Misunderstanding Christianity's "Negative" Anthropology

One of the stumbling blocks to accepting the gospel that I've seen quite frequently is Christianity's anthropology, meaning simply how Christianity understands what it means to be human.

In one sense, I get this.  I mean, listen to some of the basic tenets of Christian anthropology:

--everyone is born a sinner, which means that ...

--there is something fundamentally wrong with all of humanity at its core, and thus ... 

--people are inherently evil, not good, so that ...

--many of people's natural desires can't be trusted or justified, and what's worse ...

--all people will give account to the God whose moral code they violate daily by their very nature

Plus, your sin makes you smell awful!

Wow.  Where do I sign up?  No wonder Christianity gets a bad wrap for its view of human nature.  Having some issues with self-image, self-esteem, etc? Maybe we want to look somewhere else -- anywhere else? -- for our sense of value, meaning, and purpose.  

Here's the problem: that Christian anthropology you've heard? Yeah, that's not the whole picture.  In fact you've missed the beginning of the story, not to mention the end! 

Honey, let's just go in for the second half.  I'm sure we can catch up on the plot as we go.

THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY:

It might surprise you, but actually Christianity has a very high view of what it means to be human -- higher by far than secular humanism or other competing systems.  For Christians, what it fundamentally means to be human is to be an image-bearer of the Living God! Now, there's a lot of theological discussion about what exactly it means to be an image-bearer, but we can take away at least two things pretty safely: 1) to be human means to display some of the attributes of God, and 2) to be human means to be given charge over the rest of the created order.  So if you're keeping score at home, here's the minimum anthropology we've drawn out so far:

To be human means to share in the likeness of God and to serve as His representative in ruling the rest of the creation.

That's not so negative a view of what it means to be human at all, now is it? So how do we get from here to the whole "sinner" anthropology you're probably more familiar with? The Scriptures teach that human beings weren't all that satisfied.  Instead of being to content to be like God in some ways and rule on His behalf as His regents, we aimed for a better gig: we wanted be God.  In doing so, the image became cracked, and remains so to this day.  We still inherent the image of God as part of our birthright as human beings, but the image if fractured, broken, battered, and twisted.  And so are we.  And each of us reenacts the original rebellion, rejecting God's rule and our proper place as created beings in a myriad of ways.

THE END OF THE STORY

So Christian anthropology as you've probably encountered it mourns what was lost and tries to be honest about what we human beings have become.  And just believing that we started out as much more than we are now doesn't exactly get us off the hook for being negative about humanity.

We could have been contenders!  

What unmistakably makes Christian anthropology such an amazingly positive thing is the end of humanity's story.  For what we believe humanity can be -- what each human being can be -- is even more than a restoration of the original image we bore.  We believe that through the transformational power of the Spirit of God, those who believe in Jesus Christ are being made into His likeness! Humanity can be redeemed and made into something even better than it was at the beginning.  Again, this is a very high view of what it means to be human: we will be made like God (but not actually become God, part of God, or gods, mind you! That gets a little tricky for some folks.)

The issue is that part of participating in the future of humanity is to admit humanity's state in the present.  The gospel requires us to say that, yes, we are sinners; yes, we are rotten at the core (despite some good things we do); yes, this situation is utterly helpless.  When we admit that, we are free to cling to God's provision for humanity's terrible state -- salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ.  When we freely admit what we are, we begin to see the beauty and power of who He is.  And the encounter slowly changes us, despite the bumps and bruises, the slip ups and failures, until eventually we will be made like Him when He makes all things new.

So, yeah, I really do think I'm a hopeless sinner when it comes to any standard of goodness that matters.  I think you are, too.  But I see something glorious in your future -- a future in which sin does not have the last word and in which your flaws and failures don't have the final say when it comes to defining what you are.

No One Takes the Bible Literally

"No one takes the Bible literally," said a certain theology professor.  I wasn't sure what he meant.  Was he espousing a radical, liberal method of reading the Bible?  And, didn't he know just how many Fundamentalists prided themselves on their literal interpretation?

Then, he asked me to hand over my car keys so he could have my car.  Was he serious?  I wasn't giving him my keys.  Then, he reminded me that Jesus taught his followers to let people have things if they ask for them.  Am I not bound by the Scriptures to hand over my possessions when asked for them?

Well, of course not.  Jesus wasn't asking his followers to give their stuff away to any jerk who asks for it; interpreting the Bible isn't so simple.  So, in this little way, Christians have all agreed not to completely take the Bible literally, but, in doing so, are interpreting it as correctly as possible. There are plenty of other examples.  Jesus called Herod a "fox," but that doesn't mean that the history books are in error for not describing Herod as a small mammal.  Paul tells Timothy to drink wine to help his sick stomach, but we don't dash out and get bottles of cabernet sauvignon whenever a church member has indigestion.

But, where does it stop?  Did Jesus really rise from the dead?  I've met people in church who didn't think so - that part of the Bible was not to be taken literally, they said.  And anyone who disagrees with some point in your theology is likely to simply interpret that section of Scripture as a metaphor in order to get around any thorny moral issues that a literal interpretation could bring about.

So, here's how we can approach our understanding of the Bible (this applies to Believers, and non-Believers, alike) knowing that interpretation is largely a matter of deciding how literal something was intended.

Ask yourself if you know why you do, or don't, take a certain Bible passage literally.  Did you decide after much investigation and research?  Or are you merely parroting the teachings you grew up with?  Search each issue out and decide if your tradition is correct, or if it's just the status quo.  Find out what the theologians from different traditions have said and consider their arguments.

Also, are you being fair?  Are you interpreting parts of the Bible figuratively only so you can get away with something?  Or to sidestep a difficult issue?   (Or to win an argument?)

Is proper Bible study a lot of work?  You bet it is.  But the Bible is a large collection of books from ancient times, and no one should think that understanding a book like that easy.

Interview with a gay Christian

This week I ran across a blog entry from September (kind of old in blog time, I know) from the blog of Rachel Held Evans, in which a Christian man who happens to be gay answers questions from readers about his life, faith, and sexuality. It's an interesting and challenging discussion, and I encourage you to read it, if for no other reason than to hear a perspective that is frequently missing in our conversations about this topic. It is a long article, but even a cursory perusal provides, I think, some important thinking and talking points. Here's one of the more interesting passages:

I don't believe that the standards for sexual behavior should be any different for gay Christians than they are for straight Christians. I grew up believing that sex is something you save for marriage, so even after I realized I was gay and came to a gay-affirming conclusion from the Bible, I still decided I would wait until I met the right person and got married before having sex. Not all Christians (gay or straight) believe in waiting until marriage, and studies show that even those who do believe in it, usually fail to live up to their own standards. But my point is that the standards ought to be the same.

 Read the rest here: http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-a-gay-christian-response

Why I Don't Agree With People Who Have a "Coexist" Bumper Sticker (Probably)

Most of you probably know what I'm talking about when I mention the "coexist" bumper stickers, but in case you don't, I included a picture on the right.  As you can see, the gimmick is that the word coexist has been formed using symbols from major religions or philosophies -- with a call for harmony between the sexes thrown in for good measure.  The underlying message is that we shouldn't be fighting over issues of religion (and again sexual equality tossed in, I guess because no religion has embrace the letter "E" sufficiently), but rather should strive to live with each other despite these issues and differences.


AND YOU "PROBABLY" DISAGREE WITH THIS SENTIMENT???
On the one hand, I am all for not fighting or killing people over issues of religion.  We are completely on the same page there! What concerns me is not the cry for coexistence, but the potential rationale behind it.  If you say to me, "We should tolerate people with different religious views and strive to live alongside them because ..." -- well,  you and I are still in complete agreement at that point.  The potential disagreement comes from what folks who display this bumper sticker put after the "because."  I think the rationale for coexistence is usually one of two things, which I'll discuss below.  Since I am generalizing and certainly cannot know what each individual means by the bumper sticker, I included the "probably."


I DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT QUESTIONS OF RELIGION AREN'T IMPORTANT 
One of the arguments I encounter all the time is that questions of religion just aren't important enough for us to allow them to divide us (you may have noticed I've just given up on trying to include the "E" at all at this point).  While I don't think that questions of religion have to divide us, I don't think it's because they are somehow frivolous or maybe just so peripheral to the human experience as to not be worth the time and effort it would take to thoroughly explore them.  Let everyone believe whatever they want when it comes to religion, and let's focus on what really matters.

Look, you're saying that "time" is just a big loop of infinitely repeating events, and you're saying that we have ten seconds before the bombs explodes, killing all of us.  Are these really the sorts of disagreements that we're going to allow to come between us?

However, in my opinion, the questions that religion raises are of the utmost importance.  In fact, there may not be any questions more important.  The ramifications for the existence of the Divine are astronomical.  If indeed there is a creator deity, then human existence is suddenly defined by such questions as: Why did he/she/it create? What does he/she/it expect of us? What does it mean to be human?  If we decide there is no Divine, then that decision also makes us answer some very important questions: Where does human value come? What is the good and how do we best pursue it, since there is no deity answering these questions for us? Of course these are only the tip of the iceberg type questions.

Don't dismiss religious concerns.  How you conceive of God and how you understand what it means to be human are probably the things that define you more than anything else.  They are questions well worth considering and considering thoughtfully.  


I ALSO DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME, SO WHY WOULD THEY FIGHT EACH OTHER
I once had a friend define religion as an attempt to approach the Divine.  For the sake of a blog entry (and not a philosophical or theological treatise), I think that will do.  Certainly if you view religion this way, there are many broad generalizations you can make about how religions are similar.  I get that.  However, the differences between religious systems become quite clear when we start moving away from generalizations such as "religions are just ways of approaching the Divine" and start defining terms.

For example, let's say we all claim to be friends with a guy named "Bob." We start talking about all the great times we've had with Bob, when suddenly a stranger who doesn't know Bob pops into the room and asks what Bob looks like.  See, he's about to go pick up Bob from the airport, but he's never met him.  One person says, "Oh Bob, is this tall African-American basketball player.  You'll recognize him right away."  You say, "Um, no, Bob is actually a short Hispanic woman.  Here real name is Roberta, and we call her Bob for fun."  Then I say, "What are you talking about? Bob is that magical gnome who lives behind my fridge and tells me that I really am special!"  The stranger isn't going to say, "Okay, got it.  You're all basically describing the same person.  I can figure it out from here.

"Bob is dead." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

When we actually stop to define who or what we are trying to approach, we find that the differences become apparent very quickly.  For example, the Christian God

*intentionally created the world

*is actively involved in bringing human history toward a certain end

*chose to reveal Himself specifically through the Scriptures and ultimately through the person of Jesus Christ, who Himself is both fully human and fully divine

*exists eternally as the Triune God

Of course, there are other ways of describing the Christian God, but these four are all essential, non-negotiable aspects of the Christian understanding of the Divine.  And even at the end of this short list, Christianity is already distinct from every other religions system in history in how it conceives of the Divine

Now the stranger asks for directions to the airport.  You tell him to take a certain highway, then a certain exit, etc.   I tell him to take a rocket straight to the moon then spin around in circles until the airport appears.   Our means of approaching the airport are not going to lead the stranger to the same place.  Similarly, various religions make very different claims about how the Divine wants to be approached.  For Christianity, God has made it clear that He only desires to be approached through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Um, we may have missed our exit ...

So, yes, I do agree that we should learn to coexist, but "probably" not for the same reasons that many of the people who have these bumper stickers do.  For me, I believe we should coexist because my religion teaches me that every single human being has infinite value as someone who bears the image of God.  I believe that God loves my fellow human beings and expects me to display that same love when I interact with them ... regardless of their intentions toward me.  

So, what does this all mean? It means that the cry for coexistence is a great start, but it's only a start.  It's not a sufficient statement regarding our differences.

It means there's still a lot of dialog to be had.

And that's one of the reasons why this website exists.

What Should We Expect From the Church?

"If the Church was doing it's job, we wouldn't have [insert world crisis here]!"

Now, I've seen the brackets above filled in with many different things: poverty, sex-trafficking, institutionalized injustice, domestic violence, hunger -- you name it! What is interesting to me, though, is that I am seeing a growing trend of people in my generation (both inside and outside of the church) condemning the Church as having lost its mission based on the continued presence of certain evils in the world.  If we're honest, most of these reactions stem from seeing the Church's nose were people think it doesn't belong, such as "The Church needs to get out of politics and get back to feeding the poor!" But it does raise a few important questions worth exploring:

"Has the Church (and we'll just say the American Church for now for the sake of simplicity) failed in its mission?"

Which, of course, raises the even more fundamental question:

"What is the mission of the Church?"

OR

"What should we expect from the Church" -- how and to what extent should the world look different because the Church is active in the world and fulfilling its mission?



I came across a quote recently that I think is helpful in thinking through this issue:

"I imagine some problems are not as bad as they could be because of Christian programs and witness ... Do we assume police officers are worthless because we still have crime or parents are pointless because kids still do stupid things? Not at all.  Why then do we assume that the existence of unmet need or ongoing tragedy in the world is unassailable proof of the church's failure?"

-- Kevin DeYoung

This quote makes a very important point: the continued presence of evil in the world is not an indictment against the Church, for the Church's job has never been to solve the problem of evil, but rather to faithfully proclaim that the Solution is coming.  Christians are heralds of the coming Kingdom (the full realization of the reign of God on Earth) in which the King Himself will finally put a stop to all evil.

Is this to say that the Church simply twiddles its thumbs and pontificates on eternal things until Christ returns?  Absolutely not! Part of proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom is displaying its principles and values before the world as a witness to its power.  So, we seek justice as a foretaste of the true justice that is coming.  We feed and clothe the poor as a foretaste of the One who meets every need.  We free the slaves as a foretaste of the freedom to come.  You get the idea.

Hold on, everyone.  We sent Jesus out for more bread  just a little less than 2,000 years ago.  

I'm sure He'll be back soon.  No need to ask us for help.

All this is very different, however, from saying that we are building the Kingdom or bringing about the Kingdom on earth (a teaching called post-millennialism, for you nerds out there).  And this is where we can get in trouble about our expectations for the Church, if we are not careful.  There will always be poverty, famine, and various sorts of evil in the world regardless of how faithful the Church is in her mission.  These are the result of fundamental flaws in human nature rather than objective, external problems to the human race that just need to swallow up a few more man hours, dollars, or other resources before they are finally solved.

Pictured: the greatest youth group summer mission trip EVER!

There are plenty of local churches and individual Christians being faithful heralds of the Kingdom in both word and deed ... even if we can all point to some that could be doing much more.

If you are not a Christian, come join us in ministering to the needy, fighting against social injustice, etc, and listen to why we're doing it!

If you are a Christian, how's your heralding going?

Thinking it through

As my first post I figured a good idea would be addressing why I asked to write on here. First, I find writing enjoyable and cathartic. Second, I believe writing to be one of the most influential forms of teaching and influencing others. So, both reasons tend to be mainly selfish on my part. Hopefully, though, through the grace of God, my selfish endeavors will be turned into a blessing for the readers.

One of my favorite quotes is from C.S. Lewis in “Learning in War-Time”:

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether.

With that quote he explains my passion for writing and educating both Christians and the 'heathen'. I believe, and also fear, that in our current culture the work of a Christian's 'cool intellect' does not need to be done against 'muddy heathen mysticisms' so much as against 'muddy Christian mysticisms'. In our American culture we can argue till blue in the face regarding how 'Christian' our country is, whatever and however we decide to define that, but wherever one falls on that argument we undeniably exist in a culture that pulls from a Judeo-Christian background and have many mysticisms because of it.

I sat in a presentation once from a missionary to a Muslim country. The missionary opened the room for questions. I don't remember the specific question but I do remember the answer, “That isn't real Islam, that's folk Islam. No serious practicing Muslim believes that as part of their faith.” It struck me how it could be reversed – I could be a Muslim sitting in a room listening to one of my faith brothers talking about his mission work in a Christian country and a very similar question could easily result in the same answer. It then struck me that I'm not sure how many who claim said belief in Christianity actually would know the difference. What part of what we practice of Christianity is 'folk Christianity'? What do we do culturally as Christians and don't even think twice about? What do the faithful in other faiths in other countries think of as 'reasons' for why Christianity must not be true when they see how we practice it?

Thinking Through Christianity, as far as I am concerned, tries to work through many of these issues. This blog tries to separate the culture from the sacred, the folk from the real, the mysticisms from the Truth and this is why I want to write here. Hopefully a word, phrase or even paragraph of what I write will influence someone (and myself) to moving closer toward the Truth.

Science as a Dreamland

Scientists recently observed neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. Since nothing is supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, this would be a big deal. Charles Krauthammer says:

". . . . there must be some error. Because otherwise everything changes. We shall need a new physics. A new cosmology. New understandings of past and future, of cause and effect. Then shortly and surely, new theologies."

With all due respect to Krauthammer, who happens to be my favorite political commentator, this is not entirely correct. I think G. K. Chesterton's remark is more to the point:

". . . the world of science and evolution is far more nameless and elusive and like a dream than the world of poetry and religion; since in the latter images and ideas remain themselves eternally, while it is the whole idea of evolution that identities melt into each other as they do in a nightmare."

It is not usually religious orthodoxy that is threatened by scientific discovery, but scientific orthodoxy. Of course, I believe the things I have learned from science; I believe in electrons as strongly as the next man. I believe because I have been told.

Protons and electrons: an article of faith.

But the fact is that scientific discovery shapes relatively little of my worldview. Scientific discoveries can come and go and have little effect on the Christian whose worldview is shaped by Christ, Scripture, the teachings of the Church, and the sacred history of God's people from Abraham to Billy Graham.

The Resurrection: an article of faith.

I am talking about one of the differences between science and religion. Usually when we talk about the differences between science and religion we wander into the idea that science is about hard facts and religion about non-factual "values." That idea is incorrect, and it is not what I am talking about. It is a popular idea these days, but it misrepresents the factual claims made by many religions. Christianity, for one, is about quite a few facts. To take only one of the many statements of fact in the Bible, Christianity's crucial claim of the Resurrection is a statement of fact. As a matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln died and was buried and did not return living from the grave on the third day; as a matter of fact, Christianity says, Jesus died and was buried and did return living from the grave on the third day. If the resurrection is not a hard fact, then, as Paul says, Christianity is simply incorrect.

So I am not saying that science is about hard fact and religion about something else. Here is what I am saying. First, science investigates a region of reality that is subject to less constancy than the region of reality with which at least some religions, Christianity among them, is concerned. Second, the beliefs of science change far more frequently than the beliefs of religion, at least the beliefs of the very old religions like Christianity.

This doesn't mean that science is not to be taken seriously. It just means that scientific discovery makes up a relatively minor part of my worldview; those regions of my worldview which are shaped by science are generally the less important regions, not least because they are the regions which I view as more subject to change and in knowing which there is less certitude.

Learning to Lament

Do you remember the “bop bags” from when you were a kid? Those air filled punching bags with sand at the bottom. My brothers had one with batman on it. I prefer the clown one. If you ask me, clowns are just asking to be hit.

Hit me! Please!

These kiddy punching bags summarize what 2011 was for a great number of my friends. Where people are the bag and life is the little hyper kid who snuck into the kitchen pantry and ate spoonfuls of sugar. First he punches the bag once and watches in amazement that the little air filled bag picks itself back up – asking for another punch. The kid happily obliges. However, fuelled by the spoonfuls of sugar the kid doesn’t hit the bag – he pummels it – giving the sadistically smiling clown no chance to get up, until finally the kid just jumps on the bag, pinning it down, and wails on it. The clown’s only hope is that the parents will call the kid in for dinner… which of course, the kid won’t eat, because he ruined his dinner with the spoonfuls of sugar.

2011 was a year when many of my friends were pummeled. It was a year full of suffering. Suffering ranging from the loss of one or more close family members to small (but costly) problems that just kept coming and drained patience, pocketbooks and sanity; and every type of suffering in between.

Suffering sucks. We live in a world that is cursed, so sometimes bad things (calamity or &#$!) happen. There is much that can be said about the source of evil and calamity. But that’s for another blog. I want to discuss how Christians should respond to suffering.

In America Christians are tempted  - nay, encouraged - to ignore or at least downplay suffering. We slap on a fake smile and sing happy-happy-joy-joy songs.

But the fake smile does not negate our suffering.

Some have left the church because they have seen the fakeness, or were even pressured into living with a fake smile. Today there are many weeping behind their mask. 

We need – as the Church – to learn how to lament. Nearly 1/3 of the Psalms are lament psalms. That’s a lot of lamenting. Sadly, lament songs seldom never get updated and put into modern church repertoire. Why? We're afraid to lament. Often our theology is so weak it can't handle it.

Let's take a quick look at lament psalms. Lament psalms have seven typical features (not all lament psalms have each feature). (Ex: Ps 3, 10, 22, 42, 54, 56, 77, 86, 142)

1) Address to God (basically a salutation)

2) Description of suffering

3) Curse called against the one causing the pain

4) Declaration of innocence (or admission of guilt)

5) Petition for God to intervene and stop the suffering

6) Confidence expressed that God will respond

7) Thanksgiving/praise for what God will do

Lamenting does not mean that we wallow in self-pity, or that we pat ourselves on the back for being martyrs. No!  Lamenting is honestly acknowledging the suffering and, if known, it's cause (#2-4). Don’t treat it as the “thing-which-must-not-be-named.” No, boldly call it by its proper name! 

But don’t stop there. Acceptance is a poor place to end. We are not called to just accept suffering. Learn from the psalmists. They see the God who is bigger than their pain, they ask Him to intervene, and they praise him (#5-7). They praise him after lamenting, and even while lamenting. God is praised because the psalmists have confidence that – even though they don't understand how – God would make all things right. Now, because of the revelation in the New Testament, we know that one day God will return to restore his creation, to recreate it, to remove all sin and suffering. So even though we suffer and lament today we know there will come a day when all things are made right and there will be no more lamenting. Cling to that future hope.

When a spouse dies, when a parent dies, when someone is suffering with a horrible sickness, when everything around you is falling apart – Lament!  Wail! Cry out! Be honest with God. Ask the hard questions. But in it all and through it all know that God is bigger. It may not make a lick of sense why such horrible suffering is allowed to happen; but know that God is great. God is compassionate and just. And live with hope, knowing that He has promised that He is coming again and he will make all things right. There will come a time when there will be no more mourning and no more lamenting. Lament and pray for that day to come soon. 

On a final note, I'm going to point out something that is so obvious that you may have overlooked it. Lament psalms are in a songbook. These songs were sung by levitical choirs. While one person wrote the song because of a horrible situation they were going through, they were included in an ancient hymnal for the community to sing... together. Can you imagine what a church community would look like that sings lament songs together? When one member of the community is suffering their fellow Believers gather around them on Sunday morning (or whenever) and belt out a mournful lamenting melody; a melody full of grief but under-girded with hope.

We need to learn how to lament and how to lament with those who are lamenting.

---
Here is a  short clip from a practical theologian who does a great job describing the need for lament.