Category Archives: Theology

Video: The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality

Following my post yesterday about the madness of evangelical responses to World Vision’s stance on gay employees, I was sent a link to this video of a one hour workshop that looks at the Bible and homosexuality.

If this is an issue that concerns you, then this video by theology student Matthew Vines is well worth watching. It will challenge your traditional perceptions of what the Bible says on the topic, but you will see that those who want to remain Biblical, true to Christ’s teachings and holy, do not have to reject homosexuality. The ways in which the historical church interpreted Scripture is not necessarily correct.

But watch the video and make up your own mind:

Please don’t add comments here if you have not watched the whole video. Please add constructive comments only.

The madness of evangelical responses to homosexuality

UPDATE on 29 March 2014: After just three days, and intense funding pressure, World Vision have decided to reverse their decision and will exclude openly gay people from their organisation. This is shocking and disgusting. Evangelicals will claim it as a victory. It is not.

Tony Jones has written about this, with both opinion and inside information – it’s worth a read!

ORIGINAL POST:

I really do understand why some conservative Christians are so concerned about the debate around homosexuality and gay marriage. They see it as a key theological issue, threatening to unravel their approach to Biblical interpretation and a threat to a Christian morality they’ve often been able to impose on the societies in which they live. I don’t agree with them, but I do understand why the issue is so important. But I don’t understand some conservative Christians who seem to have gone beyond the far edge of “concern” and become completely obsessive.

It harkens back to what must have happened during the days of witch hunts. (And it brings to my mind a few Monty Python type sketches too: “she’s a witch, burn her!”, and the twisted logic often employed in those days).

An example of what I am talking about happened just this week.

World Vision announced that they were not going to make any comments or issue theological statements about the issue of gay marriage, but that they were not going to discriminate against gays in their hiring policies and would employ people in same-sex relationships. American evangelical church leaders went bananas.

Rachel Held Evans has (as she very often does) the best reflection on what happened and what it shows us about the state of the evangelical church. I agree with her assessment – and it greatly saddens me.

Continue reading The madness of evangelical responses to homosexuality

What to do when your friends don’t like your changes in theology

Those of us who have been on a journey with our theology have often felt alone, put upon and even shunned – by those who were meant to love us, and those we called our friends. As part of his series on how to interpret the Bible, Rob Bell offers some advice for those who have felt – or feel – this way.

This is great solice and comfort for the journey. For there is a long journey ahead for many of us convinced that we’re living through a new reformation.

Read the original here, or an extended extract below.

What is the Bible? Part 53: A Shout Out To the Lonely

by Rob Bell

Talking about music is like
dancing about architecture.

-Thelonius Monk (Or was it Frank Zappa? Or Elvis Costello? Or someone else…?)

It happened again yesterday. It happens all the time. I meet someone who is on a journey, like we all are, and they’ve recently grown in their understanding of faith. Growing up they were handed an understanding from their parents, church, college, youth group, town, etc. and as they got older it simply didn’t work like it used to and they began to be less and less engaged.

And then something happened. They read a book, they had a conversation, they heard someone speak, and for the first time they had language for what they’d been experiencing. They realized there are others way to talk about and understand faith/Jesus/God/The Bible/growth

and they’re thrilled.

And then they share what they’re learning with the people around them and it doesn’t go so well. Their friends and family and roommates don’t get it, furrowing their brow and saying things like I’m concerned about your new theology and This new direction you’re taking is troubling and the clincher Where is Jesus in all this?
Is this you?

Continue reading What to do when your friends don’t like your changes in theology

God cannot be both good and predestine people to hell

Roger E. Olson wrote an excellent blog on the problem at the heart of (high) Calvinism: double predestination. If God has chosen people to go to hell, then God cannot be good.

It’s worth reading. I think he’s right. Here’s his conclusion:

My point is, of course, that there exists a contradiction between two Calvinist beliefs: 1) that the Bible is inherently and unconditionally trustworthy, and 2) that God, its author, is not good in any sense meaningful to us. Belief “1? assumes that God is good in a sense meaningful to us—comparable with our highest and best intuitions of goodness. Belief “2? (necessarily implied by double predestination) empties belief “1? of foundation.
Therefore, any exegesis of the Bible that ends up portraying God as not good, which high Calvinism (belief in double predestination) inexorably does, cannot be believed because it self-referentially turns back against the very reason for believing the Bible. In order to be consistent one must choose between belief in the Bible as God’s Word and belief in double predestination.
This is why I say with John Wesley about the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 “Whatever it means it cannot mean that.”

So, how then should we interpret Romans 9? I think one of the best overviews of this comes from Greg Boyd at Re:Knew – it’s a long read, but well worth the effort.

Believing is not enough

Greg Boyd is a pastor, a blogger and a video commentator on all things theology. His thinking really stretches me, and I enjoy watching his regular videos in which he reflects on what it means to be a 21st century Christian.

In a blog entry today, he writes on something I really am becoming more and more convinced about: that our salvation is evidenced in how we engage with God’s Kingdom on earth; that we are as much saved FROM things are we are saved FOR things; and that our beliefs are almost entirely evidenced by our works. This is something your church needs to hear this week, but probably won’t.

Here’s how Greg put it on his blog:

One of the core elements of evangelical church life is the conversion experience. From old-time revivals, to seeker-sensitive church services, to post-modern outreach strategies, evangelicals have placed a very high emphasis on the point of conversion.

Continue reading Believing is not enough

Why I am – and am not – a universalist

The question of heaven and hell, and who goes where, is one that has exercised Christians (and many other religions) for centuries. It is one of the key issues facing the evangelical church today. The typical dividing line is between those who read passages of the Bible that clearly state that not everyone will be saved, and those who read passages of the Bible that clearly state that everyone will be saved. Both positions exist. Both cannot be right. But maybe neither are correct. Maybe we’ve created a problem for ourselves by creating an interpretative framework for ourselves that was never intended in the Bible.

One of my friends and leading thinkers and authors in evangelicalism today is Brian McLaren. He has literally written a book on this topic (“The Last Word and the Word After That”). But he has often been accused of “ducking the question” when asked about hell. In a recent blog post, he spelt out his position as clearly as I have ever seen it, and I agree.

Here’s an extract:

… if by Universalist, you mean, “One who believes God perfectly and fully loves the entire universe, and every creature in it,” or if you mean that God will do everything possible to give everyone possible the best possible eternal outcome of their temporal lives, or if you mean that God is not a capricious and vicious torturer who will punish eternally all those who are not “among the elect” or otherwise successful in selecting and following the correct religion … then, yes, of course, sign me up. I am happy (and unafraid) to be counted among your number.

Perhaps I should stop there.

But for those who are interested, here’s why I don’t normally choose that label [of Universalist]. When the conventional question – who goes to heaven and who goes to hell – frames reality, universalism and inclusivism are preferable answers to exclusivism. But when that conventional question frames reality, and when one chooses universalism, we face a temptation to say, “Whew. What a relief! Everything will be OK! There will be a happy ending!” And that relief can lead to a kind of passivity, namely, that if all will be well in the end, then all is well now. But that isn’t the case.

In other words, I don’t think that the heaven-hell question is the one that should frame reality. But I acknowledge that it does frame reality for many Christians (and Muslims), and many of them need a better answer within that frame than the exclusivist one they’ve been given. They simply aren’t ready or able to reframe reality with a different question.

When a different question frames reality – how can God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven – then we have to acknowledge that for billions of God’s creatures, God’s will is not being done on earth as in heaven. Universalism may be good news for them after they die, but right now, they need good news that God cares about the mess they’re in … the mess of injustice, oppression, ignorance, prejudice, hunger, thirst, sickness, loneliness, guilt, shame, addiction, fear, poverty, etc. And that good news can not be in word only. It must come in deed and in truth, as 1 John and James both say (echoing Jesus) … which makes our reply very costly.

I guess this is a case of needing pastoral sensitivity to discern which problem people are facing. For some, the urgent need is to be liberated from a vicious and cruel depiction of God as eternal cosmic torturer. For others, the urgent need is to be liberated from a sense that God may help them after they die, but until then, they’re stuck and sunk. Perhaps what we need is a kind of activist universalism – that affirms God’s saving love for all creation, but doesn’t stop there … but rather sends us into creation to bear and manifest that saving love universally – for friend, stranger, and enemy … for Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and everyone else … for humans and living creatures and all creation.

Read it in full here.

That is precisely why I am – and am not – a universalist.

What is the Bible? An incredible series by Rob Bell

Rob Bell may have courted controversy over the past few years with his views on hell and homosexuality, but he has never done so gratuitously and he has always attempted to base his views on a good, solid understanding of Scripture. You might not agree with his interpretations, but you cannot deny that he takes the Bible seriously.

I happen to agree with both his approach to Biblical interpretation and the outcomes of that approach. He is a great scholar, a gifted teacher and writer, and a wise leader. But don’t take my word for it.

Rob has now created a series of articles which could actually act as a series of studies for personal reflection and/or group discussion on “What is the Bible”. It’s very accessible, well written, simple to follow, and a tremendous resource for the church. And it’s free.

Start the course with lesson one here, on what is the Bible, and then continue through some important, controversial and illuminating topics as Rob helps us to understand and apply God’s Word in our daily lives. Brilliant stuff.

“Just Following the Bible”

BibleI wrote a few days ago about the “Best of Stuff Fundies Like” for 2013. My personal favourite was a very short piece that satirised the way that many conservative Christians approach the Bible. When an issue gets too complicated or too controversial, they will quickly retreat to a position of “well, I just try and read the plain meaning of the Bible without all that fancy interpretation stuff”. If they are a little more trained in Bible interpretation, they may revert to “well, the plain meaning is always the best – your attempts to show alternative interpretations are just playing with words”.

While I hardly ever encounter the staunch KJV-only type Christians this post also satirises, I do encounter people who still cling to young earth creationism on the basis of their “plain reading” of Genesis 1-11, and to people who still restrict women from leadership roles based on their “plain reading” of Paul’s instructions, and, of course, the homosexuality issue is pretty much all about this kind of interaction about what Scripture really means. Whatever you might believe about homosexuality, surely you do have to start the conversation with some humility based on the long history of the church realising that maybe Scripture didn’t mean precisely what Scripture appeared to be saying (I think of everything from flat earths to the Sun at the centre of our galaxy, from slavery to women’s rights to vote, and more recently the causes of HIV/AIDS and apartheid).

Anyway, you can read the original here (and I’d highly recommend taking the time to follow the conversations in the comments), or below. These are things your church should be talking about, but I am sure they’re not:

I just follow the Bible. I just follow the obvious meanings of a 400 year old translation of a document written originally in languages I don’t speak, influenced heavily by cultures I don’t begin to understand, and by people who I assume looked, acted, thought and dressed just like I do.

I just follow the Bible. It’s not only a road map for life and God’s love letter to everybody who isn’t an Amalekite but it also apparently contains an uncanny number of direct statements about how much beat is acceptable in music and how one should pledge to the country’s flag — even though countries didn’t have flags when it was written.

I just follow the Bible. And the Holy Spirit. And my pastor who God sent to tell me what the Holy Spirit says the Bible means. Just last Sunday I learned that Job 31:10 is a seven-thousand year old sermon against twerking.

I just follow the Bible. And my cultural predispositions. And my inherent biases. And my economic expedients. And my filters of time, place, biology, psychology, technology, and personal experience.

I just follow the Bible. You’d better follow me too.

Source: Stuff Fundies Like

N.T. Wright on Paul, Romans and Election

I am a huge fan of N.T. Wright, and especially of his work on showing the sweep of God’s redemptive history in Paul’s books. I also particularly like his interpretation of the book of Romans (I have written on this blog before how Romans is a very misunderstood book if you think it is simply a summary of theology by Paul. It is not: it has a very specific and deliberate purpose, aside from which the book does not make sense as a coherent whole).

In his upcoming book, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Wright takes a deep look at the doctrine of election. Some extracts are being made available, and I was intrigued by these two passages from the book. They make a lot of sense to me, and the idea that God’s covenant with Abraham (which was repeatedly shown to be a one sided covenant anyway) – that the whole world will be blessed – is fulfilled in Christ is magnificent:

Now at last we see where his sharp-edged, and often controversial, ‘doctrine of election’ in Romans 9 was going. This was never an abstract ‘doctrine of predestination’, attempting to plumb the mysteries of why some people (in general, without reference to Israel) hear and believe the gospel and others do not. Paul never encourages speculation of that sort. Rather, it was a way of saying, very specifically, that the fact of Israel’s election (starting with the choice and call of Abraham) had always been there to deal with the sin of the world; that Israel’s election had always involved Israel being narrowed down, not just to Isaac and then to Jacob, but to a hypoleimma, a ‘remnant’, a ‘seed’; and that this ‘remnant’ itself would be narrowed down to a single point, to the Messiah himself, who would himself be ‘cast away’ so that the world might be redeemed. The point of ‘election’ was not to choose or call a people who would somehow mysteriously escape either the grim entail of Adam’s sin or the results it brought in its train. It was not – as in some low-grade proposals! – about God simply choosing a people to be his close friends. The point was to choose and call a people through whom the sin of humankind, and its results for the whole creation, might be brought to the point where they could at last be defeated, condemned, overcome. Hence the line that runs, in Romans, from 3.24–26 to 8.3–4 and on to 10.3–4, backed up by the summaries in 5.6–11 and 5.12–21. Here is the faithfulness of the Messiah, which discloses, unveils, apocalypticizes, the righteousness of God, God’s covenant faithfulness.

And on Romans 9-11:

As becomes apparent in Romans 9—11, this single divine plan has been hugely paradoxical, because the way in which Israel’s story has been God’s instrument in the salvation of the world has been precisely through Israel’s ‘casting away’. This is the point of the (to us) strange passage about negative predestination in 9.14–29: Israel is simultaneously ‘the Messiah’s people’ and ‘the Messiah’s people according to the flesh’, as we might have deduced from the opening summary statement in 9.4–5. Israel’s story, that is, was always designed (as many second-Temple Jews would have insisted) to come to its climax in the arrival and accomplishment of the Messiah; but that accomplishment, as Paul had come to see, involved the Messiah himself in being ‘cast away for the sake of the world’. Thus Israel, as the Messiah’s people, is seen to have exercised its vocational instrumentality in God’s rescue operation for the world precisely by acting out that newly-discovered and deeply shocking ‘messianic’ vocation: Israel is indeed the means of bringing God’s rescue to the world, but it will be through Israel’s acting out of the Messiah-shaped vocation, of being ‘cast away’ for the sake of the world. Paul finally says it out loud (at a point where most interpreters have long since lost the thread and so fail to make the connection) in 11.12, 15; this is where we see why Paul did not deny the ‘boast’ of 2.19–20, but went on affirming it paradoxically, even though it raised the questions of 3.1–8 to which he has at last returned and which he has at last answered. Salvation has come to the Gentiles – through Israel’s parapt?ma, the ‘stumble’ in which Israel recapitulates the sin of Adam, as in 5.20. ‘The reconciliation of the world’ has come about – through Israel’s apobol?, ‘casting away’, the ‘rejection’ in which Israel recapitulates the death of the Messiah, as in 5.10–11. At the heart of one of Paul’s strangest and most challenging chapters we find exactly this theme: that the creator God, having entered into a covenant with Abraham’s family that he would bless the world through that family, has been faithful to his promise, even though it has been in the upside-down and inside-out way now unveiled in the Messiah.

A deep, but important, reflection this Sunday evening.

Bad sermons: Blue is for boys and pink is for girls

One of my favourite websites is “Stuff Fundies Like” (Fundies, as in Fundamentalist Christians). This blog is an eclectic collection of videos, blog posts, pictures and posters that come from genuine fundamentalist churches (mainly in the US of A – no surprises, I suppose). My favourite category is the “bad sermons” where extracts from sermons preached by raving fundamentalists expose narrow mindedness, bigotry, misogyny, racism and almost always some serious abuses of the Bible.

Last week, they posted a short video from YouTube, “Pastor Tony Hutson preaching against sodomy!“. See the original post on SFL here.

Now, whatever you believe about homosexuality, this is not the way to make your point if you are trying to make your point from the Bible. Watch the clip for yourself – because I bet you won’t this at your church on Sunday:

Blue is for boys and pink is for girls. Only sissy boys wear pink. And he wouldn’t want to marry a woman who would wear boots and a hard hat (no female engineers, then, dears – stick to nursing, teaching or typing where you won’t get hurt, my darlings).

My point in this blog is not what he believes about homosexuality, but rather how he is using a pulpit and pretending to use the Bible to make a cultural point. And to make a cultural point that is in fact wrong.

Pink has only recently become a girls’ colour (within the last century). Throughout history, blue was the colour of purity, femininity and girls. Think of what colour Mary wears in almost all historical paintings. In fact, until about a century ago the preferred colour for boys was a light shade of red (i.e. pink). Red was the manly colour of strength (favoured by the British army in particular), and the light shade of pink was the boyish version of this.

If you want to read a very documented history of the colours used for children through history, click here.

This is one of the major weaknesses of fundamentalism: it believes itself to be sticking to the purity of the Bible but most often is doing nothing more than imposing a set of man-made, culturally-connected, un-Biblical rules.

It gets even worse when they venture into the realm of sex (which they do very, very often). As one of the comments on the SFL website put it: “I think these fundamentalist preachers spend more time thinking about gay sex than most gay men. However, I still think Mark Driscoll thinks about straight ‘back door’ sex more than they think about gay sex, for what [little] it’s worth.” I couldn’t agree more.

It’s funny that the Pope has recently said the church needs to move away from this fixation.

I am not saying that you shouldn’t have informed, rational, Biblical views about sexual issues. We must. But they must be precisely that: informed, rational and Biblical. Not like this nonsense from Tony Hutson.