What happened to my compassion? August 25, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality.1 comment so far
I have noticed over the past few weeks that my compassion and concern for others has been wavering and wavering. I have had a tendency to judge others, to consider myself better than others, and to be annoyed/perturbed/short with others. Which makes me wonder–where has my compassion gone? I am no longer looking for the reasons why people are certain ways or thinking through the possibility of doing things ways differently than I do–or for that matter, that people are imperfect and therefore human systems will be imperfect. Why is my day nearly ruined when I have to wait in line at the grocery store because people’s credit cards don’t work right or because of traffic on the road? Why is my schedule and convenience the most important things in my minds?
Better yet, what is the cure? Is it the gospel hope in the fallenness of the world that is being transformed and reconfigured by Christ, that is in the process of happening but not there yet? That I am as broken as others and that I am not the end-all, be-all of the world? I am trying to bring my thoughts there….but it is a daily struggle.
God and Empire August 24, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Politics, Spirituality.add a comment
A growing interest of mine (and of other NT scholars) is the anti-Roman empire rhetoric in the NT. John Dominic Crossan deals with this idea in his God and Empire. In some ways, the impetus is the growing amount of people that the USA is an empire, perhaps even the new form of the Roman empire. This alerts Crossan, as the Bible seems to speak against empire. He finds that violence and oppression is found in every empire. While the OT seems a bit ambigous about whether violence ushers in the kingdom of God, the message of Jesus, according to Crossan, is that violence does not do so. However, American Christians (often associated with pretribulation rapture sort of views) seem to really have an idea that the end will be a violent battle between good and evil, with God winning. Crossan says that this is not what Jesus teaches, nor Paul when one examines his actual writings (not the Deutero- or Pseudo-Pauline letters). The church early on, though, adopted this violent filled, empire sort of rhetoric, with Revelation speaking against Rome but in some ways adopting this same sort of view. Christians need to snap out of this and realize that non-violence, turning the other cheek, taking up one’s cross, etc. is the way that God’s spiritual kingdom comes.
Crossan brings up some good points. Is America a new empire? How should this affect Christians? How does a violent end make sense of the lamb who was led to slaughter? Should the battle imagery of Revelation be seen as more symbolic than concrete? Have Christians too readily adopted the view of empire instead of the anti-empire polemic that fills the NT? I am wrestling with these things, in addition to how to approach Revelation and the wrath of God seen over and over again there.
What I find interesting about much mainline scholarship, though, is that it is able to dismiss elements of Scripture (“Paul didn’t really say that”) or look to small aspects of Scripture of just getting it wrong (which seems to be Crossan’s view of Revelation) without having to deal with the fact that the early church and, really up until the 17th century or s0, saw all these things as being compatible. Could we be the ones who have it wrong? I admit, it is difficult to deal with Revelation 19 and the fact that the vultures eat the flesh of those defeated in the final battle, of the slaughters in Canaan, etc. but I am convinced that I need to deal with all of what is found in the Scriptures, whether I like it or understand it or not. Maybe I am naive, but if so, I think my naiviety makes my method of scholarship more, not less, difficult.
The Secret Message of Jesus August 21, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Spirituality.add a comment
I finished reading Brian McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus. I have had a love/hate (though hate is a strong term) relationship with McLaren’s works, as I liked them to start but really got concerned that he deviates from some key biblical doctrines; after taking a break from him, I was able to come to this book with a fresh perspective. I am always hesistant when someone phrases something about the Bible as ”secret” or “hidden” these days, because it usually deals with a conspiracy theory sort of idea, that the church or someone has been blocking it from getting out. I thought this might have been what McLaren would say, but he points to secret in the sense that the parables conceal truth and people must strive to understand it (Matthew 13:13), the very reason that Jesus used parables. I can agree with that; I also like how he pointed to miracles as the demonstration of the message, as living parables in the life of Jesus. He seeks to situate Jesus within his historical and cultural context, always things to be applauded. On the whole, the vision he presents (following Dallas Willard and N.T. Wright) is that of the message of Jesus permeating our lives and living in light of the present reality of the kingdom. Maybe since I have been influenced by those thinkers, it was not ground-breaking. Jesus’ message is so revolutionary, he had to speak it in “riddles” as it threatens every establishment!
McLaren does a good job of trying to get us to examine the teachings of Jesus, but it seems to me like the overlooks the cross; he deals with Paul’s discussion of it as a scandal and as a weakness but does not seem to point to the fact that the cross deals with sin; he affirms the historicity but not the interpretation of the cross as in Mark 10:45, Matthew 26:28, or Romans 3:21-26 (he only deals with Ephesians and Colossians talking about the cross overcoming the evil forces…but what about our individual sin). He does not attack this view per se (as he does not really deal with these passages), but he almost makes it an either/or, either Jesus is about bringing the kingdom now or about dealing with original sin, with the kingdom being where we go when we die (see p.210). That is where I think he misses the point; he does not combine the teachings as we see in 1 Peter 2, the cross is both the way of the way of salvation from sins as well as the example for us as we live out the kingdom.
I liked this book more than I thought I would; it is a good corrective who think that the cross is only about forgiveness and dealing with our sin, but it must be augmented by books like Stott’s The Cross of Christ that deal heavily with the substitutionary atonement element of the cross. We need both to have a fully orbed Christian life, to truly understand the cross of Christ and the message of Jesus.
Footnote: After reading scholars such as Ehrman and Crossan, though, I have to say that I appreciate McLaren more in the sense that he affirms more about the Bible than many mainline scholars would. For example, Paul actually wrote these letters and Jesus actually said these things. So I needto be less harsh on him in the future.
A lot to learn… August 20, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Ministry, School.add a comment
Yesterday, I had my orientation with other students for the Loyola Department of Theology. It was a good time, as I feel like I am getting to know some other new PhD (as well as masters) students, almost making us into a cohort. In case you are wondering, there are only 7 or 8 new students in the PhD program, with only 2 of us in my field. One of my classes will only have 3 people in it! I had a good conversationwith one of my professors over lunch, giving me encouragment in my studies and also making me realize how much I have focused on Jewish backgrounds in my studies of the gospels without thinking through as much of the Greco-Roman (which are actually two different elements in many ways) background in these works as well. A great example of why I am at school, I have a lot to learn and figure out, and glad to be at a spot where I will learn some different methods and tools to further my examinations of the Bible. So for those who think that after 7 years of academic study in the Bible, in addition to all the reading I do, I know it all….I realize I am even farther away than I thought!
Of Providence and Prayer August 17, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, Spirituality.add a comment
It is always amazing hte things that that God merges together. Yesterday, I was thinking about some of the struggles I have had lately in maintaining the vibrancy of my prayer life and, lo and behold, the sermon at church on Sunday was about prayer–by one of my favorite professors. While it was not a “ground-breaking” sermon that revolutionaries my prayer life or practice, it was a good confirmation, a subtle rebuke and encouragement, at what I should be thinking about as I ned to spend some time thinking through my prayer life and digging deeper into it. Amazing how you get what you need 
Making excuses…. August 15, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality.add a comment
I have always tried to be a person who does not make excuses, who faces reality. One of the things that I have noticed in life recently, however, is how often I make excuses and blame others–usually only mentally–for my mistakes, discomforts, and shortcomings. In many ways, I feel like I am a walking embodying of Eden–shifting the blame for my mistake because someone else did something to provoke me to make a mistake. I don’t want to admit my own mistakes and don’t want to admit my blame shifting–because I do not want to admit sin. The good news is that I continually pray every day “forgive me my sins” (though I do need to do a better job of thinking of forgiving others…) and go to a church that has a confession of sin every week–reminding me that I am a sinner. This blame shifting is the latest sin I have discovered in my heart–and all the more reason to give thanks to God through Jesus.
Jesus Creed August 14, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Spirituality.add a comment
I have been looking forward to reading Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight since I heard him discuss it in chapel at TEDS a few years back. The concept of the book is pretty simple; Jesus took the creed of Judaism (Deut 6:4) and added the need to love our neighbors (Lev 19:18) as well in Mark 12:28. Therefore, the goal of the Christian life is to love God and love others; the heart of spiritually is to do both. This then weaves itself out in things like the Lord’s Prayer and the Lord’s Supper, as well as things other stories. The rest of the book presents the Christian life as the outworking of this, looking at stories of the kingdom, values needed in the kingdom, and how to live into it in faith and in union with Christ. He does a good job of weaving biblical stories, stories from church history, and current examples from Christians around the world. It is readable and something I enjoyed is that there are passages in every chapter to read on your own, from which the ideas in the chapters spring. This book is in the same vein as Dallas Willard, John Ortberg, and the rest, but in some ways with even better scholarship (not to knock on them, but to enhance McKnight’s strength). Enjoyable, encouraging, and challenging. For me, something I was challenged as I walk away was to utilize the Lord’s Prayer more and to think through it more as I pray, looking at how I can seek to love God and love others through it.
The Language of God August 13, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Education, Random, Spirituality.add a comment
The relationship between science and faith has often been a contentious one–can one be a believer and a scientist in light of the theory of evolution as well as the strong naturalistic bent of much of the discipline? This is really what leads Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project and a Christian, to write this book. It is essentially two parts; the first is his spiritual journey from atheism to Christianity and the second is his views of the relationship between science and faith. It was interesting (as always) to hear someone who came from atheism to Christianity. Two key things stuck out in this section. First, he had always avoided the issue of God and faith for much of his life; it seems that is a comon approach. Secondly, the moral argument for the existence of God, as articulated by C. S. Lewis, really seemed to shape Collins’ journey and faith. On the whole, it is a layperson/common man approach to apologetics (as he has sections on some of the problems of evil). I hope that people realize it is more of a experiential approach to apologetics.
The second half is the more fascinating of the two parts, as he deals with the relationship between science and faith. In this section, Collins first looks at areas of science and how they point him to faith, such as the origin of the universe, and more of a biological look through evolution and the genome project, with DNA being the “language of God.” Then, Collins deals with the different options of faith and science, with some having science trumping faith (atheism), some having faith trumping science (creationism), some have science having divine help (intelligent design), and another way posited by Collins: BioLogos (science and faith in harmony). Collins says that faith and science look at different areas; each answer questions that the other does not and cannot by its limits. He criticizes creationist views that seem to present God as the great “deceiver,” giving age to the world that is not real (for example, stars that have burned out).Collins also has a strong critique of the Intelligent Design movement, noting that much of the claims made have actually been disproven; it is not good science but really another form of “God of the gaps,” with the gaps no longer existing over the past few years. In his mind, faith is not a “God of the gaps” but really looking at the unanswerable questions and seeing the explanations offered by faith. He, therefore, sees evolution as completely compatible with Christianity; he notes that Genesis 1-2 is not a scientific treatise but looking at the who and the why, not the how and the when. Therefore, they are compatible.
I agree with a lot of what Collins says (though I need to read more on the exact nature of the current accepted view of evolution), but the problem I see on the whole is with where he seems to go with Adam and Eve. He seems to think that Adam and Eve were not the first humans, as there were other humans on earth at that time (p.207). He almost seems to think (I don’t think he out and out says its) that Adam and Eve is more of a moral story than a historical Fall. However, what would we make of Romans 5 or 1 Corinthians 15; it seems that the Fall came through the first humans and passed on to all. If there were other humans, why are all fallen? I see some problems with Collins views in this area, though, on the whole, I like a lot of what he says about the relationship between faith and science. They don’t need to be enemies; in fact, they can be allies. Dr. Collins, thanks for helping to show this from the scientific side.
Hanging with John Woolman August 12, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Justice, Spirituality.add a comment
I just finished the biography of John Woolman (The Beautiful Soul of John Woolman, Apostle of Abolition by Thomas P. Slaughter), a Quaker who lived 1720-1773 in America. As the title might indicate, he was known for his itinierant ministry against slavery at a time when it was not on the forefront of many minds in America. Having he learned about this ministry from my American church history class, it was interesting to see how he did it and his overall life (as well as the Quakers). Interestingly, very little is known about his family life and marriage. Perhaps a different time. In some ways, though, I found a kindred spirit in Woolman in the attempt to be an asectic in the modern world, as well as the attempt to look beyond the problem to the roots of the problem. He saw that slavery came from a love of self and overlove of family–which caused them to mistreat people and the institution of slavery. He gave up his shop because he knew that items he sold were tainted by slavery. He had problems accepting hospitality when it meant extra work for the slaves; he paid them or refusal things. He wore white in his attempt to live a pure life. In many ways, he was an Old Testament prophet but in America–often forgotten. Maybe a bit extreme at times but he believed in his message–something to admire. In fact, one might wonder if he has much to challenge us in our capitalist society. I am glad to have looked at his life a little bit through this book.
The Ehrman Strikes Back…. August 5, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Education, Spirituality.add a comment
Bart Ehrman is at his work of dispensing scholarship to the masses again with Jesus Interrupted. If the point of Misquoting Jesus was to show people that the original words of the Bible are forever lost and that there were many changes that have occurred (often for theological/social reasons, for example exalting Christ and denigrating women), then the point to this book is that the Bible is a very human document, not the Word of God. For example, he states that it is filled with contradictions in facts (chapter 2), variant views on the same ideas—like whether we should keep the law (Matthew) or do not need to keep it (Paul) (chapter 3), and that it was written not by eyewitnesses or the names attached to the work but much later (chapter 4). In addition, very little can be known about the historical Jesus (chapter 5). In fact, Ehrman goes on to say that Christianity on the whole is a very human religion; its ideas are not from the revelation of God but come from human understandings and a struggle for a certain view of orthodoxy, etc., which includes how the Bible came to stand as it is (chapters 6-7). That being said, Ehrman does not see this approach as showing that faith is not possible; he is an agnostic not because of this view of Scripture but because of the problem of evil (chapter 8). It takes approaching Scripture from a different point and “picking and choosing” what would be of relevance today. Ehrman notes that even though the information he presents is widely known and taught in graduate schools and seminaries, pastors do not seem to employ it. He does not think it should be the basis of pulpit ministry (which is a devotional approach) but that it should be integrated in Sunday school classes, etc.
Once again, I applaud Ehrman for the fact that he is trying to bring “spiritual literacy” to the world; he wants people to know what’s in the Bible and to be able to dialogue about it thoughtfully. In addition, he notes the disconnect that often exists between what is taught in seminaries and what is then taught in churches. We have similar ideas on those levels. That being said, I am not a fan of the understanding of the Bible that Ehrman seeks to promote (hopefully you knew I was going to say that if you know me!). There is diversity in Scripture—but the question is whether there is also unity. “Conservative” scholars like myself see that within the diversity, there is a unified whole—the message of Jesus Christ. If one wants to find contradictions that cannot be resolved, one will find them; if one wants to find resolutions or how they are different reflections on the same truth in light of the context, one can find those as well. You get what you look for on this basis. I think much more can be known about Jesus than Ehrman claims, and also that traditional views of authorship can be affirmed. The “battle for the Bible” was not as controversial as Ehrman seems to paint it to be.
What I see as I read Ehrman and others is a historical “snobbery.” We can find these contradictions, but those of previous generations were always duped by them. Those much closer to the circumstances were worse judges than us because of our critical tools like Gospel parallels and better knowledge of the world and morality. We are in a position to judge the Bible and pick what we like, not on its own basis of how to apply but according to what we find useful. The irony is that the very people who duped us so long—these people came from the same culture that was duped. Furthermore, the disciples of Jesus were not exactly clever people in the reports that we have and in the social picture of the world. But they were able to either 1) cause the biggest fraud in the history of civilization or 2) convince people smart enough to follow them so that they might dupe us (Ehrman does not seem to think that Paul created Christianity, he helped refine it but ideas were given to him). The funny thing about this view is that the early church was smart while the later church was dumb (or maybe a dumb, smart, dumb sort of progression). I find that the Bible could be the heritage of “uneducated” peasants that then takes over the world to be an unconvincing explanation of its nature.
Perhaps what I find most fascinating is Ehrman’s claim that those who are educated about this in seminary (my seminary did not give these views!) do not apply it to ministry. Could this be because they recognize that this understanding of the Bible does not actually serve the church? When one does integrate this approach, why even preach from the Bible? Why not preach from whatever writings you find useful, as you will pick and choose anyway? I do see this as being true in my experiences discussing things with people from mainline churches. I guess I don’t see what Ehrman’s vision would be for the Bible in churches—which might be because his view would see the church as a place where our specific agendas and views are pushed across, as opposed to a revelation and perspective from the outside—God Himself!
