Theology and Apologetics Q&A (1)

These are questions asked by my fellow churchgoers. For reasons of length, they are answered here so I can elaborate if I need to.

Q1: The whole Bible is the basis of my faith and I know if one word is not inspired then the whole thing collapses. The biggest barrier I run into in my outreach is the tripwire the old chestnut of the book being written by man and therefore suspect...Bottom line, give me the elevator speech that knocks down that argument about the Bible being written by men. Thanks.

If, by "argument," you mean the view that since the Bible was written with human hands it couldn't also be inspired by God, then I would ask "why not both?" What people are really questioning is whether the Bible can be truly error-free if it were produced by human hands. If there is a God who wants to communicate with us through the Bible, then why can't the Bible be error-free? Again, if there is a God who wants to communicate with us, then why does it matter that He chooses to speak through poetry, narratives, and letters written by men vs another method?

Would it make a difference if God struck His word on tablets on a mountaintop instead? (Oh wait, He did) Would it make a difference if monkeys pounding on computer keys produced all the books of the Bible? Would that make things any more miraculous, inspired, or error-free? It wouldn't to me.

In turn, I'd like to ask if such an argument is made by people, namely men (?). Of course it is. So, if I were to adopt a similar line of reasoning, shouldn't I be able to question whether that is a good argument simply because it was made by a man? Well no, of course not. It just goes to show that this attitude dismisses the veracity of the Bible based on its origins in what's called the genetic fallacy. Other than being guilty of extreme prejudice, this argument carries little weight.

Q2: Why is God so angry in the OT, to the point of killing people on the spot? Why did he stop that behavior in the N. T. ? hum, does that mean GOD changed his tactic with us?

This is a good question that people often ask.

Your question makes it sound like God reacts out of His anger to kill people unjustly. Is this what you mean? If so, God wouldn't be loving or just if He did that. People are created beings; on top of that we are sinners. Our lives are always at His mercy, and if/when He determines that our earthly lives should end, we have no reason to accuse Him of being wrong or unfair.

God may appear to behave differently between the OT and NTs, but I think this is only due to what we perceive as more tolerance on His part. God can and has claimed life in immediate punishment for sin past the OT. Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5 are the examples that come to mind. But you could be right that God has actually changed His behavior toward those in post-NT times. If He has, I'm thankful for His great mercies.

Q3: Did Jesus give a chance to the people of the Old Testament that never heard the Word of God?

Romans 4 talks about Abraham and David believing God and God treating them as righteous long before Jesus walked the earth. Theologians have pointed out that Jesus' blood retroactively covers their sin even as it proactively covers ours today. For those people in the OT who were not a part of the Hebrews or Israel, their witness was the nation of Israel itself. There were many who became part of the Hebrew community all throughout the OT who learned of the God of Israel (i.e. Egyptians escaping w/ Hebrews in the Exodus, the Moabites).

Q4: Why are we saved by grace through faith? Why not grace through love, or forgiving others? Is it because we’d earn salvation that way, in a sense?

Think about it this way: it is not so much the "earning" aspect that plays a role in this question. Being sinful people by nature, we cannot love well enough or forgive others with pure enough hearts and minds to qualify being worthy of being in the presence of God. One guilty person loving and forgiving another guilty person doesn't erase the guilt of either party before God.

Second, the whole idea of grace negates trying to earn salvation, because grace is something God freely gives as He wills. If grace is earned, then it wouldn't be grace (Romans 11:5-7). Suppose if salvation could be earned, then some people would have a right to demand it of God based on a level of achievement. Those people would somehow have less sin or be better than the rest of humanity. But, as Scripture reveals, no one has any spiritual advantage. We are all sinners, whether we sin more or less than the next person.

I think I should point out that only Christianity contains God's grace in this way. God is an agent
independent of us who gives grace and instills faith on believers. Many religions require merit that is ultimately not for God but for collecting self-orbiting accolades meant to force God to do something for us. That is very different from the loving relationship that God wants for us that we find in the Bible.

Q5: What happens to people that don’t hear the Word of God? Are they judged based on the difficulties that God has given them, or solely on never hearing his name?

Wow, this is a question that is as old as the Bible itself! Even if I had another two-thousand years, I couldn't give you a complete answer. You won't be alone when you get to meet Jesus in person one day and ask Him directly. :)

Short answer: it depends. Without the Gospel, there is only Law (Romans 10). How an individual responds to the Law of God, which everyone knows in their heart, is how God will judge him/her (Romans 1). The only thing we know about the unknowns is that God is always just, and whatever happens to those people will be the right thing.

Q6: In the end, it says that “every knee shall bow” (Philipians 2:10) and every tongue confess (Philipians 2:12) that Jesus Christ is Lord. Also, it says “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” So, it turns back to belief again with the heart, but what about salvation through confession? If everyone confesses, are they all saved? That is a nice thought, but I think I’ve misunderstood something here.

Yes, there are two senses of the word "confess" here. One can "confess" as in pure acknowledgement of the identity of Jesus Christ; another "confess" is what a believer does to identify his belief and faith in Jesus Christ.

Notice that the first sense in Philippians 2:11 is what everyone will do when Jesus comes again and the world must acknowledge Him for who He is. The second sense in Romans 10:8-10 is communication to God from someone with a believing heart. Per your question, the confession of the believer doesn't grant salvation, but it witnesses to the believer's salvation.

Should Hell Last For an Eternity?

A question posted to my church discussion board by a fellow member:

Hello …. I’m looking for some reasoned responses or references that I can go to in order to address an inner struggle I am currently undergoing …. I’m wrestling with the issue of “eternal punishment” …. my question is basically: Given the fact that Jesus Christ “paid it all” through his death on the cross, becoming sin and enduring God’s wrath on behalf of all those who will trust in Him, and the fact that after three days he was then resurrected and restored to his rightful position as Lord and King, how do I reconcile with that the idea that a person who does not accept Jesus Christ as Savior must therefore face the consequences of his own sin, but that the consequence for the sin of that one person is an eternal punishment (separation from God) …. how can I resolve the idea that the punishment for the sins of many was satisfied by Jesus Christ over the course of three days (earth time) but the punishment for the sins of just one (without Jesus Christ) is never satisfied and lasts forever ? I realize there may be too many unknowns for this to be answered “easily”, but I wouldappreciate some help with this …. thanks, TWS

This is my answer to this question and some of the discussion trail following it:

It seems the prevailing assumption on this topic is that the suffering of hell is divinely imposed, that God causes the suffering felt. What if the suffering is self-imposed, and, not only that, for those in hell, such suffering is preferable than to be in the presence of a God that those people have hated and rejected?

In Matt. 16:18, as Jesus commissions Peter to lead the New Testament church, He makes an interesting comment that the gates of Hades (Hell) will not prevail against the church. The popular understanding of this verse is that the church will not succumb to the onslaught of Hell, but this is opposite to what Jesus actually says. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, giving the actual imagery that Hell is shut from the inside by its inhabitants, and that the movement of God will overcome its resistance. Indeed, this imagery makes more realistic sense as a city beseiged is shut from the inside, not the other way around.

What might we infer from this? Hell is filled with people who would rather be there over and above spending an eternity with a God they despise. They are unforgiven not because they lapsed in asking for forgiveness but because they have rejected the God who forgives. Paul states that freedom from sin is bondage to the Father, which is precisely what sinful people cannot tolerate. To them, freedom to sin is freedom from God, and so in this sense, hell is exactly what they have desired all along. (My thanks to St. Paul..and C.S. Lewis)

But back to the original question, why the eternality of it all? To say that a sin is finite because it is committed in a finite earthly life assumes that one’s location determines its finitude. It also assumes that sin is confined only to this earthly life. We know this is untrue, since Scripture teaches that all sin has an additional spiritual dimension. Sin is ultimately committed against an eternally existing God, who is timeless. The offense exists as long as God does.

The Law exists to teach God’s moral righteousness. James 2 teaches that breaking one law (the only language quantifying sin we have) is breaking the (whole) Law. God’s moral perfection and character, which are abstract and exist eternally outside this temporal world, are represented in the Law, and are the attributes that we offend when we sin/break the Law. From this perspective, sin is far from being merely temporal, since it offends the eternal character of God.

We can look at Jesus’ death on the cross similarly. In fact, my daughter asked a very relevant question related to this just tonight. How can Jesus’ death be efficacious for us living now if Jesus died in the past? (Not in those exact words, of course) But we do know that it is efficacious for us now and for those who lived prior to Jesus’ life on earth, NOT through the limited time of the actual event of dying on the cross, but through the timeless spiritual significance of Jesus’ death on the cross. Specifically, the Resurrection is what makes it efficacious for lifetimes past, present, and future. Jesus is risen and alive and able to reach across time to forgive and save.

On the flipside, I’d like to know: if it seems somehow unfair that hell should last an eternity, then why should heaven last an eternity? I’ve never known anyone to contest that an existence in the presence of God should only be finite because the time spent on earth believing in Jesus was finite.

BTW, Tim Keller’s chapter his book The Reason for God, is one of the better treatments of God and Hell I’ve seen in a lay-oriented book. Chapter 5. I recommend it.

When Did Jesus Become "Lord?"

(This is a question I decided to take up posted on Answering Muslims.)

Hi this is Brianman...I am on my gap year before I study medicine, here on a spiritual journey to find my true religion.

I have some questions:
When people say Jesus is the Lord, in what way do they mean that? Do they mean he is one of the trinity when they say he is the Lord?

AND

So, where did this belief come from that Jesus is the Lord (as God)? Where was this philosophy derived from? i.e one of the disciples? Paul? Jesus' authentic words?

My response:
Brianman,
Wow, there is a lot of ground to cover as far as your questions go! I am glad, though, that you feel comfortable enough to ask.

To give context to my answer, you must understand a little about early Christianity. The first Christians were Jews. That is, Jesus was an observant Jew, and all of His followers were observant Jews. Jesus lived and taught everything according to the Jewish understanding of God, the Law, and the Prophets. Now, given that every observant Jew is a monotheist, to call someone “Lord” is a very significant thing indeed, because “Lord” is a title that people reserve for exceptional people, like nobility, heads of state, and perhaps high religious authority. Given that Jesus was not nobility, a head of state, or even an ordained Jewish rabbi, and that no rabbi was ordinarily called “Lord,” that the Gospels would refer to Jesus as “Lord” signifies that they gave Him some exceptional amount of authority. Why did they do this?

From the outset, the Jewish public ascribed authority to Him. “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matt. 7:29) He was set apart from teachers and religious leaders of the Law.

Next, He went further by teaching as one who could change the Law of Moses. Read my points here (start where you see the numeral 1). At this juncture, Jesus begins to offend Jewish monotheism. Not only did Jesus lead and teach, He claimed authority to add to and change the Law, something no one can do except God alone. Jesus treads on Jewish sensibilities and blasphemes according to the Law, and it ultimately leads Him to His crucifixion.

Now, what are the options? The only thing observant Jews can do is write Jesus off as a blasphemer cursed by God. So His disciples abandoned Him, ran, and hid for their lives; however, just 50 days later, they came out boldly proclaiming that Jesus was the long-prophecied Messiah and preached worship of Him, the Lord! They claimed they and 500 others had seen Jesus alive and resurrected and began spreading this news all over Israel, Judea, and beyond. Now, there are details in the runup to these events that I have not mentioned, but the practice of worshiping Jesus began with Jesus’ own disciples, who later became the Apostles to the Christian church. The disciple Thomas is famous for his confession (after doubting the resurrection) to Jesus “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28)

What details I have not mentioned are all the ways in which the New Testament speaks of Jesus as God’s Son and the Divine Judge that determines the eternal destiny of all of humanity. In keeping to the vein of Jewish monotheism, no one can do that except God alone. A good study of the self-understanding of Jesus from the Bible should help you fill in those details.

You mentioned the Trinity. The theology of the Trinity was not formulated in the language we have today at the time of Christ or in the early church. However, the Bible makes certain these three propositions: God the Father is God. God the Son (Jesus) is God. The Holy Spirit is God. From these ideas in the New Testament, Christians had to articulate a doctrine that is both faithful to monotheism and the fact that God has revealed Himself as three persons. So that is what we have: one God who manifests as three persons. Do not be troubled if you find this hard to understand!

My best advice to you to start off, Brianman, is simply to read the New Testament. Ask a Christian to explain parts that you find you need clarification. You seem relatively unfamiliar with the content of Christianity, so I recommend that you read the book More Than a Carpenter (Josh McDowell) too, as a good introduction.

I hope I have answered some of your questions here. It’s been a pleasure!

The Moral of the Story: Jon and Kate Plus 8, Part 2

Marriage is expendable
So I’m watching YouTube episodes of the show and note the faint resemblance of their opening sequence to The Brady Bunch. From unemployment to $70,000 per episode, their reality show (thanks to the sextuplets) has vastly improved the Gosselins’ financial state. After four seasons, I’m guessing that adds up to quite a mound of cash. So what if this fifth season is like watching the Titanic break in two? They need the money to care for their eight children’s futures and a new house and two puppies and Kate’s unique hairdo and, and, and…if they don’t have a show, will Emeril ever come back to visit them?

And here is the vicious cycle that I hope Jon and Kate recognize and make a decision to end: the TV show will go on as long as their marriage is in danger. Their marriage is in danger, because they have allowed fame and the pressures of childrearing to take precedence over their relationship. Because their marriage is in danger, fame, fortune, and childrearing will substitute for the apparent neglect of their marriage.

This situation might be a little redeeming if I could hear Jon and Kate say, “We always wanted a huge family with multiples in particular. We wanted our children to be the same ages so they’ll always have this extra special relationship with their brothers and sisters throughout life. We only want to celebrate birthdays twice a year for the birthdays for the convenience of not having to remember 10 different birth dates. And it will be easier for all of them to remember their birthdays too. We want for them to grow up together and leave the house all at once. Having so many siblings helps them intellectually and socially, because they’ll always have to remember each other and not leave anyone out, and they’ve been able to count to ten since the sextuplets were born!”

Of course, neither of them has said anything of the sort, because (unless you really are Octomom) no one ever intends to have six children simultaneously. Neither have they gone the other way and said, “Oops. We made a mistake fighting childlessness in this fashion. Now we have the huge pressure of raising all of them, plus the added dimension of having to entertain a TV audience. It’s tearing our marriage apart. That is ironic, because our marriage is the beginning to why any of this exists in the first place.”

The part I find starkly missing is the appeal to God and church to find a solution to their current marriage woes. Jon and Kate are not superhuman; neither are they doorknobs. In fact, everything in the show tells me that the Gosselins are the most normal people on the face of the earth. And maybe, just maybe, being normal is their biggest flaw. How many marriages similarly dissolve? Why, after the statistics on divorce within churchgoing couples are higher than the national average, do Christians still prefer to treat divorce as a taboo subject and refuse to combat it? Do we not know how? Are we lazy?

In conclusion, that (1) fertility is a god, and (2) marriage is expendable are two lessons from the world that we can find exhibited clearly in the life of a Christian couple named Jon and Kate Gosselin. There are more that I had planned on teasing out, but my better judgment tells me that I should save it for the comment box. That Christians in general don’t stop and consider the ethics of our actions by virtue of our being Christians is a dismal sign that the church has not overcome the world in the more significant ways.

The Moral of the Story: Jon and Kate Plus 8, Part 1

Introduction
I have never watched the reality show J&K+8 nor given the show a moment's thought in the last five years. Yet, now I think something's changed at the moment of their critical mass. Coincidence? Hardly. At just the right juncture, I’m interested and perhaps providentially so. At least, that is how it seems to me.

Jon and Kate Gosselin, the parents and main "characters" of the show, set themselves up as a Christian couple trying to raise a big family on TV. Their verbal commitment to God and faith linger somewhere above their heads throughout the show’s current four-plus seasons. Kate regularly goes on speaking engagements to mostly Christian audiences, and her name is splashed on many Christian magazine covers announcing interviews inside. A family photo graces the cover of a new book, titled Multiple Bles8ings. But right here, right now, Jon and Kate’s marriage is imploding on national television.

And I'm thinking, ‘Is there anything about this family situation that is healthy at all?’

Fertility is a god
I wrote about the idea of fertility treatment on a previous blogpost, particularly as it concerns Christian couples struggling with infertility. The Gosselins’ situation, unknown to me at the time, perfectly mirrors the situation I talk about right down to the issue of suddenly having many more babies than expected. Their first success using technology gave them twins. Kate wanted a third child, but they cancelled a potential adoption midway through the process in favor of returning to fertility treatments. This time, the sextuplets that caught the attention of a cable TV network were born. Nowhere online did I read that they questioned whether their choices and consequences were aligned with God’s wisdom, yet Kate claims “It’s what God wants for us.*” Even Amazon.com’s editorial review (from Publishers Weekly) of their book states that “she and Jon…decided to accept the extreme challenge God had handed them.”

What God handed them? I believe the conventional understanding of providence involves considerable less control and knowledge over an outcome than what the Gosselins have experienced. Knowing the risks and potential consequences, they circumvented infertility (infertility being a circumstance uncaused by them) to have multiples by artificial means (a circumstance caused by them). How else does an infertile couple go from zero to twins to sextuplets in such short order when they only wanted just one more baby?

The answer is that fertility is a god. Today, instead of erecting physical idols that might grant the next generation of children, livestock, and crops, many go to a clinic where its practices often result in too much of what was wanted (along with consequent “reductions”--ahem, abortions--as remedies). For couples that find themselves unable to have children naturally, the quest to change that through any means necessary can be all consuming, driving even the most well intentioned wannabe parents to take measures beyond godly limits. As Christians, we are most often sensitive to the pro-life position regarding the end of life, but rarely have we thought carefully about the pro-life side of the creation of life. Kate acknowledged the probability of multiples the second time around. “We were told that there was a possibility of four, but we were truly unaware that there were seven on the day that our procedure was done, or we would not have gone through with it,**" she states in an interview. With the potential for a minimum of four more children, did they stop to ask themselves if they were crossing into recklessness by creating more lives than was their intent? If human life is as precious as we say, then we do harm to the children conceived in numbers beyond parents’ normal ability to handle. One thing is true about the use of infertility treatments: many couples may be stamping Jesus’ approval of decisions made without Him retroactively based on the results rather than on principle and responsibility.

Even in the one of the cheesiest near-foreign movies ever made (Bruce Lee’s The Game of Death), the plea to respect life stands out as a universal, objective good; in particular, it is a good that is found within the whole counsel of God. It is about time we apply the whole counsel of God to the subject of infertility and its treatments and realize the bioethical limitations that must exist. To want children is blessed. To avoid ethical pitfalls surrounding the issue of fulfilling this want is equally blessed, if not more.

*(http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/jon-and-kate-plus-8.htm)
**(http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/jon-and-kate-plus-81.htm)

(Next: The Morals of Jon and Kate Plus 8 Story, Part 2)

When "I hate you" Is a Compliment

Disclaimer: this is NOT an endorsment for Quiznos.

Credit: YouTube user Oceanic890

There's something innate in every woman that allows us to understand this commercial perfectly. No, not the sandwiches--the jealousy, of course! In the average female mind, that some other woman is jealous of her (for any of a variety of reasons) is something of a compliment.

Yes, the spot is an amusing and witty celebration of two halves of the breaking of the 10th Commandment. Sadly, women live in the spirit of this commercial everyday, and there's nothing healthy about it. Particularly for women, "thou shall not covet" doesn't exist simply to show us that coveting/envy/jealousy are bad. It exists to show us that we have no need to be jealous of another for anything. Christian women have a secure and liberated identity in Jesus Christ, free from the race for material matters and comparative identity (the constant comparison of yourself with others in order to dwell on what's missing in your own life). In a world that over-glorifies supermodels and trendy handbags and sunglasses, we are saved from living in this skin-deep insignificance.

"I hate you" is sometimes a compliment, but it shouldn't be.

Why Believe in Atheists?

Spotted in DC, 2008's year-end pro-atheism campaign:

Just be good for goodness' sake? What the blink for?

As a kid, I loved watching the He-Man and the Masters of the Universe cartoon. One time, He-Man and the good guys enlisted the aid of the evil Skeletor to save Eternia from a giant meteor(?). Skeletor agreed reluctantly. In the middle of bad guy/good guy banter, Skeletor asked, "haven't you wanted to do something evil?" to which He-Man replied, "haven't you wanted to do something good?" The world of cartoons of my childhood almost always represented good and evil as a great universal dualism where the good people were the happy ones that always triumphed over evil, the winners in conflict (probably to avoid un-PC theism). And who doesn't want to be on the side of winners? That's how the DC bus stop slogan "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake" comes across to me. Good--an end unto itself. Simplistic, child-like, a morality without reason, without ultimate justification, just because.

Yes, well, I'm not a kid anymore, and neither are the atheists trying to campaign anti-God. Let's put things into perspective with a few parallel altruisms:

Why believe in a god? Just be moral for morality's sake.

Why believe in a god? Just be fair for fairness' sake.

Why believe in a god? Just abstain from sex before marriage for abstinence's sake.

Ah, I think the last one casts the issue in the proper light. If you think about it like the others, just being good for goodness' sake just sounds dumb. In the real world, we start asking "why?" at about age four and don't expect 'just because' as a viable answer. We look for a reason to act a specific way, because motivation based on 'just because' isn't motivation enough. Just ask a four year-old.

There are different standards and varieties of "goodness," are there not? Whose goodness shall we emulate? What are the limits to goodness? What are the exceptions, if any? The very heart of the problem is this: Is there such a thing as moral 'goodness' anyway? If you're an atheist, not really. For an atheist, goodness is social convention driven by pragmatic intents of, well, whoever has the most power, whether it be one person or a whole party of persons. OR, the atheist derives goodness from what benefits his own circumstances in life, which may or may not benefit anyone else. The slogan falls into a relativist trap. What is good for you may not be good for me. In any case, whatever 'good' he may appeal to is, on the whole, completely illusory. Moral 'goodness' is artificial, made up. Say, for the atheist, that would make goodness kind of like God--nonexistent!

The bottom line is, goodness is made possible by the existence of God. For the Christian theist, God doesn't simply behave 'good' but personifies goodness as its very source. To answer the ancient question (Euthyphro dilemma), "Is what is good/moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it good/moral because it is commanded by God," God is good, and He cannot be otherwise and still be God. Goodness subsists in the mind of God and does not exist independently of Him. So an atheist trying to be good just for goodness' sake still pays homage to the fact that there is such a thing as goodness, which entails such a person as God.

We have gotten more sophisticated than hero cartoons from the 80's. Without God, there is little qualitative difference between goodness and evil. Every motivation degenerates into pragmatism, and even atheists can agree that people have done things for pragmatic reasons that are far from good.

So I say, why believe in atheists? Just be logical for logic's sake.

For a lengthier read concerning the Euthyphro dilemma, check out "An Analysis of the Very Complicated Doctrine of Divine Simplicity: Part. 3 of 3" by Jules Grisham.

Links:

"Being Good for Goodness' Sake" by Conway Wong

Meet My New Favorite Theologian

"...Christian scholarship has an obligation to truth, that is, to God. Only by the careful pursuit and acquisition of truth can we begin to execute our calling faithfully and effectively. Theologians and their students must shun the naive ferocity of those who hold to opinions that cannot stand up to careful scrutiny. Do not mistake their vicious passion for intellectual virtue or courage. It is not. It is the anguished outrage of those who have been unfaithful to their commission as apostles for truth, a commission that requires fidelity to things as they are, not to things as we would like them to be. Like Nero, those theologians spend their time fiddling with the evidence while the real world, and its questions and concerns, burns down around them. But, they themselves do not worry because they believe their asbestos dogmatism will protect them, even if it does not protect the world. In truth, however, it will protect neither. That is because Christian theologizing is, or ought to be, a 'reality game.' The morality of scholarship demands a willingness to face the truth, even when it says that some of our most cherished beliefs are raw fiction. Without courage to face the truth and the freedom to do so, neither Christian scholars nor the students they instruct will ever stand in the vanguard of academic pursuit. They lack the intellectual virtue and wherewithal to do so."—Michael Bauman, "Peer Pressure, Confessionalism and the Corruption of Judgment: Why Theologians Can't Think Straight"

I like this quote, even though it is a generalization. "...those who hold to opinions that cannot stand up to careful scrutiny" can apply to anyone, even myself. I believe it was the physicist Richard Feynman who said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Although we cannot verify theological statements by laboratory experiment, the same principle applies. The difference between good theology and bad theology is known by testing against the background of history and logical coherence (just to name two criteria). I should hope that all theologians would hold truth above their pet theologies and accept whatever correction they need.

About Michael Bauman

Review: A New Earth (Eckhart Tolle)

Full title:
A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s PurposeCopyright 2005
ISBN 978-0-452-28996-3

I. Intro
As Dr. Phil got his big break by rubbing elbows with Oprah Winfrey, so has Eckhart Tolle, one of the nation’s superstar spiritual gurus in the latest (re)incarnation of the New Age Movement. A New Earth (ANE) is Tolle’s latest book, first released in 2005 but only receiving enormous attention last January via Oprah’s Book Club. Because of her promotion, it skyrocketed onto the New York Times bestseller list and remained there for double-digit weeks.

Are you looking for happiness in life? Do you want to end suffering both personally and globally? Do you want to start now? Like any self-help and/or pop inspirational manual, ANE claims that anyone can achieve happiness and banish suffering beginning the moment you read and comprehend Tolle’s message.

II. Chapters and Summary
The book contains nine chapters and an excessive number of subchapters all explaining why Tolle’s view of the universe is better than yours and how his propositions are the key to finding happiness.

Tolle lays out his view of the ego, the emotive part of a person responsible for negativity and negative emotions. Specifically, the ego is the drive to preserve a greater opinion of ourselves than we ought to have. He describes the “pain-body” that each person possesses. The pain-body is a kind of glutton for punishment that causes us to repeat cycles of emotional pain in an attempt to seek revenge for personal slights.

Using a generous sprinkling of Zen philosophical terms, he describes how people can divest themselves of personal pain, resentment, and conflict by changing one’s perspective on your involvement and attachment to the material life most people embroil themselves in. He says that you must gain awareness and understanding of your self, remove yourself emotionally from all your life’s situations (to a degree), and take peace from your existence, not your circumstances.

The result of gaining such awareness is that today we can begin living life anew with fresh eyes and a more mature confidence in ourselves, his version of a new heaven and a new earth (hence the title of the book).

So see that this unhealthy behavior is bad for you, the world, the universe. Now you know, 'and knowing is half the battle.' The end?

III. Analysis
To his credit, he is less Shirley MacLaine-ney in articulating Eastern principles and couches them in language more conventional to American ears, which I believe contributes to the popularity of his books.

So why is ANE so popular?  As such, I believe ANE has set a new standard for Eastern philosophy in America. Far from droning on about cosmic eudaemonia and so much self-absorbed navel gazing that has dominated the public’s impression of New Age thinking, ANE taps human psychoanalysis to explain the sources of suffering and the misplaced human drive for fulfillment found in everyday behavior. The use of the terms “ego,” “pain-body,” and “dysfunction” is a step up from many traditional purveyors of Eastern religions who refer to karma, auras, and psychic energies to explain the more metaphysical side of human life.

I can’t really object to the self-help portions of ANE. Western traditions have similarly taught that “consciousness,” “space,” and “inner alignment” are needed to address the difficulties of life, except that we’ve used words such as maturity, objectivity, and patience. If one were to read ANE simply for the insight on how to control negativity and behave more rationally, then this book offers decent advice.

There’s a bit of pretentiousness to the book. On page 6, he states, “This book’s main purpose is not to add new information or beliefs to your mind or to try to convince you of anything…” Oh, but it is. Otherwise, why write a book? “…but to bring about a shift in consciousness, that is to say, to awaken….It will change your state of consciousness or it will be meaningless.” See?

The biggest criticism I do have about ANE is not the self-help advice but the undercurrent of anti-Christian platitudes, which serve to keep his views obviously more enlightened-sounding than those of “the religious”. As a Christian, I find nothing more striking about Tolle than his presumption to know Christianity (you know, before it was misunderstood by the church) better than Christians. He redefines sin, salvation, and the very name of God, and frequently misinterprets reinterprets the words and teachings of Jesus to conveniently fit his views that border on blasphemy. Just check out pages 69, 71, 79, 116, 227, and 245 to name several.

A few examples:
“The history of Christianity is, of course, a prime example of how the belief that you are in sole possession of the truth, that is to say, right, can corrupt your actions and behavior to the point of insanity….The Truth was considered more important than human life. And what was the Truth? A story you had to believe in; which means, a bundle of thoughts.” (p. 69) Unless I miss my guess, ANE is full of propositions and moral absolutes/directives, which are, it seems, also a bundle of thoughts.

Next, “When forms around you die or death approaches, your sense of Beingness, of I Am, is freed from its entanglement with form: Spirit is released from its imprisonment in matter. You realize your essential identity as formless, as an all-pervasive Presence, of Being prior to all forms, all identifications. You realize your true identity as consciousness itself, rather than what consciousness has identified with. That’s the peace of God. The Ultimate truth of who you are is not I am this or I am that, but I Am.” (p. 57) Ahem, I believe the problem here is self-evident.

Last, “When you hear of inner space, you may start seeking it, and, because you are seeking it as if you were looking for an object for an experience, you cannot find it. This is the dilemma of all those who are seeking spiritual realization or enlightenment. Hence, Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (p. 233-234) “Hence, Jesus?” I’ll tell you what is bliss: blithely mutating the meaning and application of the words of Christ for the sake of the readers’ potential flowering of consciousness. It certainly is a new world, isn’t it?

How magnanimous of Mr. Tolle to tell me my life’s purpose. Like a lot of preachers of Eastern religious thought, everything boils down to a “just so” argument. There is no defense of the One Life to which all of us supposedly belong. For a man who spouts the oft-repeated mantra about how truth is relative, he is adamant about how his teachings are necessarily transformative. The overarching posture of ANE is that Tolle is right and all other beliefs that he contradicts are wrong.

IV. Conclusion
In all, Tolle might not be that far from the truth. He recognizes that humanity’s deep spiritual problem necessitates some internal change in order to resolve. At issue is whether or not his teachings actually address the heart of the problem, which, with his many words about egos and pain-bodies and consciousnesses, seems to fall short. Tolle would say that we need to be like him. I would say that we need Jesus instead.

Addendum: There is something about this book that sounds so familiar...could it be that
is
Gaius Baltar?

Other reviews:
"A Review of Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose," by Mary Jo Sharp (Confident Christianity)

"A New Earth and The Spiritually Elite," by Marcia Montenegro (Christian Answers For the New Age)

Everyday Heresy

How Many Ways Can You Go Wrong in One Sentence?
Conversation 2

This is continuation of Conversation 1 about the deity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity.

"G's" comment:
And Lettia, it did feel almost as though this couple was assaulting the deity of God when we first had this conversation, and I was afraid for them for even suggesting that Jesus wasn't fully God, but merely had qualities of God since he was after all his son.

I responded:
The way you explain your friends' ideas about Jesus as Son of God betrays a bit of confusion about what Sonship is on their part. This is really important, because I believe this confusion exists in the Christian church at just below the conscious level and is not well addressed.

First, the idea that "Jesus was not fully God" is problematic by itself. In Judeo-Christian monotheism, someone is either divine or not divine; he cannot be somewhere in-between. In Jesus' case, He is either God or He is not. So, the term "fully God" is either a redunancy or signifies bad theology by suggesting that divinity is like a tank that must be filled to capacity in order to achieve God-status. In most cases, it's bad theology that rules the day.

Second, getting the "fully God" part wrong will trip you up going into the next portion of the sentence, "but merely had qualities of God..." Really? What are those qualities? If they are not eternal self-existence exhibiting omniscience and benevolent omnipotence operating in a transcendent-emmanent paradox with relation to the material world, then what--forgiving others, healing the sick, walking on water? Well, Jesus' disciples, even Judas Iscariot, had some of those qualities, but we don't wonder how close they were to being divine. Point is, one cannot appeal to the qualities of God without describing, well, God! They are unique and exclusive (no 'merely' about it!) to only ONE in a Judeo-Christian monotheistic worldview, which means that God cannot share His inherent qualities with Jesus unless Jesus inherently possesses those qualities also.

Third, the last portion, "since he was after all his son" simply screams out massive confusion. If I may grab an Islamic objection to the Sonship of Jesus to demonstrate confusion about Jesus as the Son. Islam teaches that God does not and could not have a son. To a Muslim, having a son is a form of procreation, something that is irrational for God to do. Therefore, Jesus being the Son of God is irrational at best, blasphemous at worst from their point of view. But Sonship isn't about a Muslim point of view; it is a Judeo-Christian point of view, which begs the question, what was so special about Jesus that made Him God's Son? And if being God's Son makes any sense at all, why wouldn't being God THE Son make just as much sense? Your friends are borrowing heavily the language of orthodox Christianity without any of the definitions associated with the language either because they don't know the definitions or because they choose to ignore them. In either case, they are not adopting a Judeo-Christian view of Sonship, which is that Jesus is fulfilling the duties that the second member of the Trinity, the Son, was sent into the world to do. What your friends mean by God's Son is a mystery to me, and I think perhaps it might be a mystery to them as well.

Overall, trying to explain how Jesus is not God but is able to exhibit all the "qualities" of God comes from and leads to great theological confusion about the very nature of God. If we impose a post-Enlightenment standard onto the Bible as many do, it should not surprise us that what was obvious in the 1st century escapes our understanding today. Furthermore, if we use terms devoid of their original meaning, it should also not surprise us the heights of heresy to which we can achieve. Sad but true.

Everyday Heresy

A Thumb in the Eye of the Son and other Mistakes about the Trinity
(Conversation 1)

Once in a while, members of my church bring up theological questions set off by personal encounters with friends or acquaintances with views contrary to Christian doctrine. Here's one such case: "G" has been speaking with a couple of friends who deny that Jesus should be understood and worshiped as God. This is her representation of their view and my response.

Alright...I have been chewing on, reading about and in general, bothered by a question that was posed to me this past summer by a Christian couple that I have never distrusted their answers and wisdom in thing things of God and the bible.

We were debating/discussing the reality of God being made up of 3 persons (Father, Son and Spirit) - or if it was a widely accepted idea that "the church" has taught us to be true.

They think that Jesus was really only the SON of God (who had been given power) and not also fully God. And they don't necessarily think that Jesus was with God since the beginning of time. They said these ideas are something we read into the Old (or New) Testament. They also said that they think the Spirit is not a separate entity or part of the Trinity, but that everywhere it speaks of the Spirit of God, that is exactly what it is - God's Spirit (and not this 3rd separate God-thing).

I made my arguments on why I believe in a Trinity (all pretty much based on the same stuff we teach at The Journey). But there were a couple points they made that really threw me for a loop and I have frankly been struggling with.

I've done some research, re-read the sections from the Gospel Class book on the Trinity and the scriptures we use to back this idea up. But I still haven't been satisfied with my researching on a few points they brought up:

1) We both agreed that the bible clearly teaches there is only ONE God. But as they pointed out, Jesus never had the power to do anything on his own, but always was given to him from God. And Jesus always pointed out that there was ONE God, his Father, and that Jesus only worshiped God (not himself) and his life pointed people to God. This couple thinks it's almost blasphemous when people worship Jesus - because as the bible teaches, there is only One God who we should be worshiping, and that is the Creator Himself. And yes, without Jesus' sacrifice we couldn't have direct access to God, but if there is only One God and Jesus was very specific and intentional to not make himself equal with God, then what's going on here?

2) (this is the one that really messed me up)... They said if we believe in Jesus being fully God, then God must have died when Jesus died. How do we explain that?!?! In some of my research it explained this by stating that just b/c Jesus died physically, his spirit was still there and still with God. But the bible states that God left him completely (he can't have any part in sin). I don't see how God and Jesus' spirits still could have been together when it says that Jesus gave up his spirit after he breathed his last.

...

After all the concept of "3-in-1" is so HUGE, why are there only hints in the bible of this idea? It never says 3-in-1 anywhere in scripture. So why on earth do we even use a man-made word "the Trinity" to describe this?

I responded:
The objections to the Trinity aren't new, but you can be relieved to know that they were answered about 1700 years ago (and since). Hence, you have many resources at your disposal to help you out.

Well, if the concept of the Trinity originated with the Westminster Catechism or Luther, you might have a point there. But it is much older than that, going back to the Church Fathers (the generation of church leaders following the Apostles). Understand that the word "Trinity" is a term that was fashioned to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because of what Christians had already believed about God, not an idea that evolved over time. It is very important to make that distinction, otherwise you'll be getting history backwards, as seems to be the case with the couple you're talking about.

Let's call it what it really is: any objection to the Trinity as it relates to Jesus is simply an assault on His deity. It is a denial that Jesus is God, so I'll just deal with this rather than talk about all of the Trinity in detail.

When I was in high school, I had a good friend who was a Jehovah's Witness, and I spent oodles of time researching JW teaching about Jesus and how to combat it. Back then, my approach was to pull out every verse in Scripture that demonstrates Jesus' deity. I got really good at spotting relevant verses, but I still missed the bigger picture because my knowledge of Bible and church history was severely lacking. The single biggest disadvantage we have today when it comes to reading the Bible is that we do not know how to read it in its historical context. Fact: we are NOT the Scriptures' primary audience (spiritually, yes we are; historically, no). Our troubles begin when we forget that the NT, in particular, was written in the context of 1st century Palestine for primarily Jewish and Greek audiences. So, we must read it like a 1st century Jew (preferably) if we are to get the full impact of the words on the page.

Ironically, the deity of Jesus is the best example of what I'm talking about. Your question includes the phrase "Jesus was very specific and intentional to not make himself equal with God." If we take a 1st century mindset and look at the ministry of Jesus, we would come to a very different conclusion.

(some are notes I cut and pasted from my prep on the cancelled DYD Forum on the Resurrection) Let’s examine some things Jesus said and did in the Gospels.
1. "I say to you”/”I tell you” statements – Jesus often used these phrases to assert authority to change a concept of Jewish law or tradition by either contradicting it or correcting its present interpretation. For example, on divorce, Jesus assumes authority over Moses and contradicts Mosaic tradition (Matt. 19:8-9). And again, “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). The impact of this was not lost on those who heard Him, for in so doing, Jesus was putting Himself in authority above them, above the Prophets, and above God’s Law as Judge and Revealer of God’s truth. William Lane Craig says in his book, Reasonable Faith, “Jesus’ sense of personal authority to correct the Torah and contradict Jewish tradition goes down hard for faithful Jews.” To His audience, Jesus put Himself in the very place of God, making the pronouncements that only God has a right to make. This is true even today. Jacob Neusner, the well-known Jewish scholar, wrote the book, A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, in which he objects to Jesus on the same grounds a Jews in the 1st cent. Neusner is offended at Jesus’ presumption to subject the Torah to His word and says of the book of Matt, “No one can encounter Matthew’s Jesus without concurring that before us in the evangelist’s mind is God incarnate.” In effect, Neusner is asking, “Who do you think you are, Jesus—God?”

2. Many times, Jesus orients Himself to God the Father differently than He orients His disciples to God the Father. In John 20:17, He says to Mary, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " He doesn’t say “our Father.” (The famous Lord’s Prayer is actually a misnomer, because Jesus never prayed that prayer; it is a prayer for His disciples to pray.) Jesus always establishes a unity and intimacy between Himself and God the Father that He doesn’t ascribe to anyone else.

3. Liberal theologians also deny any historical references to Jesus' divinity, yet there is one parable of Jesus that is universally seen as authentic to Him, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Matt. 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12): in this parable, Jesus clearly puts Himself in the story as the son the tenants plot to kill for his inheritance. The Pharisees' reaction to this parable is telling, for they seek His immediate arrest--for what? Jesus put Himself in direct authority above THEM with special relation to God and spoke judgment against THEM (remember, the Pharisees were the religious elite who were closer to God than anyone else; anyone having more authority than they would HAVE to be God Himself).

4. One of the titles Jesus often used for Himself was "Son of Man" with direct reference to Daniel 7:13. My intent is not to get into a Bible verse-joust, so I will quote Darell Bock in his Breaking the Da Vinci Code. When you read how Jesus portays Himself to His immediate audience in the Gospels, you can't help but recognize that "Jesus is a divine figure worthy to sit in God's presence because He is capable of sharing God's unique glory." The Gospels needed to make distinct exactly what their position was on Jesus: that Jesus was either a blasphemous pretender or one worthy to share in God's glory. Their choice is the latter. Jesus is a fully human person who also bears the unique signs of God's deity and deserving of that status, a view held by Christians long before Nicea.

That anyone would ask for more explicit claims for Jesus' deity really betrays a modern blindness to the way things were (anachronistic imposition of post-Enlightenment thinking, if you will). They are committing the first mistake I talked about, which is to want Jesus to get up in the middle of the Beatitudes and shout, "Yes! I am God! Worship Me now!" Such a proclamation would have been unecessary and would have given the wrong idea to Jesus' listeners. To say that would have meant that Jesus was the Father, (or a contemporary mistake which is to say that Jesus is the Trinity) which would make no sense whatsoever to the Jewish mind.

As I noted above, the challenge to the deity of Jesus Christ is and old one, and an answered one at that. But history doesn't seem to make a difference in the minds of modern-day deniers, so here we go again and again. Anyway, Conversation 2 is coming up.

Three's Company? Palin, Mohler, and I

The following is a post I wrote for Complegalitarian. The issue surrounds the debate about how Sarah Palin should be viewed as a Christian woman in politics, running for the Vice Presidency of the United States. Although the debate over women in positions of authority is not new, the subject of Sarah Palin has catapulted the issue to the forefront of Christian circles. For Christians with a Complementarian point of view (that is, women have limited roles with respect to men) that also have a great interest in politics, this is the ultimate test of how their views apply. Some, like Al Mohler and David Kotter, both contributors to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, make way for Sarah Palin to lead in the highest executive position in the country. Others, like Doug Phillips of the Vision Forum, say that consistency is key, and no woman should ever occupy any civic position of authority.

As you can tell from the title of this post, I side with Mohler's approval of Gov. Palin. However, the reasons underlying my agreement differ quite a bit from the majority of Complementarians who have put their views in print, as CBMW has. This post, as well as the next one, expound on my particular views on the issue. As the following is in repsonse to comments made on the Palin-Mohler issue, please feel free to read Complegalitarian for the full context.

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

This is hardly a cheering endorsement from Mohler, though it certainly is an acknowledgement that not all wives and mothers are called to stay at home. It is, however, a clear admonition to not view her as a normal women. She is an exception, like Esther or Deborah, period. She is not so much an example to be followed as she is an exception to the general rule. (molly).
..
Mohler has a consistency problem with this one because Palin professes to be a Christian. Mohler/CBMW teach that Christian women have a 'role'and all that entails that we have discussed here ad nauseum. :o) However, they are also saying that we can separate the civil and spiritual realms for women in leadership. That does not seem to be a problem except that Palin is a Christian woman. Is anyone else not seeing this conumdrum for CBMW? How can they separate the civil and spiritual realm with a Christian woman? You can't. Christians don't have 'realms'. (lin)
...
It is clear that the non-egals want to have their cake and eat it too. (don)

Is CBMW being inconsistent, many ask?

I think it depends on the person speaking. Doug Phillips seems to believe he is more consistent than Al Mohler, but I don't think that matters in light of his views. When you believe that a woman is created for no other purpose than to be a babymama-housekeeper, you've effectively dropped out of reasonable conversation altogether.

Is complementarianism in trouble because of Sarah Palin?

That's funny, and the answer is no. Let me point out that Richard Land (complementarian) was one of the first people to propose naming Sarah Palin for McCain's VP early on in the campaign.

Do I have a problem with consistency as a complementarian?

Well, if I make the kind of errors I've read so far from both egals and patriocentrists, yes. But I haven't. In this previous post, I argued that it is perfectly consistent with my views on Complementarianism that a woman could be a leader in any civil realm she chooses.

To the issue raised that Christians (and certainly complementarians) don't have separate realms, vis a vis a Christian/spiritual realm to a secular realm (and the accusation that complementarians are trying to split life into these two realms): I would contend that this is an incorrect framing of the issue, which is then, incorrectly trying to expose inconsistency in complementarianism.

The idea, 'There is no separate spiritual realm and secular realm for the Christian,' is a theological proposition about how we should conduct ourselves with Christlike integrity wherever we are (not an existential proposition). Al Mohler is not making a contrary theological claim to that. Instead, he is making a simple modal distinction brought up by the case of Sarah Palin. In short, she can wear that hat (whether governor or VP or whatever). As to whether or not there exist separate realms, of course there are--we don't live under a theocracy afterall, and we don't demand that our government be ruled by the Church. This is an argument against a position like Doug Phillips'. That anyone can construe this to be a problem of complementarian proportions is ridiculous.

Is Gov. Palin the exception? Yes, in the sense that I think most women don't have the ability to do what she is doing, including myself. I can hardly find time to read a book much less occupy a public office. But also no, in the sense that she is an exeption because she is exceptional, not because she's bending some rule somewhere to get where she is (which is otherwise closed to women). There is no such rule that prohibits women from exercising public office. Any woman who has the skills to govern effectively and still regard her husband and family properly should be afforded the opportunity to exercise those skills, regardless of whether she is a Christian or not. (I would add, especially if she is a conservative Christian, but that is my bias that we don't need any more liberal pro-abortion politicians hostile to Christianity here in this country). Marilyn did make this point in the combox (much better than I, I think).

For those of you who are salivating at the idea that the issue of Sarah Palin proves that complementarianism as a system of thought is wrong need to aim your guns elsewhere, because you've really missed the point. Some hard complementarians/patriocentrists, like Doug Phillips, are certainly wrong in their views, but their problem isn't complementarianism. It's the refusal in their own hearts to see the full humanity of women.

Making Distinctions, Part 2

Between Submission and Submission

Or perhaps, Submission vs. Submission. Now that I've said that husbands can submit to their wives without biblical violations, I can't let that fly without making another important distinction, the distinction between the kind of submission a husband should have to his wife and vice versa. I tend to agree with David's thoughts in an earlier post that men and women are created differently and that those differences need to be respected (and I would also add NOT exploited) in how spouses submit to each other.

I've commented earlier that the question for Complementarians is not how much submitting should be excercised, but what kind. In his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem makes the case that the role of a wife includes a unique kind of submission that wives should afford their husbands that isn't replicated in any other type of relationship. I see nothing wrong with that. After all, my husband only has one wife--me--and logically should receive a unique and designated kind of love and respect (and deference) from me that I don't show to anyone else.

Likewise, a husband should show his wife a unique kind of love and respect (and submission) toward his wife that isn't replicated in any other relationship either.

Is this submission "mutual?" Yes. Is it equivalent? Definitely not. But what is submission anyway? Even in defining submission within the marriage context, there are varying connotations. Complementarianism holds that men and women do not require and are not made to require the same kind of submission from each other, but do require the appropriate submission from each other. Even Egalitarians seem to use the word 'submit' a little differently when referring to whomever is doing the submitting. Again, the issue is about the nature of submitting, not how much or how often or to what degree one should submit to the other and if the other should reciprocate in equal quantities. I realize that this is a rather broad generality, and I think scripturally it is meant to be.

To throw a little more perspective onto things, imagine if wives always contested their husbands. Imagine if husbands continually ignored their wives. (Do we really need to imagine?) Now we can understand why Paul would spend time addressing the marriage relationship in scripture, for it appears that it was because wives were not submitting to their own husbands that Paul makes his declarations.

Perhaps this is where I should have started from the beginning. There is plenty of fear and suspicion to be had without a clear understanding of the motivations of the Apostle Paul whenever Christians talk about any kind of submission. We still have a long way to go to reach clarity, but I hope my making a distinction here contributes in some small way.

Making Distinctions, Part 1

This is a series that I am writing for the Complegalitarian blog. In an effort to spread controversy as far and wide as I can (which may not be very far, but here I go anyway), I am reproducing it here for my own blog.

Making Distinctions...

Between Patriarchy and Complementarianism
As I see it, ground level complementarianism simply states that there are divinely purposed roles for men and women to function in the family and in the church (yes, some roles not being swappable). Patriarchy can be seen as an extreme form of complementarianism, but I believe that its characteristics are less an extension of Complementarianism and more like Complementarianism's 'cult,' like the Jehovah's Witnesses are to Christianity(1). Therefore, I find much about patriarchy's views on complementarian principles objectionable.

1. Husband/father headship. Complementarianism simply gives the husband/father the role of representative leader that carries a unique accountability to God (Genesis 3). With that role logically comes a certain amount of authority. Complementarianism does not place the husband over the wife in terms of authority but logically maintains that deference be given to him because of his position. Is this a "priviledge?" If it is, it is a slight one and one not without narrow limits. This is not male hierarchy or male superiority any more than it is female inferiority.

Patriarchy seeks to centralize all authority to the head position and expands its reach into areas of life that minimizes the other figure in the marriage and home, namely the wife. Patriarchy views wives as means to the husbands' ends. From this point of view comes all the examples of husbands micromanaging (to put it nicely) their wives' lives for the purpose of making husbands' lives fulfilled and convenient. This is neither biblical nor justifiable. Scripture gives to the man a wife as a helper. Nowhere does the Lord God call her a maid, a butler, a servant, a tool, and certainly not a slave. As my pastor once preached as well, "Marriage is not to make you happy; it is to make you holy." Indeed, God commands the man to leave his home (meaning his familial identity) and cleave to his wife, yet patriarchy insists on the husband making the wife conform to his leanings and identity. One could more biblically state that the husband should be the one conforming more to his wife's identity instead.

What does the position of head contain? A man has the responsibility to make sure that what he and his family does is right in the sight of God, simply put. He is the one that has to answer for the collective state of his household; this doesn't mean that he speaks for his wife as an individual, but for both husband and wife as a unit.

2. One flesh unity in marriage. Complementarians and Egalitarians both agree that husband and wife should act together in building the character of their marriage and family. Patriarchy seeks to make this task univocal rather than in unity, and since authority is centralized in the husband, he then might find himself deciding things that he likely has little wisdom to give, like how many babies his wife should bear, what clothes his wife should wear, determining the occupations of his children beforehand, etc. The result is clearly not one flesh unity, but forced conformity (as discussed above).

3. Eve was created to be Adam's helper/helpmate. Complementarianism acknowledges that Eve wasn't just any female, but Adam's wife, pointing to a relationship between the two that existed the moment she began to exist. Outside of this relationship, who Adam and Eve were to each other would have been meaningless. Similarly, as Complementarians apply the Adam & Eve theme to the rest of humanity, it only makes sense in a marriage relationship that a woman is her man's helpmate. Therefore, there cannot be any patriarchal generalization that females in society are helpers to males in society. Thus, it is not wrong for women to hold positions of civic authority over men and similarly not wrong for women to have authority over men in the church provided that their authority does not violate a more foundational principle of 1 Tim. 2:12 (that women cannot have authority in church over their own husbands).

4. Wives are to submit to their husbands. That 'wives are to submit to their husbands' does not conversely mean that husbands are not to submit to their wives, yet this is precisely what patriarchy implicitly holds. (Oh, perhaps husbands may submit to their wives, but in patriarchal terms, such submitting must be done only if he wills or desires to submit. Pathetic.) A wife's submission is to God first and to her husband second and that submission to her husband is because of her submission to God. I am not now going to kill wifely submission with a thousand qualifications, so please don't misunderstand when I say that when a husband is sinful in his treatment and demands of his wife, her obligation not to sin is greater than her obligation to submit to her husband, so a wife should not feel compelled to obey the will of her husband in those times. Let me be redundant for clarity: a husband's sin need not be his wife's sin as well.

5. Should a husband submit to his wife? We've asked this question before on Complegalitarian without making this particular distinction, so allow me to make it here. Patriarchy says 'no.' Complementarians should correct the question to read "When should a husband submit to his wife?" As stated above, the mandate that wives are to submit to their husbands doesn't negate the fact that husbands need to listen and submit to their wives--when?--on the occasions that they should submit to their wives. This is what "mutual submission" means to me. It isn't 50/50, because 50/50 can be unjust by disregarding the nature of the subject.

First of all, these are not contrary statements. One may now try to accuse me of using an argument from silence, but I'll remind us that it is legitimate when we would expect circumstances to otherwise contradict the silence. In a couple of instances in scripture, we see married women acting without any explicit direction from their husbands in action very much in accordance to the providence of God.

Example 1 - In Genesis 2:1-4, Moses' mother orchestrates the saving of Moses' infant life by putting him into the basket in the river and then directing Miriam to watch over the baby.

Example 2 - To Moses again, his wife is the one that decides to circumsize their sons without his intitial knowledge.(Exod. 4:24-26) If patriarchy (the kind we're talking about) were the case, we would expect to see a reprimand of some kind of both women for making decisions that their husbands had to comply with--ahem--submitted to. But we don't. Instead, we see Yahweh's implicit approval of these women as having acted in accordance to His will when (especially in the latter case) the husband had not.

As a Complementarian, I see many problems with Patriarchy and agree with many of our Egalitarian commenters about them. However, I do object to the blurring of Complementarianism to share Patriarchy's views in the same way and in the same relationship.

(1) The most striking similarity about this comparison is the psychological irony that both Jehovah's Witnesses and Patriarchalists seem to play out, that all things so done by the ruling authority in the name of loving God and loving family actually end up robbing God and family of the love they truly ought to receive by substituting a false love of cultish control and demanding compliance in all things.

Not Sweating Over Global Warming

Long have I wanted to hammer out a rudimentary theology on the enviroment. Lazy me just wouldn't do it until someone at church simply had to ask if anyone had thoughts about it. Oh bother! :)

Introduction
I confess that I used to buy into the ecovironut view of the planet. I used to believe that unless we banned styrofoam and aerosol cans that we would all eventually go blind. Back in high school, the rage was how the depletion of the ozone layer was going to allow radiation to end all life on earth (as evidenced by the ozone 'hole' over Antarctica). I believed that humans were going to shoot the earth to pieces with our automobile exhaust pipes. To recap my own experiences, global cooling turned into deforestation-induced soil erosion, which turned into ozone depletion, which turned into greenhouse gas emissions, which turned into global warming. Although the panic-button pushers never sleep, ever constantly beating their war drums, I've since grown up, learned some facts, and developed a healthier perspective on such matters.

Now as we pass the decade or so mark of the global warming panic, we see the rhetoric shift toward "climate change," and this time even Christians have been caught up in the frenzy to "save the planet" from our environmental misdeeds. Observe the following rather iconic remark:

"The plan [sic] fact is this; If we don't do something to change our current wasteful consumption of the Earths [sic] resources and Jesus doesn't come back within the next 25 to 50 years we are all completely DOOMED!! But, by all means don't appear to [sic] overly concerned about these issues at the cost of saving one more soul for the Kingdom. Question: What good is it to save one more child from being aborted if the world they are born into is toxic and unable to sustain there [sic] basic needs of air,water [sic] and food? Wake up and smell the organic bird-friendly coffee Mr." (Taken from Christians' Environmental Forum)

Doomed for want of organic bird-friendly coffee...I can't beat that kind of drama. Let me make perfectly clear: I'm no environmental expert (but a B.S. seems to suffice nowadays for expert status, and I have one of those. Hm.), and I don't pretend to have all the answers. But, I do know that there is no consensus about the nature and cause of global warming; there is no consensus that carbon dioxide causes rising temperatures, and there is even less agreement that global warming is necessarily a very bad thing or a very permanent thing for the planet; there is also no consensus as to how much human activity contributes to environmental damage--any contribution is currently unquantifiable and speculative. Lastly, when did a "consensus" determine the validity of any scientific conclusion? If indeed climate change threatens life on earth, it should be incontrovertible, yet though the earth has warmed a wee bit, the consensus is that we are not going to die.

Could it be that we lack a reasonable theology of the environment? Is that why Christians get as bent out of shape about the environment as most secular environmentalists? No, I don't think a lack of an articulated theology causes this pathological right-brainedness, but having a theology would answer a lot of questions as to how believers should tie together their faith and the world (literally). In the history of Christianity, believers have always sought to find the mind of God in in the life challenges of the day, and today's environmentalism is no different. Although I believe Christians on the whole are rather late to arrive at such a theology, but, as they say, better late than never.

Christians Are Not Silent
A few noteworthy statements have been published online, drafted by Christians that outline basic biblically derived principles on environmental issues. Even my pastor Darrin Patrick has signed one of these statements. In general (and some are quite general), they all spell out the same principles of stewardship and responsibility on the part of the Christian. I'd say this is a fair step in the right direction. This generality is also the greatest flaw, for in an effort to sound humble, they admit so much ignorance and speak in noncommittal language, one wonders about the real worth of such statements in the first place. The most problematic statement, The Evangelical Climate Initiative, emphasizes the belief that human activity is at the center of climate change, a dubious claim. At any rate, Christians are speaking out. Check out the following sites:

Southern Baptist Environment & Climate Initiative
We Get It!
Christians and the Environment-A Study Guide by Alan Marshall
The Evangelical Climate Intitiative

I hate making theology a matter of opinion, but on such an issue that is as nebulous as climate change, I find little to work with. But since that hasn't stopped fellow Christians from making an offering, they give me courage. I have titled the next section "Towards a Theology of Environmental Stewardship," mainly because there is more that scientists and experts do not know about the planet and its processes than they do know. In the unfolding of scientific discovery and knowledge, at best, anyone attempting to address the environment on theological grounds will always find himself working towards a theology rather than having arrived at a definite end.

Towards a Theology of Environmental Stewardship

Principles
1. God owns His creation. The earth is the Lord's, and all that is within it, the world, and all who live in it (Psalm 24:1-2).

Christians must first recognize that creation is a work of God and, thus, should value it. The earth sustains our bodies and is our only resource that must ideally provide for every person and every animal alive.

2. Good stewards invest and care for what's been given in their charge. Jesus' parable of the talents teaches this one principle: that God expects believers to act and produce something greater than what He initially provides (Matt. 25:14-28).

The earth's natural resources are tremendous sources of "talents," though I believe evironmentalists give human activity too much credit. We are managers, not demigods. The burning of a little petroleum can hardly compare to the billions of years of geologic turmoil that has given us the habitat we have now. We should respect the power of the earth itself to change and not make the mistake to think that we are so mighty to control it. When we yield to natural changes and make the best of our resources is when we glorify and respect the Lord's handiwork the best.

3. We are part of the environment.

Strictly speaking then, we cannot do anything that is unnatural. We should avoid the mentality that we must save everything and elevate the status quo of "virgin" environment over the needs of humanity. We should recognize that the earth is organic, constantly changing and cycling through phases and is thus able to repair itself over time. This should free us to focus on improving the lives of the most disadvantaged in the world and to integrate environmental concerns in its proper context.

4. We have the greatest potential for abusing anything and any ideal, especially in the name of good intentions, and the environment is a good example.

Not caring enough about environmental impact hurts the environment and spoils our ability to invest and produce and harms people in the long run; environmental protectionist attitudes hurt people as long as those attitudes prevail. Either way, the ones that pay the primary price are us; let us recognize that the enviromnent has its limits; convenience is not the highest ideal, but we are not slaves to what we care for either.

5. Enviromentalism is often its own religion (see Deep Ecology), and Christians should avoid falling into the hysteria of its radicals.

Environmentalism often turns ecology into idolatry and preaches that humanity's highest priority is social engineering, not unlike Marxism, though achieved through oppressive governmental environmental policies. Like the caricature of Christianity, environmentalism can be known for what it is against rather than what it is for (i.e. capitalism, industry, and truly helping the proletariat the poor).

6. Value the collective individual actions that often serve the greater good better than government mandates.

Few people dispute that governmental regulation of individual lives is generally an overstepping of authority on the part of legislators, but we don't apply the same attitude toward regulating businesses (even though businesses are run by people). How often have we heard of big businesses that regularly pollute, preferring to "pay the fine" over the higher cost of disposing of their wastes properly? Many of our energy-producing facilities are woefully old and operating at efficiencies only appropriate for decades past, yet current government directives to improve their facilities require more of them than their abilities can accomplish at one time, so companies often do nothing. In this way, government too often serves to do no better at actually improving the way working America handles environmental issues than if it had legislated nothing at all. The most effective agent for change is public pressure. More and more companies are "going green" out of concern for their images as well as the bottom line, not because of a government regulation. Shouldn't we applaud this and encourage it?

Priorities
1. The cultivation of a personal Christian ethic that glorifies God by respecting His creation.

2. Utilizing natural resources to benefit all of humanity, especially those too poor to care for the environment without help.

Truly responsible Christians, it seems to me, should exercise truly helpful methods of conservation. On any given trash day, I see multiple trash bins loaded to overflowing with a week's worth of discarded items, most of which are recyclable. I see this as a symptom that most of America doesn't care about our shrinking landfill space, which is a greater and more immediate concern than "saving the earth" for several reasons:

o Expansion of landfill space - hardly happens, because no one likes to approve of a landfill in their backyard

o Potential public health hazard - the more trash that is thrown in a landfill, the higher the probability of problematic disease-causing microbes to flourish and spread by animal contact or eventual contamination of ground water even if distant from human habitats. (As an aside, this is why I dislike the use of disposable baby diapers and the disposal of animal waste into the trash. See below*.)

o Non-biodegradation - ever hear about the decades-old newspapers and discarded foodstuffs have been dug up out of old landfills in nearly intact condition? It happens. This should lead us to consider that even though some trash is biodegradable, the chances for organic matter to actually biodegrade in a landfill is greatly reduced due to the nature of landfill management. I would add that since most trash is bagged in plastic now, I can't imagine how anything properly biodegrades at all.

Ideas for living more "green"
(all relatively painless and all easy to implement; but many of which I have found conflicts with the conveniences of the average American lifestyle. I wonder, even for most Christians sympathetic with the environmental movement, when the rubber meets the road, are they are more content to sign a declaration rather than actually change their lifestyles?)

"(It) don't go there" trash management:
1. Recyclable items go--guess where? In the recycling bin!

2. Greatly reduce or eliminate the use of disposable items, such as
a. *disposable diapers - instead, cloth diaper your babies; cloth diapering saves energy, money, and is more healthy for your child; most, if not all, states prohibit the disposal of human waste in the trash as it is a public health hazard, but we are doing it anyway to the tune of millions of disposable diapers in our landfills annually. Your waste goes in the toilet; why not your baby's?
b. paper towels, paper napkins, and those dreadful disposable washcloths - again, the cloth option
c. disposable take-out containers - try using your own food containers to eliminate the doggy bags that have no other destination than the trash can once you bring home leftovers
d. plastic food wrap - it's just cash in the trash, and besides, plastic is a petroleum-based product; maybe the less of it that resides in your cabinet, the more can go in your car (?).
e. *puppy poop - when did this become disposable? Ever since city ordinances were passed requiring dog owners to clean up their dogs' business, as they should. However, owners need to take it one step further and flush that puppy poop. Really, the only difference between Fido's and yours is that yours comes out of you, but you don't bag yours up and throw it in the trash, do you?
e. lawn waste - most city ordinances require homeowners to separate lawn waste from trash nowadays

Lifestyle Choices
3. Breastfeed your baby - the longer, the better (The World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding to a minimum of age two); breastfeeding saves money, time, energy, and waste, not to mention is superior for the health of your baby; just think, if more children suffered fewer illnesses and thus visited the doctor less, the already beleaguered medical community would not need to dispense as much medication and reduce the amount of paperwork that goes into each patient.

4. Cut out the electronics; apparently, ecovironuts love ipods and Guitar Hero like anyone else, and who isn't titillated by an electric broom? Let's keep things in perspective: all electronic devices have one thing in common--wattage.

5. Plant a garden - with the high price of food and fuel, this seems to make more sense everyday.

6. Grow a worm farm - worms will compost a good deal of food waste in every home, greatly reducing the amount left to fester in a landfill somewhere. Learn more at these websites:

Vermicomposting at Wikipedia
Treehugger.com
Red Worm Composting.com

7. Use home appliances to maximize their efficiency and reduce the energy drain on municipal supply as well as reducing your energy bills.

8. Eliminate the number of personal care"products" that marketers insist that everyone must have - that you need all the products offered is an obvious lie. I count a minimum of eight separate products people are regularly encouraged to purchase: shampoo and conditioner (2), soap/body cleanser (1), facial cleanser (1), toner (1), facial moisurizer (1), shave lubricant (1), body lotion (1). If you think about it, we don't need to use a lot of separate products when many will do double duty for us already. I won't get into details, but a little online research might enlighten Americans to just how much we're being played. Here are some highly recommended websites:

Note: this list is not an endorsement of the products found on these websites
Paula Begoun, the Cosmetics Cop
Wen Hair Care (disclaimer: this website is good for information only; I wouldn't pay the outrageous $30/month for anyone's hair care no matter how good it's supposed to be)
No Shampoo Experiment

9. Collect rainwater to save on your water bill; hey, what could be better than free water that literally falls from the sky to water your garden with?

10. Co-op your shopping with neighbors; save gas and extra trips to the store; a great way to get to know your neighbors and build community.

11. Do not buy a hybrid vehicle unless you are in total need of a new car. If you do, your old vehicle will only be sold to another shmoe and will likely go back on the street within a week. So how will you have really helped the environment? If you are considering it for the fuel efficiency, you'll fare no better in overall outcome either. Unless you drive that hybrid to the moon and back, the money you'll save in gasoline will be negligible to the cost and maintenance of the vehicle in its lifetime; add to that the fact that hybrids have unconventional engines, which force owners to service them exclusively at dealerships ($$$).

12. Do not buy bottled water. Filter tap water and bottle it yourself with a reusable bottle.

13. Do not buy into carbon credits. 'Nuff said.

14. Get involved in your community; it is one thing to preach that other people should do something to reduce waste; it is quite another to be that person. Being involved means building credibility and awareness with others that you work with.

Other websites with suggestions on green living:
Serve God Save the Planet - has some useful tips, but not all of them I would agree with.
Check any state, county, or local municipality website for more tips on saving energy in your home.

A Word About Politics
What about politics? I have found that our politicians are neither interested in true conservationism nor committed to utilizing the natural resources we have for the sake of the citizenry. Thus, we have a political stalemate over policies. Vote however you wish, because I'm just cynical enough to think that government will never achieve the balance that individual citizens can on their own.

Concluding Remarks
Achieving a responsible balance with earth's resources is no easy task. As Christians, I think we are inclined to believe we are more responsible than we really are, even those of us most vocal about protecting the environment. It's hard not buying into the hysteria. It's even harder to adopt stewardship practices over simply signing your name to a document stating that you care. As a person who values substance over symbolism (especially if I believe the symbolism is misguided), the best thing I can do is follow my own advice, which is why you won't find my name attached to any declarations or initiatives anytime soon. God be the glory!