament from Drew University.

Summary of the Book:

I got this book yesterday while I was working in the cataloging department processing new books at the Claremont School of Theology library. When I saw its title, I was immediately attracted to it. I checked it out and I spent the whole afternoon and evening reading it. It is a pretty easy reading book. One will not find it difficult to read at all.

This book basically deals with the troubling passages in the Hebrew Bible. The main thesis of this book, if I can articulate it correctly, is that the problematic stories in the Hebrew Bible should not be taken as historical accounts but rather fictional narratives with theological intentions. Let me describe how he develops his arguments chapter by chapter in this short review.

In the introduction of this book, Seibert describes his personal journey of how he has struggled with many troubling passages in the Old Testament. He came from a very conservative background that took everything in the Bible historically. His encounter with his Old Testament professor at Messiah College had changed the course of his life. His passion for the Old Testament became stronger. His master thesis and PhD work at Drew University pushed him deeply to deal seriously with many troublesome texts in the Old Testament. After telling his personal story, he begins to invite everyone who has been wrestling with the theological difficulty of many Old Testament passages to read this book, especially college or seminary students, clergy, professors, etc. Furthermore, he divides this book into three main parts: 1) Examining the Problem of Disturbing Divine Behavior; 2) Understanding the Nature of Old Testament Narratives; 3) Developing a Responsible Reading of Troublesome Texts. Let us see them one by one.

1) Examining the Problem of Disturbing Divine Behavior

This part is divided into four chapters. In chapter 1, Seibert lays out the problems that people always find when they seriously read and think about the texts of the Old Testament. Texts, such as Ex. 21:15; 21:16; 31:15b, etc., can lead people to easily understand God as deadly lawgiver. Stories of Judah's son (Genesis 38), Nabad and Abihu's unholy fire (Lev. 10), Uzzah and the ark of covenant (2 Sam. 6:1-8; 1 Chro. 13:1-11) vividly depict God as an instant executioner. More troubling stories like the story of Noah (Gen. 6:13) or the punishment of Israelites after they were refused entrance to Canaan and listened to the report of ten spies (Num. 14) or Sodom and Gomorrah or other similar stories can lead modern people to see God as a mass murderer. Stories in Exodus and Joshua also show that God is a divine warrior who was always involved in warfare against his enemies. God also can be easily seen as a genocidal general in the texts such as Deut. 7:1-2 or Josh. 10:40 or 1 Sam. 15:2-3, etc. Stories of Hagar, Abraham and Isaac, Saul, etc., describe God as a dangerous abuser. Accounts of God hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex. 9:12) or David's sinful census (2 Sam. 24) or Samaria's deadly lions (2 Kings 17) can easily depict God as an unfair afflictor. The list can go on and on. These troublesome passages, for Seibert, must be dealt with seriously.

Chapter 2 describes the groups that find these texts problematic. Religious pacifists find the violent acts of God in the Old Testament unacceptable. Christian Educators frequently faced by tough questions from their students about these texts. General theists, feminists, groups of dispossessed people, atheists, agnostics, and people of faith all find these Old Testament texts troublesome.

Chapter 3 presents how ancient people dealt with these disturbing divine behaviors. The Old Testament writers themselves sometimes found some texts problematic and they intentionally changed it. For example, the story in 2 Sam. 24:1 that God prompted David to count the people of Israel and Judah was intentionally changed by the author of 1 Chro. 21 to Satan being the prompter. The reason why the author/editor of 1 Chronicles changed the story of 2 Samuel was because he found it theologically problematic, at least according to Seibert. Some other ancient people even rejected the Old Testament altogether (e.g. Marcion). Some tried to use typological or allegorical hermeneutical approaches to reduce the intensity of the problem of these texts. Seibert also includes in the discussion two prominent modern German theologians, Friedrich Delitzsch and Adolf von Harnack, and an American atheist biblical scholar, Hector Avalos. He labels these three scholars as modern-day Marcionites. For him, these views and approaches to the Old Testament tough texts have failed to provide a good solution to the problem.

In Chapter 4, Siebert continues to discuss other proposals of solution to the problem and defend God in the Old Testament. The First, he calls the divine immunity approach. This approach suggests that:

"...everything God does is good and right because God can do no wrong... regardless of how God behaves, God cannot be charged with misconduct because all of God's acts are righteous by virtue of the fact that God is the one doing them. Because God is God, God is not subject to the kind of critique that would be leveled against human beings engaged in similar kinds of behavior. In this way, God is exempt from - or immune to - any and all charges of abuse, injustice, or immorality." (pp. 71-72)

In other words, even though for the modern reader these Old Testament acts of God are outrageous, they are still good. Why? Because God is the one who did them. God can preform genicidal, abusive, and other evil appearing acts and the acts are good. Siebert sees this solution as very problematic because it "short-circuits critical thinking and leaves little room for vigorous engagement with the questions of divine justice and fairness" (p. 73). After all, for him, genocide is still objectively evil and not good. How can we justify it simply because the actor of it is God? The second possible solution is the just cause approach. According to Siebert, this is the most popular solution. He writes, "... this approach attempts to justify God's behavior. It does so by supplying a rationale for God's actions, explaining why it was both necessary and right for God to afflict this person or kill that one" (p. 74). Usually they will link the divine act of judgment with human sinfulness. It is because of man's sin, God had to take those horrible actions. The problem with this view, for Siebert, is that it fails to explain why God had to kill even infants and toddlers in texts like Genesis 6 and 2 Kings 21. It cannot give a satisfactory explanation. There are many other problematic texts in the Old Testament that cannot be simply explained by using the judgment-sin framework. The third possible solution is the greater good approach. Every bad action that God did is actually good because "it serves a greater good". For example, in the story of Noah and flood, authors like Gleason Archer sees the purpose of why God had to destroy all human beings on the earth was because they had been affected by immorality and their sins could possibly infect Noah's family. Or in the story of Canaanite genocide, God had to do it because "they were sinister threat to the spiritual survival of Abraham's race". This solution is also problematic. It is extremely difficult to think that God can kill a whole race just to preserve religious purity of other people. Fourth, some people would argue that God acted differently in the Old Testament. The notion of progressive revelation comes into discussion here. God reveals himself slowly and progressively. Others, in the same category, would say that God deals differently with the nation of Israel because He wanted to build a theocratic state. These solutions are still problematic because it displays a terrible character of God. Some, like Walter Kaiser and others, would say that the permissive will of God is at work here. God allows them to happen. The problem is in many texts it is not written that God permitted them to happen. God even commanded them. "God is directly responsible" (p. 85). Siebert ends this chapter by showing the importance of control beliefs in reading the text of the Bible. So, what is the best solution? Second segment of this book tries to offer it to the readers.

Theodicy and the Promise of Restoration in Joel 2:28-31 (MT 3:1-5) - Part II

2010-01-20T07:05:00.000-08:00

Genre and Language of the Book

There has been a discussion among scholars about the exact genre of the book of Joel. It has been widely accepted that Joel is a prophetic book. However, James L. Crenshaw from Duke University has written a very provocative essay about the problem of evil in the book of Joel and challenged the old view. He begins to point to a new direction in studying this book. Joel doesn’t explain the reason behind the plague, and modern readers always come to conclude right away that it is because of the sins of the people. Crenshaw argues that perhaps “modern scholars have joined the ranks of Job’s friends in being too quick to associate calamity with guilt in the book of Joel.”[1] The call for repentance (returning to G-d) is always used by many scholars to pinpoint that people in Judah have done something wrong, which many have argued that it must have something to do with the cultic sin.[2] Deuteronomistic theology, that sin always follows by disaster and blessing comes from repentance, is utilized as the main point of view to approach this book. For Crenshaw, when Joel called for repentance in 2:12, it doesn’t have to necessarily mean that they are guilty of something. [3] The Hebrew verb שוב simply means ‘to return’ and it is a neutral verb. He says,

In times of trouble, whether deserved of undeserved, turning to YHWH was the appropriate response inasmuch as he alone could remove the adversity. Joel’s invitation therefore does not necessarily impute guilt to the unfortunate victims of circumstance. Perhaps the prophet’s silence on this issue registers his own inability to pinpoint any culpability on the part of Judeans commensurate with their misery.[4]

This book, consequently, perhaps should be seen as a theodicy book, just like the book of Job. The answer for this problem of evil in this book is that G-d has freedom to decide what he will do. The question Joel asked in chapter two is crucial to Crenshaw’s thesis: מִי יוֹדֵעַ, יָשׁוּב וְנִחָם; וְהִשְׁאִיר אַחֲרָיו, בְּרָכָה--מִנְחָה וָנֶסֶךְ, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. (who knows whether he will turn and relent, leaving a blessing behind, cereal offering and libation for YHWH?). This text shows that what YHWH is going to do is still hidden and unknown to all people. YHWH’s actions are unpredictable. “Joel’s use of the adverb אַחֲרָיו echos his earlier reference to scarred fields left behind by locusts (2:3) and provides an effective contrast between YHWH’s previous conduct and that following the people’s turning.”[5]

Therefore, if the people of Judah are suffering for no reason, then the very question of the problem of existence evil needs to be addressed. Why the innocent Judeans are experiencing this bad plague? Where is G-d? Why is he not doing anything? If YHWH is a gracious and merciful, slow to anger, able to control nature (cf. 2:13, 23), why then these things happen? According to Crenshaw, “experience failed to confirm traditional belief.” [6] This is the thing Joel is striving with. However, he chooses to put his trust in G-d, even though he will not be able to predict what G-d will do. For some scholars, the thesis of Crenshaw has brought a fresh air to the study of the book of Joel. Perhaps in its final form Joel is “a work of theodicy than a work of prophecy.”[7]

Crenshaw’s thesis is very crucial to this essay. I agree with him because the book of Joel looks somewhat similar to the book of Job. The absence of the historical setting in the superscription of this book must be intentional. The author of this book did not simply avoid it without any solid reason. Perhaps this author/editor of Joel wanted his readers to treat this book like the book of Job. It is intended to be a universal book. I think the prophetic statement of Joel 3:1-5 (MT) should be put in this framework. Instead of pointing out the sins of the people of Judah, Joel’s approach to the problem of evil is quite different. He focuses more on the act of G-d. Even though people did not understand why these bad things happen, someday in the future (i.e. the day of the Lord) G-d will take action and demonstrate his justice by bringing restoration to His people.

Setting

Scholars are divided in determining the historical context of the book. There are at least three main views regarding the date of this book: pre-exilic, exilic, and post exilic. In order to defend their view, they have argued from many different perspectives.[8] I think that the effort to determine the specific date of the book of Joel is good, but perhaps it has missed the message the book itself is trying to communicate. The lack of historical context in this book makes it very unique from other twelve. For me, Joel intentionally makes it a-historical, in a sense that this book can be used in all situations. It is not intended to deal with a specific problem, but it takes a universal problem of evil and describes this problem in a mythological language of locusts.

------------------------

[1] J.L. Crenshaw, "Who Knows What Yahweh Will Do? The Character of God in the Book of Joel," in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedom in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday, ed., A.B. Beek, A.H. Bartelt, and C.A. Franke, (Grand Rapids, 1995), 185-95

[2] Cf. Hans W. Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work.” in ed. H. W. Wolff and W. Brueggemann, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox, 1977), 83-100; P.L. Redditt, “The Book of Joel and Peripheral Prophecy,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (1986), 225-240.

[3] Marvin Sweeney also has argued the same thing in his commentary of Joel 1:13-20. For Sweeney, “The passage does now refer to any sin or wrong-doing on the part of the people, however, and the cause of the threat must remain unexplained. Such a contention can be very problematic theologically because it fails to identify a cause, but it does correspond well to the realities of human existence in which catastrophe frequently comes upon people without moral reason.” See Marvin Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, vol. 1, Berith Olam (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2000), 159.

[4] Ibid., 188. Cf. Ronald A. Simkin, “’Return to Yahweh’: Honor and Shame in Joel” Semeia, 68 (1994): 41-54.

[5] Ibid., 194.

[6] Ibid.

[7] James R. Linville, “The Day of Yahweh and the Mourning of the Priests in Joel” in ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Alice Ogden Bellis, The Priest in the Prophets (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 101. See also John Barton, Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 33-36.

[8] For a good overview of the arguments of scholars on this matter, see Marco Treves, "The Date of Joel" Vetus Testamentum, 7/2 (April 1957): 149-156; Jacob Martin Myers, "Some Considerations Bearing on the Date of Joel" Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 74/2 (1962): 177-195; F R. Stephenson, "Date of the Book of Joel" Vetus Testamentum, 19/2 (April 1969): 224-229.

Theodicy and the Promise of Restoration in Joel 2:28-31 (MT 3:1-5) - Part I

2010-01-19T08:02:00.000-08:00

The problem of evil has been a classical issue for many centuries. Many philosophers and theologians are struggling, discussing and debating this problem nowadays. The Bible also contains many stories, statements, poems, etc., that discuss the reality of evil in the world. For people in the Bible, the question about evil is centered in their everyday experience. Walter Brueggemann argues that the central theme of theodicy in the Hebrew Bible is not about speculative, irrelevant, philosophical question about evil. [1] They are concerned about the reality of the social evil. It is about their everyday experience of injustice and social suffering. He says,

I propose then that social evil (by which I mean unjust power arrangements in society for which God is claimed as the legitimator and guarantor) is at the center of Israel's reflective thought. This way of understanding theodicy is an overriding concern for marginal people whose daily task of survival does not permit the luxury of more speculative questions.[2]

Even though Brueggemann does not discuss the book of Joel particularly in this article, I think his thesis of theodicy in a social dimension is also true for the book of Joel. Joel is struggling with the social suffering of the people. However, Joel goes beyond questioning the source of evil. His concern is more on the solution to the evil. In this series of essay, I will argue that Joel’s solution to the problem of evil is in YHWH’s promise of restoration of nature, people and the temple.

Translation and Critical Notes

Joel 3:1-5 (MT)

א וְהָיָה אַחֲרֵי-כֵן, אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת-רוּחִי עַל-כָּל-בָּשָׂר, וְנִבְּאוּ, בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיכֶם; זִקְנֵיכֶם, חֲלֹמוֹת יַחֲלֹמוּן--בַּחוּרֵיכֶם, חֶזְיֹנוֹת יִרְאוּ.

ב וְגַם עַל-הָעֲבָדִים, וְעַל-הַשְּׁפָחוֹת, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה, אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ אֶת-רוּחִי.

ג וְנָתַתִּי, מוֹפְתִים, בַּשָּׁמַיִם, וּבָאָרֶץ: דָּם וָאֵשׁ, וְתִימְרוֹת עָשָׁן.

ד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יֵהָפֵךְ לְחֹשֶׁךְ, וְהַיָּרֵחַ לְדָם--לִפְנֵי, בּוֹא יוֹם יְהוָה, הַגָּדוֹל, וְהַנּוֹרָא.

ה וְהָיָה, כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה--יִמָּלֵט: כִּי בְּהַר-צִיּוֹן וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם תִּהְיֶה פְלֵיטָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְהוָה, וּבַשְּׂרִידִים, אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה קֹרֵא

Translation:

1. At that time, [3] thereafter, I will pour out my spirit to all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy, and your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.

2. And also upon the slaves and (female) servants in those days I will pour out my spirit.

3. I will give signs in the sky and in the earth, blood, and fire, and plumes[4] of smoke.

4. The sun will be turned into darkness and moon into blood before the great and fearful[5] day of the Lord comes.[6]

5. And at that time everyone who will call on the name of the Lord will be saved as salvation will be in the mountain of Zion and in Jerusalem as the Lord said and in the survivors[7] that the Lord is calling.

-----------------------------

[1] Walter Brueggemann, “Theodicy in a Social Dimension” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 3-25.

[2] Ibid., 5.

[3] וְהָיָה (converted perfect) literally means “and it will be”.

[4] The meaning word תִימְרוֹת is not clear. This word appears only two times in the Hebrew Bible (Joel 3:3 and Song of Solomon 3:6). It can be translated in many different ways (columns, plumes, billows, etc.). LXX uses the Greek word ατμιδα, meaning “mist” or “vapor”.

[5] LXX is using επιφανη, which means “splendid” or “glorious,” to render the Hebrew word ירא (fear). I think this is the reason why English Bibles are divided. For example, “the great and awesome day” (NASB), “the great and the terrible day” (KJV, RSV), “the great and dreadful day” (NIV). Indonesian Bible translates it “hari TUHAN yang hebat dan dahsyat itu” (The great and awesome day of the Lord).

[6] The word בּוֹא is in an infinitive form. So, it should be literally translated “to come”

[7] LXX renders it as ευαγγελιζομενοι, which means the “ones who bring good news”.

A Short Lesson from Didache, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

2010-01-15T18:54:00.000-08:00

Here I quote three chapters from Didache, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (ΔΙΔΑΧΗ ΤΩΝ ΔΩΔΕΚΑ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ), one of the most important documents in the second century. As we all have known, there are so many self-claimed prophets or teachers or apostles nowadays, especially in Pentecostal/Charismatic circle. I think we, ministers of the Church in the modern age, need to hear what early Christians taught about the functions of these offices in the church. By reading this ancient teaching, I believe, we can gain profound wisdom for the life of the church today.

Chapter 11. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.
Chapter 12. But receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, and prove and know him afterward; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you more than two or three days, if need be. But if he wants to stay with you, and is an artisan, let him work and eat. But if he has no trade, according to your understanding, see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep away from such.
Chapter 13. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.

There are several things I can list here that we can learn from this ancient document. 1) A minister (teacher/prophet/apostle) has to teach sound doctrine, which will lead people to a holy life. 2) A minister must not stay more than two days. What does this mean? Since the host must support him fully, if he stays longer he will be a burden to the people. In other words a prophet/teacher/apostle must not bother other people with his needs. In Chapter 12, we can see that if a minister wants to stay longer than 2 or 3 days, he has to work. He must not stay idle. If he works, he can make money with his job and support himself. 3) Christians are not supposed to question or judge their preaching/teaching. The judgment comes from the Lord only. However, the falsehood of his teaching should be measured by his daily life. This is, of course, an echo of Matthew 7. From its fruit we can recognize the tree. Didache makes it very clear, "every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet." 4) A true prophet will never ask for money!! "If he asks for money, he is a false prophet... Whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him" This is the strongest point that many modern ministers have to listen. If a minister asks for money, he is a false prophet. He is not working for money. He is working for God. However, Christians are responsible to support them with food, and other things.

The Use of the Word "Allah" in Malaysia

2010-01-14T22:44:00.000-08:00

This is a good discussion among Malaysian Muslim thinkers about the usage of the word "Allah" by Christians in Malaysia. At least we can see in this video that not all Muslims in Malaysia agree with the ban on Christians using the word "Allah" in their Bible or other publications.

Pat Robertson and His Dangerously Narrow Theology

2010-01-13T15:40:00.012-08:00

Pat Robertson once again made a very stupid statement. He stated in CBN that Haitians are suffering right now because of the pact they made to the Devil many years ago for their freedom. This is not the first time he made a statement like this. After 9/11, Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed gays, lesbians, and abortionists for the attack. You can read here, here, here and here.

This is what Robertson said about the earthquake in Haiti.

"And you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know Napoleon the 3rd and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the Devil said, 'Okay, it's a deal.’ And, uh, they kicked the French out, you know, with Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by, by one thing after another, desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It’s cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti on the other side is the Dominican Republican. Dominican Republic is, is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etcetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God and out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.”

What theology is this? This is really foolish, racist, and arrogant! Robertson has a bad habit of judging others. He needs to repent, and not people in Haiti. he has to pray and ask GOD to control his tongue from judging people easily. Paul Raushenbush stated blatantly "Haiti Needs Help, Not Stupidity!"

Watch it here:

Perpetua and Charismatic Gifts

2010-01-12T05:33:00.007-08:00

Perpetua lived during the time of a great persecution of Christianity at the turn of the third century in Carthage, Northern Africa (now Tunisia). It was a dangerous time for many confessed Christians. Their faith was seriously challenged and the price of being a Christian was often their very life. This piece of testimony, "The Passion of Saints Perpetua and Felicity", was written before she was martyred in the time of Emperor Septimius Severus. While I was reading this important document, one important question came to my mind. How did this twenty two year old woman, in a relatively young age, face her death without any fear? In this short essay, I will show that Perpetua was able to firmly endure and stand on her Christian faith even though her very life was at stake because she strongly believed and personally experienced the Holy Spirit's Charismatic activities, such as dreams and visions.

The quotations of Acts 2:17 (cf. Joel 2:28) and 1 Corinthians 7:17 in section one is extremely crucial here. It opens the discussion of the whole document. It shows a strong conviction and trust that God was still at work even in the time of a great trial. God is able to speak to her and show her future misteries. These visions and dreams assure Perpetua that God is with her in the midst of their trial and suffering. In this account at least we can see that Perpetua had four different visions, and that Saturus also had one vision. In the first vision, which is in section 4, she saw a long bronze ladder reaching to heaven. The second vision appeared in section 7 when she was spiritually moved by God to pray for her brother, Dinocrates. She saw Dinocrates living in darkness and trying to reach out for water to drink, but he was not able to get it. In the third vision she saw Dinocrates with a clean body drinking from a golden cup. In the fourth vision she fought and defeated the devil. One additional recorded vision in this document was seen by Saturus in sections 11-13. I will not elaborate all visions and dreams one by one due to the limitation of the length of this report. However, it is interesting to note that the account of Perpetua and Saturus was concluded in the section 14 as follows, “These are glorious visions of those martyrs themselves, the most blessed Saturus and Perpetua, which they themselves wrote down.” It means that the main focus of the account is primarily about their visions.

These visions and dreams perhaps seem so ridiculous for modern readers, but Perpetua and other early Christians believed that they are real. Perpetua was led, directed and comforted by them. The role of visions and dreams (charismatic activities) in this document is not surprising because early Christians were used to these mystical experiences. Eduard Schwitzer expressed it clearly, “Long before the Spirit was a theme of doctrine, He was a fact in the experience of the community.”[1] According to Justo L. Gonzalez, they probably were Montanists because it was most likely that the account came from the pen of Tertulian, the great North African theologian who was also a follower of Montanism.[2] This spiritual experience was actually the source of their strength and direction. The Holy Spirit was real in the experience of Perpetua and her Christian friends. These dreams and visions assure them that God is there with them and will eternally reward whatever they do in this present age.

Let me conclude this short reflection by saying this. Whether these experiences are historically true or not, we have no evidence to definitely prove them, other than this account. However, the personal effect of these experiences is quite dramatic and undeniable. They were faithful to the end because they experienced God in their everyday lives. God is not far away, but personally immanent to them. Perpetua stood firmly to the end because she knows that God was real and her Christian conviction was true. At the end of this document, a prayer was said and it really reflects this mystical ancient conviction: “... these new wonders also may testify that one and the same Holy Spirit works ever until now, and with him God the Father Almighty, and his son Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom is glory and power unending for every and ever, Amen.”

------------------------

[1] E. Schweizer, TDNT 6.396

[2] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1 (New York: Harper One, 1984), 83.

Dale Martin's Lectures on Introduction to New Testament History and Literature

2010-01-09T22:16:00.007-08:00

Dale Martin is a professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Yale University. The length of these videos is range between 32 to 52 minutes.

1. Introduction: Why Study the New Testament?

2. From Stories to Canon

3. The Greco-Roman World

4. Judaism in the First Century

5. The New Testament as History

6. The Gospel of Mark

7. The Gospel of Matthew

8. The Gospel of Thomas

9. The Gospel of Luke

10. The Acts of the Apostles

11. Johannine Christianity: the Gospel

12. Johannine Christianity: the Letters

13. The Historical Jesus

14. Paul as Missionary

15. Paul as Pastor

16. Paul as Jewish Theologian

17. Paul's Disciples

18. Arguing with Paul?

19. The "Household" Paul: the Pastorals

20. The "Anti-household" Paul: Thecla

21. Interpreting Scripture: Hebrews

22. Interpreting Scripture: Medieval Interpretations

23. Apocalyptic and Resistance

24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation

25. Ecclesiastical Institutions: Unity, Martyrs, and Bishops

26. The "Afterlife" of the New Testament and Postmodern Interpretation

William J. Seymour and a Racially Integrated Church

2010-01-08T17:10:00.008-08:00

From a very simple beginning in North America, Pentecostalism has been growing remarkably around the world in the last one hundred years. Mark Noll, a leading historian from Notre Dame University, even notes:

One of the most momentous developments in the twentieth century history of Christianity must certainly be the emergence of Pentecostalism as a dynamic force around the world. In 1900 there were, at most, a bare handful of Christians who were experiencing special gifts of the Holy Spirit similar to those recorded in the New Testament. By the end of the century, as many as 500 million (or more than a quarter of the population of affiliated Christian adherents) could be identified as Pentecostal or Charismatic.[1]

Pentecostals have reached people from many different nationalities, races, languages, and social status. According to a 2008 research by Pew Forum, Pentecostalism in North America consists of White (70%), Black (11%), Asian (3%), Latino (12%), others (3%).[2] However, Pentecostalism today is also a very racially divided movement. They are segregated and most of them worship in their own local church.

Moreover, Cecil M. Robeck, a Pentecostal minister and professor of church history at Fuller Seminary, stated this blatantly, “…We must face an obvious fact. Our Pentecostal churches and organizations, white or black, have been and for the most part continue to be highly segregated along racial lines.”[3] Even though the movement is divided by racial boundaries now, in this short essay I will show that Pentecostalism actually was started as a racially integrated movement led by a very simple African American preacher, William J. Seymour. The initial spirit of this movement is actually racial unification and reconciliation. Let us see the life of William Seymour first and then the fruit of his leadership igniting the Pentecostal movement at Azusa Street Mission.

William Seymour is considered one of the founding fathers of the modern Pentecostal movement.[4] He was born on May 2, 1870 in Centerville, Louisiana. His parents lived a very simple life just like other former slaves at that time. “He grew up in the midst of Ku Klux Klan and White League lynchings and violence, and institutionalized racism and segregation.”[5] Furthermore, Seymour left his family in the South for Indianapolis probably because he wanted to find a better job.[6] Seymour grew up as a Catholic, but in Indianapolis he was converted to Protestantism and began to attend a black Methodist Episcopal church.[7] He knew that he is called by God to ministry. He then decided to go to Ohio to study at God’s Bible School.[8]

In 1905, Seymour went to Houston, Texas. In this city he met the famous Charles Fox Parham. Parham went to Houston from Topeka, Kansas, to preach some tent meetings. Seymour became quite interested in Parham’s new teaching about baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. However, Parham was a very racist person. He was a strong supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. He believed in an extremely racist theology called British Anglo-Israelism theory, [9] which flourished rapidly in the Bible belt at that time. British Anglo-Israelite theology is a view that the ten tribes of Israel in the exile did not return to Israel. They moved to Europe and became now Anglo-Saxon people. Colin Kidd says that "Parham claimed that the Anglo-Saxons and other Israelites were more attuned to deeper spiritual truths than were other racial groups..."[10]

Even though Parham was a racist, Seymour was very attracted by his teachings. He then joined Parham’s Bible Training School in Houston. However, Parham apparently treated him discriminately because he was a black. The wife of Parham says,

One colored man, W.J. Seymour, became a regular attendant each day for Bible lessons. In Texas, you know, the colored people are not allowed to mix with white people, as they do in some other states; but he was so humble and so deeply interested in the study of the word that Mr. Parham could not refuse him. So he was given a place in the class and eagerly drank in the truths which we were so new to him and food to his hungry soul.[11]

Many historians argue that the statement “a place in the class” means Parham allowed him to take the class. It does not mean that he could sit in the same room with other white students. McRobert states that he was actually “segregated from whites outside the door.”[12] Robeck also shows that:

Unlike Cincinnati, Ohio, where schools could be racially integrated, the ‘Jim Crow’ laws of Texas prohibited the free mixing of the races in schools. Lucy Farrow apparently interceded on Seymour behalf and Parham conceded that Seymour could have a space in the class, though not in the classroom. He would have to take his seat in the hall outside the classroom door.[13]

So basically Seymour was subject to discrimination in Parham’s school because of two reasons, 1) Parham’s racist theology, and 2) the law of the State of Texas. This black man, who was segregated in the Bible school, later became a leader of a great international movement in Los Angeles.

One month after Seymour attended Parham’s school, he received an invitation from Los Angeles to take over the leadership of a holiness congregation. After a long discussion and debate with Parham about whether he should go to Los Angles or not, he finally decided to accept the invitation in spite of Parham’s disappointment.[14] He arrived in Los Angles in 1906 and began to preach at the church that invited him. However, because of his teaching on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, after several times preaching he was rejected by the congregation. Seymour wrote,

It was the divine call that brought me from Houston, Texas, to Los Angeles. The Lord put it in the heart of one of the saints in Los Angeles to write to me that she felt the Lord would have me come over here and do a work, and I came, for I felt it was the leading of the Lord. The Lord sent the means, and I came to take charge of a mission on Santa Fe Street, and one night they locked the door against me...[15]

Seymour didn’t have any place to go after he was rejected by the church. However, because of the kindness of a Richard and Ruth Asberry, Seymour began a prayer meeting in their home.[16] Not long after they started that prayer meeting, it was growing very quickly and the place became too small to gather them. They then decided to move to another building at 312 Azusa Street. In this simple church, a great movement of the twentieth century was born.

Let us see some important characteristics of the Azusa Street Mission that point to a remarkable racial integration in this church. First, it was a very international church. People from all over the world came to visit and worship in this church. The international characteristic of the church is clearly reflected in their main publication, The Apostolic Faith. In that newsletter we can read testimonies of people from different racial background. Hispanics, Whites, Blacks, Asians, and even Russians were attracted to come and worship at the Azusa Street Mission. The Los Angeles Herald, a secular newspaper reported about that church, “There were all ages, sexes, colors, nationalities, and previous conditions of servitude.”[17] Frank Bartleman, the eyewitness of the Azusa Street revival, testifies,

There was much persecution, especially from the press. They wrote us up shamefully, but this only drew the crowds. Some gave the work six months to live. Soon the meetings were running day and night. The place was packed out nightly. The whole building, upstairs and down, had now been cleared and put into use. There were far more white people than colored coming. The color line was washed away by the blood.[18]

The leadership team in the Azusa Street church also consisted of White and Black people.[19] It is very obvious this was a very unusual church, especially when it is seen in a broader social background of racial segregation in the early twentieth century in America. When the society was in a great turmoil because of racial segregation, the Azusa Street Mission emerged with a message of love and acceptance. It is also worth noting that even though Seymour was terribly discriminated against in the past even by his own teacher, Charles Parham, his leadership style shows a remarkable openness to the people regardless of racial background. [20]

Second, the main theology that emerged from this church is about speaking in tongues. It is interesting that the gift of tongues for the Azusa Street church is not about uncontrolled babbling of meaningless words. They[21] believed that when someone speaks in tongues, he or she is speaking a known language. The main purpose of this gift of tongues was seen as building a bridge among people from other cultures who speak different languages. The language wall that divides people, for them, is torn down by the power of the Spirit. The following example of Sister Leatherman speaking Turkish is only one of many examples that they have.

Sister Leatherman speaks the Turkish language, and while in Oakland, some were talking on the street about the gift of tongues. Sister Leatherman began to speak just as a man wearing the Turkish fez came by. He listened in wonder and asked what college she had attended, saying she spoke the most perfect Turkish tongue, he had heard spoken by a foreigner. He was an educated man from a Turkish college in Constantinople.[22]

With the gift of tongues that God gives, they believed that there were no longer barriers between people from different racial groups.

Third, their theology of the gift of understanding also has a deep implication to racial integration. If the gift of tongues was given for them to speak in other languages, they also believed that God could impart to them gifts of understanding too. When people from other cultures who spoke different language came to their meeting, they could understand what those foreigners were saying only by seeing the expression of their faces. The Apostolic Faith reported,

It is noticeable how free all nationalities feel. If a Mexican or German cannot speak English, he gets up and speaks in his own tongue, and feels quite at home, for the Spirit interprets through the face and people say amen. No instrument that God can use is rejected on account of color or dress, or lack of education. This is why God has so built up the work.[23]

It is clear from this report that these gifts have social implications. Anyone could freely participate in worship. No one is rejected on the basis of the language that they use or the color of their skin. They had a very revealing slogan, “Love, Faith, Unity are our watchwords.”[24]

Fourth, William Seymour designed the interior composition in the Azusa Street Mission in a very unique way in order to make sure of a full participation of every member. In this church, “all seats are on the same level; there is no elevated front-platform.”[25] Walter Hollenweger has drawn a rough sketch that perhaps can help us to imagine the situation of the main sanctuary.[26] Here is the sketch:

In this arrangement of benches, everyone is put in an equal position. There is no special place for certain group of people. Therefore, in this church Hispanics, Whites, Blacks, Asians, etc., all have the same full opportunity to participate in the worship service.

These are at least four important characteristics of the church that William Seymour led in Los Angeles that point to racial integration. Harvey Cox, a professor of Religion at Harvard University, says:

There was, however, one distinct element at Azusa Street, one which Seymour himself eventually came to believe was the most important sign that a new Pentecost was occurring: black, white, and brown people were praising God together at the absolute nadir of the Jim Crow era. Indeed, in 1906, that simple frame building on Azusa Street may have been the most racially integrated address in America. For Seymour and many of his associates, this gathering was not just a project in interracial cooperation. It was a sign from God that the curse of Babel and the sinful division of the church were both being healed.[27]

The Azusa Street Mission is a reflection of Seymour’s deep conviction that everyone should be treated equally in the church.

The situation of Pentecostal movement today is quite different from the Azusa Street Mission. Besides theological issues, it is obvious that Pentecostal denominations are divided by racial boundaries. The Assemblies of God is mainly a white fellowship. The Church of God in Christ is a black church. This list can go even longer. It shows that Pentecostals perhaps have lost their racial integration legacy. However, there is still a hope for Pentecostalism. In 1994, Pentecostals from many different racial groups gathered again in Memphis. While washing each other’s feet, showing that they were humbling themselves, they declared the so called a “Racial Reconciliation Manifesto”. In the last point of the manifesto, they declared:

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Azusa Street Mission was a model of preaching and living the Gospel message in the world. We desire to drink deeply from the well of Pentecost as it was embodied in that mission. We, therefore, pledge our commitment to embrace the essential commitments of that mission in evangelism and mission, in justice and holiness, in spiritual renewal and empowerment, and in the reconciliation of all Christians regardless of race or gender as we move into the new millennium.[28]

The people of this movement need to be often reminded that they are historically rooted in a racial unifying church, the Azusa Street Mission.

-------------

Endnotes:

[1] Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1997), 299.

[2] A very interesting fact is worth noting here regarding the result of this survey. Even though Pentecostalism in US was started a black movement in the early twentieth century, it has now been dominated by white people. See Pew Forum, “Palin V.P. Nomination Puts Pentecostalism in the Spotlight” http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=345 (Accessed November 22, 2009).

[3] Cecil M. Robeck Jr., “The Past: Historical Roots of Racial Unity and Division in American Pentecostalism” [paper presented at Pentecostal Partners: A Reconciliation Strategy for 21st Century Ministry, Memphis, Tennessee, October 17-19, 1994].

[4] There has been a debate between scholars whether William Seymour or Charles Parham is the founder of modern Pentecostal Movement. Parham was the one who introduced the idea of baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, whereas Seymour is the main leader in the spreading of this theology internationally. For further discussions, see James S. Tinney, “William J Seymour [1855?-1920?]: Father of Modern-Day Pentecostalism” Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center, 4/1 (Fall 1976): 34-44.

[5] Ian Mac Robert, The Black Roots and White Racism of Early Pentecostalism in the USA (New York: St. Martin Press, 1988), 48.

[6] Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., Azusa Street: Mission and Revival (Nashville, Tennessee: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 2006), 28.

[7] Robert, 49.

[8] Ibid., 33. Robeck says that there are three main reasons he chose this school. First, the school was racially inclusive. They accepted anybody from any race background to study. Second, the school believed in premillennialism. And third, they believed in the role of special revelation, like dream, vision, prophecy, etc.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Colin Kidd, The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 215.

[11] Sarah E. Parham, The Life of Charles F. Parham: Founder of the Apostolic Faith Movement (Joplin, Missouri: Tri-State Printing co., 1985), 137.

[12] McRobert, The Black Roots and White Racism, 115.

[13] Robeck, Azusa Stret, 47.

[14] Ibid., 50-1.

[15] The Apostolic Faith, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1906), 1.

[16] John Thomas Nichol, The Pentecostals: The Story of the Growth and Development of a Vital New Force Appearing in the Christian Church (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1966), 33.

[17] “How Holy Roller Gets Religion,” Los Angeles Herald, 10 September 1906, 7.

[18] Frank Bartleman, Azusa Street: The Roots of Modern-Day Pentecost (Gainesville, Fla.: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1980), 54.

[19] Edith Blumhofer, “Azusa Street Revival,” Christian Century (March 7, 2006), 20-22.

[20] Joe Creech describes this as Seymour’s ethical restorationism. The Azusa Street church wanted to bring people back to the racial integration church in the book of Acts. See Joe Creech, “Visions of Glory: The Place of the Azusa Street Revival in Pentecostal History” Church History 65/3 (September 1996): 412.

[21] When I use word “they” here, I refer to the people in the Azusa Street Mission. I assume that their theology will reflect their pastor’s theology. William Seymour must have taught them many things because he was the main leader of the church. Besides this, whenever they publish something, it should have gone first through the table of Seymour.

[22] The Apostolic Faith, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1906), 4.

[23] The Apostolic Faith, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1906), 1.

[24] The Apostolic Faith, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1906), 2

[25] Walter Hollenweger, Pentecostalism: Origins and Developments Worldwide (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 23.

[26] Ibid., 24.

[27] Harvey Cox, “The Legacy of Azusa Street: Has the Global Pentecostal Movement Done Enough to Share Azusa's Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity with the World?” Beliefnet, http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Protestant/2006/04/The-Legacy-Of-Azusa-Street.aspx?p=1 (Accessed November 20, 2009). Cf. Cox, "Liberation and the Spirit," Christian Century (25 August 1993), 808.

[28] Ithiel Clemmons, Leonard Lovett, Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., and Harold D. Hunter , “Racial Reconciliation Manifesto”, Pentecostal-Charismatic Theological Inquiry International, http://www.pctii.org/manifesto.html (Accessed November 24, 2009).

Love and Discipline in Calvin's Ecclesiastical Ordinances

2009-12-06T00:37:00.005-08:00

John Calvin was one of the most important church Reformers in the sixteenth century. Besides being a Reformer, he was also a very prolific author. Deep thoughts and reflections poured out through his very pen and they last forever. Ecclesiastical Ordinances is one of them. This important piece of work was a reflection of Calvin's ecclesiological understanding on how the church should operate in the world. The draft of this document was written in 1541, and then corrected and edited by at least two hundred people in Geneva. Ecclesiastical Ordinances basically served as a constitution for the church. A question came to my mind when I read this document. In serving the people of God, what did Calvin think a church should have? I will argue that Calvin demonstrated that the church should have a proper integration between “love” and “discipline”. Let us see how Calvin crafted these two elements together in his Ecclesiastical Ordinances.

Love is shown through the meeting of two segments of people's need, spiritual and physical. On the level of spirituality, it is very interesting to note that at least four days a week, Calvin wanted the people to hear the word of God. A pastor should preach on Sunday morning and afternoon, also Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, right before the people go to work. This shows that Calvin had a strong confidence in gospel preaching. Moreover, according to Ecclesiastical Ordinances, every church has to administer the sacraments as well. This is very important because they are means of grace. Through the sacraments, Christ spiritually presents and bestows his grace. Spiritual needs of the people also are met through the work of the second order, teachers. Teachers are those who know their Bible. Therefore, they are expected to teach both Old and New Testament to the people. The church can be spiritually rich with the preaching and administration of sacraments by a pastor, and knowledge from teachers. However, what about the physical needs? It is very clear in Ecclesiastical Ordinances that the main job of deacons is to address this need. Calvin says,

There are two orders of deacons in the ancient church, the one concerned with receiving, distributing, and guarding the goods of the poor, their possessions, income and pensions as well as the quarterly offerings; the other, to take heed to and care for sick and administer the pittance for the poor.

Speaking about the social gospel, this is it. The church meets the everyday need of people. He even gives direction on hospital management. A hospital is not only for the sick, but also “to aged person who are unable to work, to widows, orphans and other needy persons.” There is no need of health insurance in this social system. Health care was seen as the responsibility of the Church.

The church, however, is not all about giving, preaching, caring, or teaching only. The church also plays a role as the social control. This is the disciplinary element of Ecclesiastical Ordinances. The elders are the ones who do this. Calvin wrote, “their office is to keep watch over the lives of everyone, to admonish in love those whom they see in error and leading disorderly lives.” There are two kinds of church discipline that we can see in this document. The first one is the disciplinary related to the doctrinal impurity. Calvin took seriously opposing theological opinions. He said that if someone believes a concept “contrary to the received doctrine, he is to be summoned”. It seems like there was no such thing as academic freedom at that time. People have to believe what the church believes. The second kind is related to non-doctrinal issues. These non-doctrinal issues can be manifested in many different forms: absence from the church, doing a public evil, crimes, etc. They are to be handled seriously.

Moreover, Calvin laid out the procedures of how to do biblical church discipline. He largely used the principle written in the book of Matthew. Even though the last alternative in church discipline is the excommunication, discipline is always intended to restore the sinners. The church should not discipline with the spirit of punishment. Calvin mentioned, at least two times in Ecclesiastical Ordinances, that church discipline has to be done “in love”. This means that love and discipline are not two separated things. They are integrated to one another. In other words, there must be a holy integration between them in the church. Calvin said, “... let there not be such a degree of rigor that anyone should cast down, for all corrections are but medicinal, to bring back sinners to the Lord.” Love does not mean that the church has to just ignore wrongdoings. The church has to deal with them, but again, restoration should be the ultimate purpose of every church discipline.

Why is this so important? Because if love exists in the church without relevant discipline, the church will be full of spoiled and immature Christians. Similarly, if there is discipline without love, then the church will be a legalistic institution. Calvin taught that a proper integration between love and disciplined is needed by the church in order to serve the people of God.

Experience in Trusting God for Needs

2009-11-24T11:23:00.006-08:00

This morning I was reading through the first edition of "The Apostolic Faith" (1906), which is the main publication of Azusa Street church of pst. William J. Seymour, and I found this interesting testimony. It is about trusting God for daily needs. Does anybody know who T.W.M (or T.W. McConnell) is?

-----------------------------

EXPERIENCE IN TRUSTING GOD FOR NEEDS

The first time I was out of wood after the Lord had shown me to trust Him, I asked the Lord for wood and the wood did not come. The Lord had shown me that I could not ask for what I already had. If there was flour in the barrel, I could not ask for flour till it was gone. I went down into the basement that morning and found some hard knots that had been laid aside and had enough wood for that day. The next morning I asked the Lord for wood. The wood did not come. I picked up enough chunks and chips to do that day.

The next morning, I went to the Lord and said, "Father, there are no more chunks and chips, we are out of wood. Send the wood." I went down to the city and forgot all about it. Did not think of it, until I returned home, and my daughter said, "Papa, who brought the wood?" I told her that "she need not trouble, the Lord would send it." But, she said, "Some man brought wood, who was he that you sent it by?" I thought she was joking, but she said, "Look in the box and in the basement." I went down and found a large load of wood already for the stove and just the length that we used in our stove.

I did not know for some time who brought the wood; but one day when holding meetings in South Seattle, a man invited me home with him, and while at dinner he said, "I want to tell you something that happened to me. I was crossing the bridge with a load of wood. My wife had written out a bill of some things that we had to have, and I needed feed for my horses. I was taking this load of wood in to get the groceries and feed. While out on the bridge and no one near me, an audible voice said behind me and just above me, 'Take this wood to McConnell.' I looked around me and there was no one near me. I said, 'I cannot take this wood to McConnell, I have got to have the groceries and feed,' and drove on. The voice said again, 'Take this wood to T.W. McConnell.' I said, 'How can I take this wood to McConnell; I must have these groceries and feed for my horses.' And the third time the voice spoke, and so strong that it scared me, and I answered, 'Well, I will,' for I believed it was the Lord talking. There was no one about. "I went and made inquiry, finally looked in the directory and found where you lived. I drove to the house and unloaded the wood, then drove back home as quickly as I could, loaded up some wood that I had and drove back to town, sold my wood as soon as I reached town, got my feed and groceries, and from that time I have prospered as never before."

T.W.M

The Prayer of St. Francis Xavier

2009-10-21T22:12:00.005-07:00

O God I Love you,

not simply to be saved,
and not because those who fail in love to you
will be punished with eternal fire.

You, you, my JESUS, have all-embraced me on the cross.
You have borne the nails, the lance, much ignominy,
numberless griefs, sweatings and anguish, and death,
and these on account of me and for me, a sinner.

Why therefore, should I not love you,
O, most loving JESUS?
Not that in heaven you shall save me,
nor lest for eternity you shall condemn me;
not with the hope of any reward,
but as you have loved me, so also will I love you,
only because you are my King,
and because you are my God.

----------------------------

I stumbled upon this profound prayer today in my reading of Forgetting Ourselves on Purpose: Vocational and the Ethics of Ambition by Brian J. Mahan.

Reflection on Augustine's Confessions

2009-10-09T08:33:00.003-07:00

Augustine is one of the best theologians that the Church has ever had. He had a tremendous gift for writing and a keen mind. Confessions was written a few years after he was appointed bishop of Hippo in 398 AD. Rhetorically it is a beautiful book, which is not a surprise because Augustine himself was a professor of rhetoric. However, when we read this book, from the very first page we immediately get a somewhat negative impression of Augustine. Why was he able to vividly declare all the terrible sins he had committed? Was it necessary for him to do that? In this short essay, I will argue that by drawing a negative picture of his early life and relating it to the prevenient grace of God, Augustine wanted to build divine authority for his new leadership position. There are three main elements we need to examine here: 1) Augustine's sinful past, 2) God's prevenient grace, and 3) its implication to his leadership position. Let us see how they are related to each other.

The entire narrative of Augustine's life in Confessions is extremely intriguing. The largest portion of the first half of the book is full of the evil that he had done. After glorifying God, he immediately cried out, “Hear me, O God! How wicked are the sins of men!” (Confessions I.7). With this opening prayer about the wickedness of man, Augustine then laid out pertinent past stories of his life. He started with his sinful nature from the time before he even was born. He said, “... I was born in sin and guilt was with me already when my mother conceived me...” (Confessions I.7). Furthermore, Augustine continued the journey of his sinful life to his boyhood. This was the time when he had the ability to speak and he began to learn how to read and write. He sinned by his disobedience to his parents and teachers. He sinned when he did not want to study, even though he knew that it was for his own good. He sinned when he lied to his parents, his tutor, etc. He cheated in many games that he played with his friends. He saw his wickedness like the prodigal son in the scripture.

When Augustine grew up, he confessed that he was trapped deeply in fornication and lust because he simply wanted “to love and to be loved” (Confessions, II.2). It is quite obvious that Augustine's view of sexuality had dominated his theology of original sin and humanity. He had a mistress and the main reason he lived with a mistress was because he burned with sexual passion for her. His mistress left him when he became engaged to a younger and wealthier woman and because he had to wait for two years to marry this woman, he took another mistress. He said blatantly, “...I was more a slave of lust than true lover of marriage, I took another mistress, without the sanction of wedlock.” (Confessions, VI.15). Lust had become an entangling sin that was the hardest thing for him to give up when he was considering becoming a Christian (see Confessions, VIII.5). Carl G. Vaught says, “...the Confessions is not only Augustine’s story, but also the story of Adam and Eve, and hence the story of us all.” Vaught is right, I think, because Confessions should not be seen only as a personal story. It is a sermon in narrative form.

Moreover, we need to remember that recorded history has always been dependent on the perspective of the historian. In other words, there is no completely objective historiography. Every historical account is always written with a perspective. When Augustine wrote the narrative of his life, therefore, he would do it with a specific perspective in mind. A very dominant theological theme in Confessions is God's prevenient grace. Prevenient grace can be simply be understood as the active work of God prior to a person's conversion to bring him or her to salvation. Augustine wrote the story of his life with this perspective. Let us see how he saw the work of God's grace in his life.

Even though Augustine's past life was full of sins, as we have seen above, the grace of God was real to him. These two elements are not separated, but elegantly intertwined in Confessions. The grace of God was demonstrated in several ways. First, God gave him the ability to understand language even though other people didn't teach him a system of grammar (Confessions, I.8). He attributed this ability as a gift from God. This is the skill that he further developed to its full potential when he became a professor of rhetoric. Related to this language skill, God also gave him an extraordinary ability to think (Confessions, I.17).

Second, God's grace was further given to him by healing his physical body. God healed him from a serious stomach illness that could have led to death (Confessions, I.11). Another time when he was very sick in Rome, he said, “I came close to dying, close to losing my soul.” (Confessions V.9) In the midst of that critical situation, according to Augustine, he was healed miraculously by God's mercy.

Third, Augustine realized the work of God through the unceasing prayer and strong faith of his mother, Monica. The role of Monica in the entire narrative is extremely important. Regarding Monica's prayers, he wrote,

But you sent down your help from above and rescued my soul from the depths of this darkness, your faithful servant, wept to you for me, shedding more tears for my spiritual death than other mothers shed for the bodily death of a son. For in her faith and in the spirit which she had from you she looked on me as dead. You heard her and did not despise the tears which streamed down and watered the earth in every place where she bowed her head in prayer. (Confessions, III.11)

It is obvious that Augustine had a very close relationship with his mother. Her prayers and tears had a profound impact in his spiritual journey to Christianity. Augustine even saw her as a divine helper. Additionally, when Monica failed to convinced the bishop to come to Augustine and correct his wrong Manichean doctrines, the bishop told her plainly, “Leave me and go in peace. It cannot be that the son of these tears should be lost.” (Confessions, III.12). She immediately knew that it was a message from God that Augustine would someday be saved. Her tears and prayers became the channel of God's grace to the life of Augustine.

Fourth, God led Augustine specifically to go to a place or to meet a particular person. Before he went to Rome, Monica was upset with his decision and wanted him to stay in Carthage. But because he was very determined to go, he quietly sailed to Rome without telling Monica. When Augustine recalled the story, he said, “But it was to save my soul that you obliged me to go and live elsewhere...” (Confessions, V.8). This is a very strong language. He felt like he was 'obliged' by God to go to Rome. In other words, God dragged him to Rome so that he could be saved. Another occasion where he specifically mentioned God's hidden action in his life was when he met Bishop Ambrose. Augustine said, “Unknown to me, it was you who led me to him [Ambrose], so that I might knowingly be led by him to you” (Confessions, V.13).

Step by step, then, God led Augustine to a remarkable experience of conversion. He finally made up his mind and joined the Catholic church. Nevertheless, we still have to ask the following question. What was the purpose of writing this story? I believe it may have something to do with his new leadership position. There are two reasons for this. First, it is important to remember that Augustine wrote this book not long after he became a bishop. If this is true, then it has to be asked why didn't he write this book right after his conversion? Why did he have to wait until he became bishop? It seems like he wanted to show his readers that God had been eagerly working in his life even from the time he was in his mother's womb. God was the one who gave him all the abilities he had; God was the one who brought him from one place to another; God was the one who put important people in his life; God was the one who led him to a remarkable experience of conversion. The reader, therefore, should be able to conclude that God must be the one who put him in a leadership position as well. Because it was all done by God, then they should know that his leadership was based solely on divine work. He was appointed by a divine authority. By writing this book, very likely Augustine was communicating this to his readers, “I am here as the leader of the Church because God brought me here. My authority comes not from myself, but from God.”

Second, it is quite obvious that Augustine was a faithful follower of the Apostle Paul. In the book he quoted Paul many times. He used Pauline letters to build his theology. He even converted to Christianity because of the book of Romans. Carol Harrison is right when she says that “the figure of Paul seems to accompany Augustine on his intellectual journey.” I think Paul was with him not only in his intellectual journey, but also in his leadership journey. It seems that Augustine wanted to depict himself in this book, Confessions, as the next Paul, because there are several obvious similarities between them. Just like Paul, Augustine was a church leader who came from an intellectual background. Just like Paul, Augustine had a sinful past life. Just like Paul, Augustine heard a divine voice in his conversion experience. Just like Paul, Augustine believed that people are saved because of the grace of God. When Paul's apostleship was questioned by other people, he built the case for his leadership from the story of his conversion (cf. Gal. 1:11-2:10; Cor. 15:1-11; 2 Cor. 11-12). Paul admitted that he was personally weak, but his strength came from God. Augustine followed the same path. Confessions is a book full of his weaknesses and his dependence on God's strength. Augustine, just like Paul, wanted to say to readers that his leadership was built upon God's grace alone. He was weak as a man, but strong in God.

Confessions was written by a newly appointed bishop, Augustine. We can, at least, have a glimpse as to why he had the courage to declare all the terrible sins he had committed. He beautifully crafted together his sinful past and his theology of prevenient grace of God, with a strong rhetorical ability, in order to build a divine authority for his leadership position. His life story has been intensely spiritualized and theologized so that other people can see the hand of God who brought him to the point when he was writing this book. His position in the Church as a bishop is not about him, but it is all about God. Therefore, it is expected that the readers should be able to understand this 'hidden' intention behind this book.

Tonight, A New Journey Begins...

2009-07-23T16:38:00.007-07:00

In the past two or three months you perhaps have noticed that I didn't blog much. Maybe you are wondering why? Actually I have been very busy preparing my further education. Last December and January, I applied to two major theological schools in the States.

1) Boston University School of Theology
2) Claremont School of Theology

On February 11, I received a notification from Boston University that I am admitted to study in their Master of Sacred Theology (STM) program. I was extremely excited about it. Being accepted by Boston University only has been a great honor and achievement for me personally. I then asked them about the funding and financial aid. They responded to my email and offered me 45% tuition scholarship. When I began to count the total budget i need to study there, I found out that I have to raise about 25k to 30k USD more per year. This is extremely difficult for an Indonesian to provide that huge amount in a year. So, studying at Boston University perhaps would not be affordable to me. I eventually declined their offer of admission.

Claremont School of Theology this year just launched a new project of making the school a university. You can read about the project here. One of the things they do in this project is providing a full scholarship grant for 8 incoming master students, namely The University Scholars Awards. This scholarship covers 1) 100 percent of tuition and fees; 2) an on-campus apartment (or off-campus equivalent); 3) all course-required books; and 4) a monthly stipend of $750 (9 months/ $6,750 per annum). This is a very comprehensive scholarship.

They sent me an email of notification about this scholarship in December. I found it very interesting.. and then I did a little research on the website about the programs they have, etc. Actually I have heard about Claremont School of Theology a lot in the past. The professors there (John Cobb, James A. Sanders, James Robinson, etc.) are known worldwide in the theological circle. If one is seriously studying theology, he/she will surely get familiar with those names. When I read the website of CST, I noticed that they have a very strong MA in Theology program. The MA program is designed to prepare the students for PhD studies. In early January, I then decided to try to apply to this school. I submitted all the application before January 30, which is the deadline for scholarship.

On the 14th of February, I received an email from the admission office informing me that I was nominated as one of the finalists to get the scholarship. I was extremely excited to hear it. They then set up a time for me to have an interview with them. All finalists from America were invited to campus, but since I live in Indonesia, the interview was done through Skype video conference on Saturday, February 28, 2009. On Sunday, I went to Ambon to teach a class in a Bible School there. Just a few days after the interview, on Friday, while I was teaching, my wife called me from Malang. I paused the class for a minute, and I picked up the phone. With a shaking voice... she told me, "Eka.... you get the full scholarship from Claremont". I was really really shocked... surprised... excited... Everything was mixed in my heart. :-) It was really beyond my imagination! All of the sudden I remember my mom and my dad who had been faithful serving the Lord until the end of their life. I cried... :-) I know for sure that one of the reasons why God blessed me with this really unusual opportunity to study with a full scholarship is because my parents were faithful servants of Him.

God has been helping me miraculously with enough financial provision to pay for my visa, air ticket, etc. I really don't know how to thank HIM for the greatness of his mercy and grace.

Tonight I will leave Indonesia for Macau and Hong Kong, and then fly to Los Angeles in the mid of August. I am writing this from Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, Jakarta. Please allow me to say good bye to my friends, families, colleagues, in Indonesia. I promise that I will give my best in the States for the glory of God's name.

Indeed tonight... A new life journey begins.

Evangelicals and Their Overcommitment to the Bible (J.P. Moreland)?

2009-06-11T19:26:00.001-07:00

I just read a short ETS paper (2007) by a very conservative Christian philosopher from Biola University, J.P. Moreland. This paper basically shows that the overcommitment of evangelicals to the Bible can be very dangerous and harmful. He pointed out three main areas where evangelicals have failed to engage with due to their overcommitment to the Bible. "(1) natural theology and moral law; (2) the realm of spirits/souls; (3) divine guidance, prophetic revelation, words of knowledge and wisdom." I think a Roman Catholic theologian can comment on the first area, and a Christian counselor/psychologist can comment on the second area.

Since I am a Pentecostal, i would give my brief personal comment on the third area, which is the failure of Evangelicals to be open and to engage with the divine guidance, prophetic revelation, words of knowledge and wisdom. As we all have known, the main argument for cessationism is their blind commitment to the Bible. Because the Bible has been written completely, then we don't need other source of revelation anymore. Bible is the sole source of revelation and spiritual guidance. Using the expression of Avery Dulles, in his book Models of Revelation, these cessationists embrace strongly the idea of "Revelation as Doctrine" or propositional model of Revelation. God cannot speak through other means besides the Bible, the written word of God. What is the conclusion then? There is no more prophecy, no more divine guidance, no more tongues, etc. The only way of finding the theological and spiritual truth is through exegesis of biblical texts. However, is this a biblical view? I am afraid that this is simply a logical conclusion to their narrow theological understanding of the Bible and not necessarily a biblical teaching. The Bible itself never teaches that the revelatory gifts, such as prophecy, has ceased after the first century. The Bible also never teaches that the 'only' way to know God and His will is through the exegesis of the written texts. We can know God from other sources as well (i think this is related to the first area, natural theology). Paul and other first century Christians believed in visions, dreams, prophecies, etc. Why do these ultra-conservative Christians today reject these experiences? So, since Pentecostals do not buy into that model of revelation only, they still believe in and they are open to the availability of prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12-14), etc., for the believers today. God can still speak to the Christians even now. The rejection of these divine revelatory activities and dynamics in the Church will cause a spiritual dryness and emptiness.

You can read the article completely here:

http://www.kingdomtriangle.com/discussion/moreland_EvangOverCommBible.pdf

If anyone is interested in reading it, I am just curious what you will think about it.

blessings!

What Goes Wrong with Born-Again Christians in America?

2009-04-05T01:10:00.010-07:00

I am not an American and have not been to America before. This is just something that really bothers me from the other side of the world, Asia. I hope some Americans can help me to clarify these things. Today, Newsweek Magazine publishes an article entitled "The End of Christian America". This is a very exaggerating title, no doubt about it. However, it at least shows a very disturbing trend in American Christianity. This is what it reports:

The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades. How that statistic explains who we are now—and what, as a nation, we are about to become.

It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking.

"That really hit me hard," he told me last week. "The Northwest was never as religious, never as congregationalized, as the Northeast, which was the foundation, the home base, of American religion. To lose New England struck me as momentous." Turning the report over in his mind, Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. "A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us," Mohler wrote. "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. "Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society," he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky.

There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey that got Mohler's attention, the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent. The Jewish population is 1.2 percent; the Muslim, 0.6 percent. A separate Pew Forum poll echoed the ARIS finding, reporting that the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans. (Seventy-five percent of unaffiliated voters chose Barack Obama, a Christian.) Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)

Reading this article makes me think that perhaps the prediction of Michael Spencer about "The coming evangelical collapse" is really true. It seems to me that evangelicals cannot offer an acceptable kind Christianity to the younger generation. Bishop John Shelby Spong, in his lecture at the University of Oregon, stated a very strong and pointed criticism toward born-again Christians in America. He stated:

Do you know what part of the country has highest divorce rate in America? It's the Bible belt. Do you know what part of the country has the highest instances of spousal abuse and child abuse? It's the Bible belt. Do you know what part of the country has the highest abortion rate? It's the Bible belt. Do you know what part of the country commits adultery more than anybody else? It's the Bible belt. Somebody said they commit adultery more in the South, they just don't enjoy it as much. On almost every one of this issue, the South leads the nation. What kind of God is worshiped in the Bible belt? What kind of Bible is read in the Bible belt? Do you know which two states in our nation buys the most pornographic materials? Alabama is number one, the heart of the Bible belt, and Utah is number two. What is that tell you? Do you know which part of the nation executes more convicts than the rest of the nation put together? It's the Bible belt. It's indeed Texas alone. But if you put the rest of the Bible belt together with Texas, they execute more people than every civilized nation in the world put together every year. What does it mean? What kind of religion is it?

That is a very strong and shocking statement for me personally. Bishop Spong is not an evangelical guy for sure, but he made a very strong point about the morality and the ethical life of confessed born-again Christians in America. If this is the kind of Christianity we have in US, no wonder the younger generations will leave Christianity. Evangelicals perhaps are too busy defending inerrancy of the Bible, creationism, etc., and have forgotten that morality (fruit of the Spirit - ethical life) is also as important as those theological tenets. My friend, Darrin Rodgers, is right when he said that "many evangelicals and Pentecostals have forgotten how to think about moral theology."

How can they be a good witness of Christ? Again, i am not surprised that this kind of Christianity will not be attractive anymore to young people. I think Christian leaders in America have to do something about this. If you are a reader of this article and you are a born-again Christian from America, please help me understand why this thing happens? I would appreciate every opinion and comment you give.

Jesus says "...let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)

Kosuke Koyama Passed Away

2009-04-03T17:09:00.005-07:00

The contribution of Dr. Kosuke Koyama to Asian theologies is extremely important. His influential book, "Water Buffalo Theology" has deeply and personally impacted the way i think about Christian theology. Many Asian theological educations, for many years, have been strongly west oriented. The issues that Christianity in the west are facing are very different with the issues of Christianity in Asia. Koyama brought a fresh air of a constructive and innovative theology for Asian context.

He just passed away a few days ago (March 25, 2009), but i believe his contribution to Asian theological reflection will last forever. I pray that more young Koyamas will emerge and raise up in the future. We need more theologians like Koyama who dare to constructively think for themselves (Asians) and not just following what western theologian say.

New York Times published an article about his death.

The Rev. Dr. Kosuke Koyama, a theologian internationally known for using arresting metaphors drawn from his experience as a missionary to convey an influential vision of Christianity as compatible with Asian traditions, died on last Wednesday, in Springfield, Mass. He was 79.
The immediate cause was pneumonia, said his son Mark, who added that his father had had esophageal cancer.

Please read further here and here and here.

Knowing the Will of God

2009-02-17T05:41:00.003-08:00

Knowing the will of God has always been a huge issue for many Christians. What is the exact way to know what God wants from us? For many years, i have been trying to find a correct and biblical answer for this question. When i read Simon Chan's book "Spiritual Theology", i found a tremendously profound discussion on this very issue. Here is what he said in the book about conformity to the will of God.

Many young Christians are preoccupied with the question of God’s will for their lives. By "God’s will" they are thinking of God’s specific plans for their own personal future. While the desire to live in God’s will is commendable, the motivation for knowing and the very concept of God’s will itself are quite questionable. Some desire to know God’s will hoping to avoid the need to make painful personal decisions. Knowing in advance and with certitude God’s special blueprint for them would simplify their lives considerably, they think. Such people prefer to live by sight rather than by faith with its accompanying struggle and doubt. Part of the problem is that they entertain a very mistaken notion of God’s will. God’s will is equated with a piece of information, which once grasped, releases them from the responsibility for further discovery.

The biblical idea of knowing God’s will is quite different. To conform to God’s will is to unite our wills to his in love. Knowing what God wants heightens rather than diminishes our responsibility. We have to make an existential choice: follow him or reject him. It is impossible to choose to follow God unless we love him with the love with which he loves us. Thus to love God is already to be united to God and to be conformed to God’s will. This is why Scripture equates loving God with knowing God (1 Jn 4:7-8). Augustine was right when he said, “Love God and do whatever you Like.” For no one can truly love God and be out of God’s will. Everything we do out of love for God will be circumscribed by love and therefore cannot be out of God’s will. It does not mean that we will not make any mistakes. Our love is imperfect, and our knowledge, on which we make decisions, is even more so. What it does mean is that even when we make mistakes, we cannot ultimately go wrong because love will redirect us to the right path.

Here again practical askesis requires us to ask how we can, by taking small steps, learn conformity to God’s will.

Taken from Simon Chan, Spiritual Theology: A Systematic Study of Christian Life (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 147-8.

I really hope this can help some of us who are struggling to make big decisions in our lives. Simon Chan is right, i think. God's will should not bring intimidation to our lives. When we love him with all of heart, our strength and our mind, doing the will of God will never bring fear anymore, but peace and joy.

What do you all think about this?

Soli Deo Gloria!

Exception Clause in Matthew 5:32

2009-01-31T15:43:00.000-08:00

Can anyone help me with this? It seems like many, if not all, commentaries on the book of Matthew do not pay their attention on the preposition παρεκτὸς in this text. Should this exception clause modify the first clause only (divorce)? Or can it be applied to both clauses (both divorce and remarriage)?

Which one is the best reading of the text grammatically? Thank you very much!

Here is the Greek text of the passage:
ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται

The longer I serve Him, the sweeter He grows

2009-01-29T14:34:00.000-08:00

While i was praying this morning, i listened to a beautiful old song by Bill and Gloria Gaither Band. I have not heard this song for soooo long. The more i think about this song, the more tears running down from my eyes. YES, THE LONGER I SERVE HIM... THE SWEETER HE GROWS!! Thank you sweet Jesus...

Since I started for the Kingdom,
Since my life He controls,
Since I gave my heart to Jesus,
The longer I serve Him,
The sweeter He grows.

Chorus
The longer I serve Him, the sweeter He grows,
The more that I love Him, more love He bestows;
Each day is like heaven, my heart overflows,
The longer I serve Him, the sweeter He grows.

Ev'ry need He is supplying,
Plenteous grace He bestows;
Ev'ry day my way gets brighter,
The longer I serve Him,
The sweeter He grows.

Chorus
The longer I serve Him, the sweeter He grows,
The more that I love Him, more love He bestows;
Each day is like heaven, my heart overflows,
The longer I serve Him, the sweeter He grows.

You can listen to the song also here:
http://www.diggsjourney.com/sounds/player-winmedia.htm?song1-46.mp3 (By the Heritage Singers)

Recent Debates on Important Issues in Christianity

2009-01-17T16:41:00.004-08:00

These past two weeks, there are some important debates on the important issues in Christianity. Here is the list of them:

17 January 2009, Michael Bird & James Crossley: "How did Christianity begin? - part 1" Click here to listen to the debate.
10 January 2009, Bart Ehrman & Richard Swinburne, "God's Problem: does the Bible fail to answer the problem of suffering?". Click here to listen to the debate.
3 January 2009, Bart Ehrman & Peter Williams - "Misquoting Jesus: Do we have the original writings of the New Testament?" Click here to listen to the debate.

Enjoy!

What Can We Learn from the Scandal of Rev. Ted Haggard?

2008-11-15T01:35:00.006-08:00

The news about sexual scandal of Rev. Tedd Haggard, a former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, in 2006 has been spread all over the world. Everyone knows this. People have said so many bad things about it. They question his ministry. Non-Christians is even more... they hate him and said that he is a hypocrite. Pentecostal and Charismatic movement has been hurt by this scandal as well. We need to understand that in the last two decades, Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has been painfully accused and mocked when its two great preachers, Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker, fell into so many moral scandals.

Today on ABC news (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6235564&page=1), Tedd Haggard, opened his mouth and explained it. This is what he said:

====================
The first thing I want you to know is I sinned. I really did sin. And i'm very very sorry that i sinned.

My wife -- all my sin and shame fell on her. People treated her as if she had fallen. And my children -- they all went through carrying my shame. And i am so sorry that I did that to my family.

My dad was pretty successful. He had a lot of workers. One of those workers had a sexual experience with me. I was 7 years old.

There I was, 50 years old, a conservative Republican, loving the word of God, an evangelical, born-again, spirit-filled, charismatic, all those things. But some of the things that were buried in the depths of the sea from when I was in the second grade started to rage in my heart and mind.

There came a moment in my life when we were so alone and there was so much despair that I was suicidal. And I'd figured out how I was going to kill myself and rid the world of the horrible curse of Ted Haggard.

I'm a stronger Christian than I've ever been in my life. I have a stronger marriage than I've ever had in my life.

I believe that he [God] gives us opportunities every couple of years to communicate the gospel worldwide through secular media and we consistently blow it.

A congressman in trouble, that's the time. A family member gets himself in horrible trouble, that's the time. A preacher gets himself in awful trouble, that's the time.
====================

My friend once said that “it is better to be a former murderer than to be a former pastor”. This statement is pretty simple, but seriously true in Christianity nowadays. Former murderers are more easily accepted than former pastor. I believe this is what Mr. Haggard is experiencing now. He is striving and struggling to be accepted again in ministry by his fellow pastors and Christians. The more I think about scandals among Christian leaders, the more I realize that the grace of God is greater than their sin. Let me give a brief reflection on this.

It has to be admitted that sin is a serious thing for God. God hates sin and he cannot accept sin. Sin is a rebellion against him and must be punished. Jesus died on the cross because God doesn’t take sin so easy. He takes sin very serious. Therefore, I believe that church discipline is the will of God. A church without discipline is actually reflecting what Bonheoffer called “cheap grace”. It is a grace without obedience. In fact, the binding and loosing authority that God has given to the church (Matthew 18:18) is strongly related to church discipline. God gives the right to the church to administer discipline to Christians who sin. I am quite disappointed when I heard that Mr. Haggard criticized church leaders for giving him a period of discipline. As a church leader, I think he has failed to understand this. Of course, Church has to demonstrate mercy and grace to the world, but at the same time the church has to demonstrate also that sin is a serious violence against the holiness of God. Without grace and mercy, the church will be a legalistic constitution. But without discipline, the church will be a cheap grace constitution.

How do we balance this?? A proper balance between the tension of grace and discipline is needed. In fact, Matthew has beautifully explained this in his Gospel but so many people have missed it. After explaining about how to deal with a sinner in the church (Mat. 18:15-20), Matthew continues his narratives with a parable about forgiveness (Mat. 18:21ff). I believe Matthew intentionally put this story right after his discussion on church discipline in order to send a signal to the church that church discipline is not about punishing sinners, but about restoring and forgiving sinners. This is the balance between grace and discipline. Church discipline has to be done in a spirit of love and forgiveness. The purpose of church discipline is forgiveness and restoration of the sinner. And honestly, I don’t see this in many churches… In the light of this passage, we all have to forgive, love and pray for Mr. Haggard and all pastors and church leaders that have fallen. If we are able to love sinners in the world, why can’t we love our own brothers or sisters in Christ? Are we all perfect and sinless? I think we should remember the story of a woman caught in the act of adultery. Jesus asked the religious leaders and Jewish people at that time, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). I don’t think that Jesus forbids church discipline in this passage. What Jesus was trying to say was “If you hate her because of her sin, then so God will hate you more because you are also sinners”. Jesus knew their hatred heart. For Jesus, if a discipline is done out of hateful heart, then it will be better to have no discipline at all. A true discipline has to be administered in an atmosphere of love.

Therefore, when I heard Mr. Haggard acknowledged that he has sinned and he has hurt his family, I believe God has forgiven him. The problem, then, are Christians mature enough to accept him back? I really pray that God will restore him and raise him back again.

Every time i heard pastors and Christian leaders fall in moral sins, there is a deep pain in my heart. I have seen plenty of scandals in the church. And it breaks my heart. But by the same token, I realize that I also have to take time to think about my life, my family, and my ministry. Do i live a righteous life before God? I know I am not immune to sin at all. I am vulnerable, and i believe that everyone is. We all are sinners saved by the grace of God. We have our past garbage that we have to deal with. Mr. Haggard for many years had been struggling with his past terrible experience. And we all have to strive seriously to put our flesh to death. Therefore, we need to walk in a close relationship with God in every hour of our life. The Bible says, "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life" (Proverbs 4:23).

May the Lord help us!!

John Lennox vs Michael Shermer

2008-11-07T05:59:00.005-08:00

Again.. i am deeply fascinated with the debate ability of Dr. John Lennox. Last August, in Australia, he had an interesting debate on the existence of God with Michael Shermer, The founder of Skeptics Society and editor of Skeptic magazine.

Here are the videos on Youtube.

You might want to download the MP3 of this debate here as well.

The discovery of a 3,000-year old Hebrew text

2008-10-31T09:28:00.004-07:00

Today some newspapers publish an important discovery of the oldest Hebrew writing. CNN reports:

An Israeli archaeologist has discovered what he says is the earliest-known Hebrew text, found on a shard of pottery that dates to the time of King David from the Old Testament, about 3,000 years ago.
Professor Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem says the inscribed pottery shard -- known as an ostracon -- was found during excavations of a fortress from the 10th century BC.
Carbon dating of the ostracon, along with pottery analysis, dates the inscription to time of King David, about a millennium earlier than the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, the university said.
The shard contains five lines of text divided by black lines and measures 15 by 15 centimeters, or about 6 inches square.
Archaeologists have yet to decipher the text, but initial interpretation indicates it formed part of a letter and contains the roots of the words "judge," "slave," and "king," according to the university. That may indicate it was a legal text, which archaeologists say would provide insights into Hebrew law, society, and beliefs.
The researchers say the text was clearly written by a trained scribe.

Watch this video also!

You can read more about this in the links bellow:

Do we have to close our eyes while praying?

2008-10-29T06:10:00.004-07:00

I am always interested in simple questions like this. Is closing eyes a ceremonial requirement when we approach God and talk to him? This question looks so simple but it has a very deep liturgical, theological, and practical implication. Like most evangelical/pentecostal family, i was told and taught at home that if you pray you have to close your eyes. All prayers (on dining table, in church service, family gathering, personal prayer, etc.) are done with eyes closed. I remember one of the church leaders, many many years ago, got very angry at me when he saw me praying with eyes open. He came to me and he yelled with a loud voice, "Eka... why are you so disrespectful? Why do you open your eyes while others are praying?" He showed a terribly angry face at me. Honestly, I felt deeply hurt in my heart at that time. For many years i have been struggling with these questions. Why do Christians, especially evangelicals and Pentecostals, teach their children to have their eyes closed when they pray? Is it a biblical requirement of a 'spiritual' prayer? Is a prayer with open eyes less spiritual? What is the historical background of this 'common' practice among Christians? Who was the first person in the history that taught this? Why does this tradition exist in Christianity? Maybe someone can help me to give some light to these questions.

The only reason, i think, lies behind the idea that prayer has to be done this way is this. Perhaps it is caused by a dualistic philosophy, which later influenced our theology and practice. According to this way of thinking, there are two worlds: physical world and spiritual world. We live in physical realm and God is in spiritual one. Since God is in the spiritual world, then perhaps by closing eyes people would think that they have left the physical world and enter into a 'spiritual' world. The only proper way to approach God is by closing eyes. Closing eyes is an act of departing from physical realm. Other than this, i really don't have any idea why Christians pray with eyes closed. Let me give some personal comments about this tradition.

First, it seems to me that the Bible clearly doesn't require Christians to close their eyes in order to have a more 'spiritual' prayer. Jesus did say in Matthew 6:6 "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Note that Jesus teaches the disciples to close the door, and not the eyes. Doors have to be closed i think because Jesus wants the prayer to be sincere and not a self-performance in front of many people. Therefore the main thing about prayer is a sincere and honest heart, and not a ritual eyes closed.

Second, prayer in Christian theology is all about talking to God. Prayer is not a set of rules that we have to follow. There are no certain ritual steps that people have to do in order to pray to God. Theologically speaking, prayer is our communication with God. With prayer, people can enter into a deep I-Thou relationship with God. So, it is all about relationship and not ritual. A ritual without relationship is completely meaningless. When i talk to my wife, i will never do it by following certain steps and ceremonies or body language. It is just so natural. I will do whatever i feel comfortable. Sometimes, when i feel that i want to kneel before her and say 'i love you', i will do it. If i feel that i want to hug her, i will do it. Things are so dynamic and relational. I think prayer is like this. If we feel that we want to close our eyes, then we are free to do that. But, if we don't close our eyes, it doesn't have to mean that we are not communicating with HIM. Closing eyes is only a way of talking to God. It is not the only way.

Third, we should be dare enough to continually question our tradition. If we believe in Sola Scriptura, then every tradition must always be renewed and aligned with the teachings of the Bible. It means that we will never give tradition a status of ex cathedra. Tradition is not infallible. Yes, tradition is very important for our theology. One of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is tradition. However, it should be understood also that the only reason why tradition is so important is because in building theology we have to know our history and our past that has formed us now. It is completely wrong if we use tradition as a reason for us to be rigid and changeless. It is not the purpose of being familiar with tradition. When we know and become critical to our tradition, then it will help us to grow. We can learn from our past mistakes and then improve ourselves for a better and brighter future.

This is all i can say for now. I know this is really simple, but it quite bothers me. Please let me know what you think about it. SOLA GRATIA

blessings!

We have to pray for Barack Obama

2008-10-27T18:36:00.001-07:00

This morning i just read this news. Some extreme guys planned to assassinate Barack Obama, but it was failed. Please take time read it...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081028/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Vote2008/story?id=6122962&page=1

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsCEnrVzDQoU5tg63njLNy0UTDNAD94330J00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5026432.ece

If Obama becomes the first African-American president of the United States of America, I am just afraid that the story of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., will happen again. The situation in the future will be extremely difficult for Obama. I am really concerned about his life. Therefore, i believe we all need to seriously pray for him.