Category Archives: Theology
younger than the happy meal? evangelicals, abortion and ahistoricism
An interesting and revealing article appeared on a Patheos blog some days ago claiming that the current and standard Evangelical view on abortion, that human life unquestioningly begins at conception, can in fact be traced to a point no less recently than 30 years ago.
In his post, entitled The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal, Fred Clark shows quite convincingly that the contemporary black-and-white approach to abortion, an approach that has been taken for granted by many as simply biblical, was not in fact the view of conservative Evangelicals 30 years ago.
One of notable Evangelicals includes Normal Geisler (Trinity Evangelical Seminary, Dallas Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminar) who, in his 1971 book Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, argued that, “The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.” His view changed radically in subsequent years.
Clark also points to a 1979 Christianity Today article, edited by Harold Lindsell (whom Clark calls a “champion of ‘inerrancy’ and author of The Battle for the Bible“), in which a unnamed Dallas Seminary professor labelled the Catholic position on abortion “unbiblical” and wrote:
God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.
This was considered by Evangelicals an orthodox position. How things have changed.
I should make clear right now that I am refusing to offer a personal view on the issue of abortion in this post. If anyone is wishing to judge me based on my view, you can stop reading right now since ou won’t get it – abortion per se is not my interest here.
The problem with the abortion debate is the utter ahistoricism inherent in much of the rhetoric – most people are not willing to examine nor even acknowledge the historical antecedents of their own views. This results in a basic historical ignorance and the mistaken view that one’s perspective is somehow directly derived from the Bible without need of reference to 2000 years of subsequent history and cultural trajectories.
In and of itself the constant implication that a particular view of abortion is a defining mark of Evangelical, nay, Christian, theology is quite disturbing. So too is the division caused by the issue – I know of no human being who views abortion as a moral good, rather the debate centres on if and when it might be necessary.
I constantly find myself aghast at the incomprehensibility of the conservative/fundamentalist obsession with abortion and homosexuality, particularly when the biblical material on these issues is so sparse (arguably absent in the case of the former). In contrast I find myself more horrified by the lack of concern for more pressing global issues such as poverty, greed, violence and environmental stewardship, especially considering the weight of biblical precedent for such foci (in the case of poverty there are over 2000 references in the Bible, demonstrating at the very least a comprehensive concern).
How did we arrive at this situation where the dominant conservative approach to the intersection of Bible and culture is so unbalanced toward, statistically speaking, minor issues? I’m sure the answer is highly complex, and I do not imagine I can even begin to answer it here.
Needless to say that the stereotypical conservative hermeneutic has become so selective and propositional that it has failed to discern the “big picture” of the biblical narrative, preferring to focus on fairly narrow issues of morality. Moreover it seems that this hermeneutic has become the slave of a socio-politically conservative agenda.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that the primary proponents of this agenda are those that experience little in the way of social marginalisation. As a result they are unable to stand against many forms of real injustice that affect them directly. Moreover, given that their legacy is definitive global chaos in the form of issues such as poverty, environmental destruction and corporate greed, it is unlikely that their hermeneutic will make space to confront such issues.
Since such people are, historically speaking, not generally female or homosexual, is it any wonder that the inner-desire for righteous antagonism finds its resting place in issues that focus on women and gays – the very people they are not? These issues become the perfect social evil to rail about self-righteously.
No need for suffering in the name of justice, for incarnation. No need to be legitimately pro-life across all aspects of life. All that is required is the equivalent of a theological sniper rifle.
Sadly the Bible is cooped by this agenda, and history is blindly assumed to be on side. After all, what we believe now has always been the case, right?
MCA
the mourning in moving: making spaces into places
My wife and I are in the midst of moving home.
It is a predictably arduous undertaking, and we’ll be glad when it’s over and we are settled in our new place.
But on the other hand we feel a sense of mourning over leaving our current unit, even though we rent and do not own it.
This is not necessarily the first time I have felt this way. Any time I have moved homes in the past (only three times or so) I have felt the same way. In fact whenever I am in the geographical area of a past home I often find myself driving there and sitting out the front.
What is it about our attachment to particular places?
Why do people attach so much value to places and spaces?
Why do people, groups and religions enter conflict, even violence, over particular spaces that are deemed special, sacred or holy? Read the rest of this entry
“god bless you!”: what is blessing?
When something becomes customary in a culture, such as the recitation of the phrase “(God) bless you!” following a sneeze, it often happens that the meaning of that custom is lost in habit.
So what does it mean to be “blessed” in a biblical sense?
Some people understand it to mean something like good fortune.
Others see blessing as referring to material wealth, as in some strands of contemporary Christianity.
Some Christians think blessing refers to God’s favour, and this can be understood in a great number of ways (including material wealth as above).
For others blessing is almost a physical thing to be passed on (as with some understandings of the story of Isaac, Jacob and Esau).
I have constantly wondered what blessing is. Read the rest of this entry
sickness and healing (part 2): death as healing?
Note: I recommend you read Part 1 of this series to understand the context of these questions.
My last post was inspired, by a sermon I heard (and a number of subsequent conversations), to ask whether sickness could be caused by sin.
In this post I want to address another related question that I mentioned last time, namely whether dying and “going to be with Jesus” is a form of healing.
In the course of the sermon discussions described in the last post it was suggested by one participant that when a sick person does not receive healing and dies as a result of their sickness then this could be seen as a form of healing since the person goes to heaven to be with Jesus.
Someone then asked whether being cured by medicine could be seen “healing” in a biblical sense.
In response I asked my group a question – “Are we saying that miraculous healing is “healing”, and so is being cured by medicine, and also dying? If yes, does that mean that everything is healing? Even not being healed is healing. What isn’t healing?”
Personally I don’t think dying is a form of healing at all. To suggest so is, to me, a misunderstanding of the biblical view of healing and death. Allow me to explain. Read the rest of this entry
sickness and healing (part 1): “sin causes sickness”?
Yesterday I went to the Sunday gathering of a church affiliated with my old church, of which I was a member up until a few months ago.
I had a great time. It’s a reasonably small group (40-50 adults), and with lots of old friends present good times were had all ’round.
The preaching topic for the day was healing. My friend Barry was sharing with us, and noted that in his experience this topic, more than any other, caused division in the church (even more than tongues). I’m not sure if it’s the most divisive issue, but I take Barry’s point about its divisive potential.
In the course of the morning Barry got us to break up into groups to discuss the issue of healing – What is it? Does it still happen today? What about when people don’t get healed, etc. etc.
I wasn’t planning on writing about healing on this blog, but following the group discussions and the subsequent public reflection a number of people asked me to write a post on it.
It turns out one post has become two. I could never hope to comprehensively outline healing in two posts of course, though I will speak into two concerns that were raised throughout the morning that people discussed with me; the first was a claim made that sickness and disease has to do with sin (this post), and secondly that if people are not healed and they die they are in fact healed because “they go to be with Jesus” (next post).
“Sickness and disease is related to sin”? Read the rest of this entry
individualism, desire and the christian self
It is frequently said that we live in an individualistic society.
This is not all bad. The fact that individualist philosophy values the individual’s worth is fantastic.
Not so fantastic in light of Christian theology is the individualist insistence on rejecting all forms of external interference on one’s interests. This is not simply because of the existence of God, the ultimate “external” authority, but also because of the unrealistic, even naive, view of human existence it represents.
What human is able to live according to their own interests, unabated by the interests of society? We live in a world of social connections in which even our most basic needs are dependent on relationships. I think for example of food whereby most of the people I know are completely disconnected from the production and manufacture of almost everything they eat.
How would individualism even work in a world such as this? Read the rest of this entry
wittenberg remixed: nailing some more theses?
Did you know that today (31st October) is the anniversary of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg in 1517.*
These theses largely protested clerical abuses in the Catholic Church at the time, in particular the dealing of indulgences and issues around papal authority.
e.g. Thesis 86:
“Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus,** build the basilica of Saint Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?”
This event is thought by many to have been the initial spark for the Protestant Reformation. Read the rest of this entry
what is an “empire”?
Since the inception of this blog there has been a lot of talk about “empire”.
Now, discourse about “empire” is anything but unique to this blog, for it has been a common theme in theological discussion for a long time now (since Moses probably…)
I am aware that this language about empire is not familiar to everybody. Indeed a number of people have recently asked me the question, “what is (an) empire?”
The term empire is often used by people, especially those with a heightened social conscience, to simply denounce systems and institutions that they find dissatisfactory. Such a use of the term is rather haphazard and imprecise, leaving it vulnerable to baseless usage. Equally common is for people to define empire according to its characteristics (violence, economic exploitation, propaganda), but such characteristics generally tend to represent more a description than a definition, and are helpful but not sufficient. Read the rest of this entry
what is “justice”? a christian(‘s) perspective
Justice is a slippery term.
It can be used, from one point of view or another, to describe almost any conclusion regarding moral rightness. How the scales of justice are balanced often depends on the weights placed upon them, and this is in most ways a subjective affair. These weights may come in the form of such concepts as fairness, retribution, restoration and redistribution, or more cynically in realities such as greed and self-interest.
I cannot hope to outline a comprehensive or even convincing treatise of justice in this post, though sharing a few thoughts may be in order.
From a Christian perspective justice finds its definitive bearing in God. How to understand God is, however, not an easy task given both his transcendence and our interpretative horizons and limits.
Which commands of God are just? All of them? If so is a directive to genocide, such as those in the Old Testament, to be considered just? Does our ability as humans to obey such commands affect what is commanded of us by God? Read the rest of this entry
hell raiser: francis chan and “erasing hell”
A few months ago I watched this video and I’ve been meaning to write something on it, though I’ve had it on the backburner for a while.
The video is a preview/advert for Francis Chan’s now-released book, Erasing Hell. I should note I have not read the book, nor do I plan to in the near future (PhD studies… they ruin everything). For this reason I do not know in any definite way what Chan’s view is on the subject of Hell, nor is it directly relevant to this post. I should also note that I am not interested in discussing the content of the book, but only of the video.
The video begins with an air of humility, including the use of biblical metaphors to demonstrate how much lower we are than God, just as clay to the potter. So far so good. Read the rest of this entry
