Frontline Study
Online Teaching to Make You Think
Bob and Juan’s comments have led me to change my schedule for examining how we determine if our inspirations are worthy to be judged God’s Word. Bob continues to remind us there is always going to be differences of opinion, especially in our time of radical democracy. Juan, representing thoughtful evangelicals who are pretty much ignored by Mainliners and Roman Catholics, reminds us the center of World Christianity has shifted from us to them, from the Northern to the Southern and the Western to the Eastern Hemispheres. He cautions, “My point is that not all peoples have a positive view of tradition and history, and they have good reason for it”. Lutherans should appreciate this, because their founder said much the same thing when he attacked Roman Catholic tradition, such as indulgences.
While wholly agreeing with Bob and Juan, I want to make sure we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I find studies showing the rise of modern technology coincides with the loss of tradition very disturbing. Some of this comes from the kind of short-sightedness President Kennedy demonstrated his 1962 Yale commencement address that called for educated people to leave behind “clashes of philosophy or ideology” that he labeled truisms, stereotypes, and clichés. He observed, “In our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality.” He summed up this “realism” as recognizing all our problems have become “technical and administrative”. In an effort to be pragmatic, he denigrated all the wisdom of the past just as militant atheists do when they blame Christian tradition for all of our cultural conflicts. My son and I find when churches abandon all tradition, they run amok and fall prey to the dictatorial actions and unbiblical opinions of their charismatic leaders.
I think we have to be constantly separating good from bad tradition. We have to appreciate Juan’s reminder that tradition means Roman Catholic to Spanish American Evangelicals, but we must also worry about Americans who think Christian tradition means Americanism. I tremble when Sarah Palin chants, “We are only patriots who cling to our religion and guns”, especially when I hear televangelists echo her hour after hour, day after day. They demonize Obama as a socialist who might very well be the Antichrist. Their argument is being a Christian means you must be a capitalist and bear arms. Where did that come from?
The question becomes then how to separate the good from the bad, the wisdom from the self-serving ideology. While understanding with Bob that we are never going to find consensus, I still argue that we must always continue to use all parts of our tradition as checks and balances on the others. That includes non-biblical customs that have become long-established patterns of thought and behavior regulating our present practice. Sometimes we do these things, because “we have always done it this way”, but often we have always done it this way, because “it works”. These customs have become “habits of the heart” that are essential resources for discerning God’s Word. Often they represent innovations to which the Holy Spirit has led us as Jesus promised in John.
It also includes using the canon and creeds to test these customs. In the past we have done this in the debates over purgatory, the intercession of saints, celibacy, and male priests. We have to continue with customs we take for granted such as everyone of our political and social positions, our institutional organization, our denominationalism, and our liturgy. Often these are what divide the Church rather than our differing biblical interpretations. I still think this demands advocating a strong Theology of the Cross I find in the canon, even though many of you disagree. I don’t know any other way to free Christianity from Western culture.
Next week I’ll look at one of the customs that provokes a lot of conflict in our day, the cult with its liturgy and music.
- (1) Comment
- Tags: Americanism, Custom, Tradition
With all the focus on the Bible (canon) we often pass over how the creeds go even further in determining what is and what is not the Word of God. In some ways the canon is like the Constitution and the creeds like the Bill of Rights. The early Church kept adding phrases to the Apostles’ Creed to resolve conflicts that developed. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were written in the fourth century to settle disputes over major doctrines.
The creeds also establish priorities for the way we read the canon. For instance, they adopt a Trinitarian understanding of God that is not completely explicit in the canon. They also emphasize the New over the Old Testament and the Gospel over the letters. Even more they make clear we are to understand the Gospels proclaim Jesus is God whose critical actions are his Passion and Resurrection rather than his miracles and teachings.
At the same time, I do not think the creeds demand complete agreement on every last item. Like the canon and Lord’s Prayer they are primarily tools for worship that express the views and practices around which the community can comfortably gather. I always am uneasy about people who feel they can not be baptized or share the Communion meal, because they do not rigidly believe certain rigid interpretations of every last phrase in the creeds.
In fact, this is one of the most common problems in writing modern creeds. Groups use them to champion their understanding of a doctrine as if it is the “one and only” way to be a Christian. For instance, we sometimes forget that American Fundamentalism is a modern creed based on the 12 volumes sent to every U.S. religious leader in 1909 by two wealthy oilmen, Lyman and Milton Stewart. This creed insists Christians must not only believe 1) that the Bible is inspired by God, but also that every last word is inerrant, 2) that Jesus is divine but also that the essential proof of this is his virginal biological birth, 3) that Jesus died for our sins but also that this is must be explained by the substitution atonement theory that claims God demanded someone had to be punished for humanity’s sin, 4) that God raised Jesus in a bodily resurrection but also that this includes his literal return on the Mount of Olives in the Second Coming, and 5) that miracles appear in the Bible but also that you must accept the objective reality of everyone of them.
Clearly the canon and the creeds help us determine if an inspiration is really God’s Word by providing standards we can use. At the same time, I think it is very important we see these standards have a great deal of flexibility so they can be relevant even 2000 years after their writing. So far the most frequent concern expressed by readers of this study has been the need to appreciate how God’s Word applies to particular times and places. These readers talk of the need for the faith to help people live their lives in the real world. Preserving this flexibility built into canon and creed goes a long way in addressing their concern.
Next week I’ll take a look at how other parts of the tradition play their role.
- (3) Comments
- Tags: Creed, Fundamentalism
The early church’s most obvious standard for controlling charisma is the canon or Bible. She approved certain sacred writings as norms for judging other versions of God’s Word. When I read how much the excluded gospels move from the fantastic to the bizarre, I appreciate her wisdom.
Most people seem to believe the books of the canon are our only sacred writings. It is probably more accurate to describe them as the foundational texts that can be used to evaluate if others have any sacred worth. Canon means a kind of “yard stick” It measures things.
A problem develops if we regard the canon alone as God’s Word. Perhaps unintentionally we act as if God spoke 2000 years ago and then went silent. “Bible-believers” seem to do this when they make the canon the object of their faith rather than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This problem has been exacerbated in our time, because many people accept a fundamentalist understanding that ignores the canon’s nature and function. They give each word equal weight, relinquishing any means to resolve the different traditions and contradictory teachings in the 66 books. We all, including Satan himself, can cite scripture for our purposes. Indeed, right thinking people can disagree when reading the same passage.
In addition, the scientific mindset of our time has difficulty dealing with religious mystery that is ambiguous by nature. Demanding precision, a one and only” interpretation, it does not know how handle Jesus’ counsel to use love as the spirit of the law in confronting new problems. If we regard the Bible as a guide book offering specific directions, then we are helpless if it does not address contemporary issues. Many take this stance, claiming we have no right to address any problem that does not appear in the Bible.
All of this is compounded by the electronic media that uses texts in a very fluid fashion, encouraging a cut and paste mentality that reads the canon in terms of “what works for me”. Bible-believers can be as selective as anyone else when they use portions to buttress their own preconceived opinions. Many observe that this mentality has led to customized and even consumer- centered religion.
In the coming weeks, I’ll examine how the canon serves us well when it is supplemented and balanced by creed, clergy, custom, ceremony, community. Even though it remains the most basic of these elements, we fool ourselves when we pretend anyone of us uses canon alone.
- (3) Comments
- Tags: Bible, Bible-believers., Canon, Sacred Writing
Paul includes the “utterance” of wisdom and knowledge among the gifts of the Spirit or charismas (I Corinthians 12: 4-11). Over the years these have been described as just about any kind of direct inspiration- from a person feeling something inside her is saying to take a certain action- to a televison preacher claiming he received a “word of knowledge” from God demanding he promise his viewers they will be rewarded a hundredfold if they send seed money to his ministry- to first century prophets channeling God’s words to their congregations.
The inspiration of the Spirit is certainly basic for determining what we accept as God’s Word. However, when we depend on charisma alone, there is no way to determine which charisma is correct if two people claim God gave them contradictory messages. This has become a critical problem in our times for at least four reasons:
1) The radical democracy that permeates all areas of our society regards any standard that could help us make a decision as nothing more than individual opinion. Conflicts can be resolved by polling these opinions and going with the majority, but most Christians appreciate this does not always work in faith matters. God’s Word has seldom won popularity contests. They also find going with the majority can prohibit prophetic preaching, because critics can accuse the prophet of failing to reflect their parishioners’ views.
2) Authority has been replaced by celebrity that emphasizes image rather than substance and feeling rather than reason. The one who can buy the most exposure and speak the loudest and longest too often carries the majority.
3) Restorative Churches, such as the Pentecostal and Free Churches, have become very popular. They claim they return to the first century charisma and admit this means they reject all 2,000 years of tradition as corrupted. Many of their leaders believe their personal opinions represent God’s Word, because he has “anointed” them. Often they feature enthusiasm as tongue speaking that uses the language of the angels, prophecy that channels God’s message in the vernacular, and miracles. Because their celebrity leadership dominates television, our government often uses them to represent the Christian Church.
4) The power of other religions that insist their original inspirational level offers prescriptions for how modern society should operate. Islam and Mormonism resist any evolution from their original leaders and their writings. This position has led to cultural clashes.
The early Church faced very similar problems in regulating charisma. Now as then the question is how to follow Paul’s advice, “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good” (I Thessalonians 5: 19- 21). We should not fear the innovations of the Spirit, but we also can not allow inspiration to be a card that trumps everything else. If we do that, we are left with a “what works for me” mentality.
The first century Church used canon, creed, clergy, custom, ceremony, and community in an appropriate balance to regulate charisma. Marlin suggests we add chronology, because we are always struggling with change and continuity. I’ll try to examine all of these in the coming weeks.
Throughout our history the Church has determined what it accepts as the Word of God by balancing many elements of tradition: charisma, canon, creed, clergy, ceremony, custom, and community. She is constantly correcting the problems that develop when one or more of these gets out of balance. For instance, the Reformation attacked the Roman Church’s use of custom in a way that ignored the canon. Martin Luther tried to correct this by giving canon authority over custom. The problem was he, too, upset the balance by speaking of scripture “alone”.
Many of our modern problems stem from failing to appreciate the need for appropriate balance. Let’s take a few weeks to examine the problem. First, definitions are necessary.
Charisma: inspiration such as people feeling they are filled with God’s Spirit when they speak to either a one- time event or an ongoing issue.
Canon: the approved sacred writings from the past (The Bible) that are used as standards for judging claims for God’s Words in the present.
Creed: statements summarizing the very basic beliefs about God’s Word.
Custom: practices and teachings that have proved their value for a long time.
Clergy: officers given authority to proclaim and supervise God’s Word.
Ceremony: ritual that regularly repeats proven practices.
Community: the gathering of believers that Jesus defines as two or three gathered in his name.
If you understand these 7 “cs” work together, you can readily see the limitations of our modern denominations that limit our ability to speak God’s Word in unity. The Pentecostal churches promote undisciplined charisma, the Lutherans undisciplined canon, the Fundamentalists an undisciplined version of a modern creed, the Roman Catholics undisciplined clergy, the Episcopalians undisciplined ceremony, the Baptists undisciplined community, and everyone of us undisciplined custom.
Of course, my take is far, far too general. I simply want to emphasize that we have problems when we elevate one element of this tradition in a way that minimizes or ignores the others. My use of “undisciplined” simply points to this. I’ll get more precise about how each of these elements function in the coming weeks. Feel free to ask questions, make corrections, and expand my observation in the “comments”.
- (1) Comment
- Tags: Canon, Ceremony, Charisma, Clergy, Community, Creed, Custom, Word of God
Two weeks ago I suggested present day false prophets are either liars or bull-shitters. Bob added a third category- the truly stupid. Last week Myron agreed that “an informed consumer” is our best hope in overcoming these “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and “money-grubbing televangelist charlatans”. Obviously, the three of us do not like false prophets.
One of the first responses to the abuses of New Testament prophecy was the establishment of the canon, those scriptures considered sacred enough to serve as standards for judging which prophets spoke the Gospel. It was always understood that the canon (Bible) could not stand alone. It had too many differing perspectives and covered a development over several centuries. So a learned clergy, a basic creed, and the baptized community served as interpreters of the canon. This was so successful that New Testament prophets disappeared.
They have reappeared in our time as certain “anointed” Christian celebrities who claim God speaks directly through them. These modern false prophets get around the previous standards by pretending the every word of the Bible has equal weigh. That enables them to cut and paste to fit their agenda.
If you listen to them you soon discover they seldom use the Bible, even though they presented themselves as the true “Bible-believers”. Just about the only passages they quote are Daniel 9: 25-27 and Malachi 3: 8-18. The first has been used only a little over 150 years to design a predetermined timetable for world events. It is imposed on the Book of Revelation to support the state of Israel, the restoration of the temple and animal sacrifice, and nuclear war. The second is used as the basis of the “seed money” law of creation that is really about contributions to their ministries insuring rewards from God. Any quick reading of either of these passage shows they have absolutely nothing to do with these misuses.
Bob is right; we shall always have false prophets among us. However, I think they are much more dangerous in our Electronic Age. The media gives them an exposure that has led even thoughtful Christians to believe their programs have a biblical basis. And then to top it off, the White House and Pentagon invite them to represent all Christians. In religion as in entertainment, the hollow and shallow celebrity is used for profit.
I think one simple step would go a long way in creating an “informed consumer”- recognize that the Gospel serves as the standard for reading the rest of the Bible. This was one of Martin Luther’s primary answers to the problem. Notice the false prophets among us are continually citing Old Testament passages. One way to expose them is to begin by judging all by the four gospels.
A good example is the position of women. The four gospels present women as the mother of Jesus, the first to recognize her birth is not a scandal; the first to anoint him Messiah, the first to receive a Resurrection Appearance, the first missionary, the first to teach Jesus to include the Gentiles, one of the first to confess him Messiah, the only ones brave enough to be at Golgotha and the burial, the first to visit the tomb on Easter. If we started and ended with the gospels, we’d have none of the nonsense about women being quiet in church and allowing men to rule the house.
Last week Bob commented, “How do we separate these false prophets from those who truly proclaim the word of God? I think to do so we have to have a conception, an overall picture, of what Christianity truly is… So from the Bible, other religious writings, sermons, prayer, discussions, etc. each of us must decide what is the essence of Christianity for me? Absent this process there is no compass to navigate among the false prophets, all of whom are quoting the Bible. When anyone speaks the word of God, we have to ask ourselves “is this consistent with what I see as the essence of Christianity”? In short there is no certain answer to the question of who is a false prophet, but there is a procedure for making the best estimate that we are capable of making.”
I think there is more. In the past, in direct response to the problem of false prophets, the Church developed the “c”s – canon, clergy, creed, community, and cult as standards. Let’s take some time to define how these work in the next few weeks. But first here is what I regard as the essence of our sacred scripture (this morning).
You can divide the Bible into three parts: 1) the law that defines justice as the creator meant it—caring for all parts, treating each fairly, and making special consideration for the weak. 2) the prophets who observe the rationalizations that we use to ignore this justice, claiming these are necessary for life, are really evil and self-destructive. 3) the Gospel that proclaims the spirit of justice is love that does not insist on its own way but always returns good for evil even with enemies. Underlying all of this is the history of salvation that promises God’s justice will remain forever and we shall never be separated from God if we have the faith to live it.
Obviously, there is much more in the Bible. However, if we simply used these, we could expose most false prophets.
Okay, what do you think we have to add?
- (1) Comment
- Tags: Bible Summary, Canon, False Prophet, Justice, Love
Enough about God operating through natural events and people! Let’s get to the bottom line. God operates in this world primarily through words.
The religions claim words provide our contact with God. The ancient Vedas of the East say, “On the spoken word all the gods depend, all beasts and men, in the word live all creation…The word is the navel of the divine world” Judaism and Christianity proclaim God creates with words, thereby beginning an ongoing conversation that brings salvation to humanity. Our scriptures are entirely about the Word of God that orders the chaos of life from the very beginning to the present. It is as necessary for life as the bread we eat.
The God who is hidden in nature and people is revealed in words. God meets us in words. If nothing else, God is a word-event. Pat Robertson’s sin was the way he used words about God. He blamed God for the earthquake, claiming he did it, because the Haitian people made a pact with Satan.
The religions should understand what Jacques Ellul meant when he claimed in 1985, “Anyone wishing to save humanity today must first of all save the word”. He was lamenting that by replacing words with images, modern technology was destroying the “blessed uncertainty of language” and with it meaning, truth, and freedom. Twenty-five years after his warning, we can appreciate his prescience. We have seen how the Internet, the cell phone, and Facebook have changed the way we use words, often obscuring rather than clarifying meaning and truth.
Harry Frankfurt claims the problem is the prevalence of bullshit. He distinguishes bullshitting from lying. While liars deliberately make false claims, bullshitters are simply uninterested in the truth. They want only to impress and persuade their audience. While liars need to know the truth, the better to conceal it; bullshitters, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth at all. Frankfurt believes “bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” Robertson offers a perfect example of this.
I think this means Lupe is quite right when she makes using words truthfully and demanding the same from other people a primary modern Christian responsibility. It also makes the English teachers reading this as important as pastors in our modern society.
So how do we know which words are God and which bullshit in a time of so many false prophets? I’d like to talk about that in the coming weeks. What do you think?
- (1) Comment
- Tags: Bullshit, God as Word Event, Word of God, Words
About this blog
Welcome to the Frontline Study. Written by Pastor Fritz Foltz, this site is here to stretch your thinking and invite your ideas. Your comments are strongly encouraged.
Studies
- Basic Christian Doctrine (47)
- On the Road with Paul (23)
- The Christian Lifestyle (14)
- bob nordvall: Speaking Electronically If any further proof were needed of the new electronic age, it came last [...]
- Fritz Foltz: Lupe sent the following email that I think is helpful: This week you raised a very interesting issue [...]
- bob nordvall: Between communion and the potluck church supper Fritz proposes making conversation at the meal to [...]
- bob nordvall: In a country with a state established church, that church is less dependent upon the will and contri [...]
- jmaldon: Pastor Fritz has pointed in the past that charismatic preachers claim reliving the primitive church. [...]
- LESSON 46 CONVERSATION IN THE COMMUNITY
- LESSON 45 GOD’S WORD IS SPOKEN
- LESSON 44 Conversation as Discernment
- LESSON 43 CONVERSATION AS DISCERNMENT
- LESSON 42 HOW WE DETERMINE GOD’S WORD- COMMUNITY IV
- LESSON 41 HOW WE DETERMINE GOD’S WORD-COMMUNITY III
- LESSON 40 HOW WE DETERMINE GOD’S WORD- COMMUNITY II
- LESSON 39 HOW WE DETERMINE GOD’S WORD- COMMUNITY I
- LESSON 38 HOW WE DETERMINE THE WORD OF GOD- CLERGY
- LESSON 37 HOW DO WE DETERMINE GOD- CEREMONY