« December 2004 | Main | February 2005 »
January 31, 2005
Time Magazines 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America
I came across Time Magazine's story on the The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America as I was surfing through the blogosphere. Of course, who else is going to bring you the news before anyone else? Not the Main Stream Media! Evangelical Outpost had posted his own list of Know Your Evangelicals months ago and there are many similarities.
Time Magazine is correct in stating that "American Evangelicalism seems to defy unity, let alone hierarchy. Yet its members share basic commitments." So it is not surprising that I found the "usual suspects" on such a list, such as pastors' Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, or evangelistic icon Billy Graham. I was sort of surprised, but not really, to find Emergent Church "guru" Brian McClaren. That was not a surprising find for the circles that I run in, but I was surprised that Time Magazine picked it up. Then there are the scholars such as Mark Noll or JI Packer. Not surprising for the most part.
I think what I was most surprised about were the number of people that were in politics, or fundraising, or in law. People such as David Barton, Douglas Coe, Michael Gerson, Rick Santorum and Jay Sekulow.
But really, is that that surprising? Should I be surprised that some of the most influential people in American Evangelicalism are in politics? Christian Evangelicals such as James Dobson and Chuck Colson have been involved in theology and politics for years. They both made the list. And isn't good to have Christians involved in the political sphere?
I guess my concern is this, and is it a legit concern or not? Why does most of the influence that affects change in American Evangelicalism derive from the political sphere? Are churches failing? Are theologians not making the impact they once did?
But I also am concerned with Time Magazines perception of what is American Evangelicalism, and what and who influences it. To Time, it would seem that those who make the noise, or have political agendas are truly the most influential. But then, how did someone like JI Packer or Mark Noll make the list? They hardly come across the radar screen when you think of theological politics. Theology for sure, since they are two heavy hitters, but not so much politics, though I'm sure they are well versed in that area.
So I guess I need to tip my hat to Time Magazine for coming up with such a list, and for putting such a variety of people on the list...true to the diversity of American Evangelicalism. But I want to know where we as a church are headed? Where are the voices of the minority? Where are the voices for opposing viewpoints than we typically find in American Evangelicalism, such as those coming from White, republican males? Of which I am one. Where are the Stanley Hauerwas' (by the way, he was Time's 2001 Theologian of the Year), or the Glen Stassen's? But then again, influence does not mean that everyone's voice is spoken for, but rather influence is about who wields the power, and maybe things are shifting.
The partnering of politics and theology are not new. Christ confronts the political and religious leaders of the day in his teachings, and Paul in Romans 13 advises us to obey the rulers that have been put in place. And two of my most favorite theologians Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were involved greatly in politics.
I am just concerned that as we move forward, that we don't equate following Christ, and the Church, with belonging to a certain political party, or carrying certain political beliefs. As many have said before me, God transcends political parties, and there are great Christians, and great political views, and great political battles in each camp.
And ultimately, if asked that question, "Who are the 25 Most Influential People in American Evangelicalism" we all would have very different things to say, because we all are influenced by different people.
Ultimately, I may not care who is doing the influencing, as long as Christ's Word is the main driving force behind that. So influence may come from the church. It may come from Congress. It may come from Bono.
Who are the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America?
Why wasn't Dr. Richard Mouw, or Dr. Stanley Grenz on that list? They are super influential. But I guess the question is, are they influential in the right circles to make Time's list. I guess not.
Evangelicalism truly covers a diversity of people, movements and beliefs, and we are all not going to be in agreement
Posted by rhett at 03:41 PM | Comments (0)
January 29, 2005
My college students are the most amazing, talented, and funny students I have ever been around....
Check out their latest video for promoting our Mammoth Ski Trip.
Napoleon Dynamite Goes to Mammoth
Posted by rhett at 05:31 PM | Comments (0)
10 Spiritual Observations After Screening Constantine....
This is not your typical movie review, but rather some spiritual observations that came to mind as I was invited as part of a group of pastors to pre-screen the movie Constantine before its release date. (This would not have happened to me when I was living in Arizona). While watching the movie I was struck by the reality of spiritual warfare, and the spiritual struggle that takes place all around us though we are not always in tune with such spiritual realities. And upon seeing the movie I realized that as an American evangelical Christian, I can be very naive to the realities of life, and what the Bible has to say about the schemes of the devil, and the battles in heavenly realms. That is something that I can ignore very easily, as I have surrounded myself with my cozy middle-upper class environment in which I live and attend church. With all of our technologies, convenciecnes, comforts and money, it is quite easy to mask the reality of life...especially the spiritual reality of life. And as you will see, I think that is exactly where Satan wouldn't mind us being...content and oblivious...then we are not much of a pain to him as Constantine seems to be. These are the observations that I have made, and have been spurned on to write after viewing Constantine. These are not necessarily my own theological beliefs regarding God, or Satan, or demons, or the topic of spiritual warfare, but rather some interesting ideas that I think the movie brings up. So please read these thoughts, and I ask you to dialogue with me on this issue.
"Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore, put on the full armor of God, so that when the day comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying, for all the saints.
-----The Apostle Paul in Ephesians 6:10-18
Observation #1: We are in a real spiritual battle with forces that our beyond our mere comprehension of flesh and blood fighting. And if we are to survive this battle we must be properly equipped with the armaments of God.
"There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and then to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."
-----C.S. Lewis in the Preface to The Screwtape Letters
Observation: #2: There are those who believe, and are attuned to the spiritual realities of good and evil, of God and Satan. And there are those who ignore, or dismiss any type of spiritual reality, whether good or bad. I am of the opinion that American evangelicals are more naive to the spiritual battles that take place in the heavenly realms that Paul desribes in Epheisisans 6. I believe that such a naivete puts us in more spiritual danger than we realize. A mission trip abroad to a place such as India or Africa or Central America will open your eyes really, really quick. But we must live in a balanced understanding of these spiritual realities as C.S. Lewis states. Too much emphasis on one side can put us in just the proper place to be overcome with temptation by Satan.
"Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for somone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings."
-----The Apostle Peter in I Peter 5:8-9
Observation #3: Satan is not some storybook character that we read about in the Bible, but rather is an adversary that is trying to destroy us. It is important for us to be self-controlled and alert in our lives, otherwise we leave ourselves open for attack when we let down our guard. I think Los Angeles is an easy place for Christians to let down their guard, so wanting to be like the "in culture" around us, while not realizing that Satan is out to bring destruction to our lives.
"In modern Christian writings, though I see much (indeed more than I like) about Mammon, I see few of the old warnings about Worldly Vanities, thte Choice of Friends, and the Value of Time. All that, your patient would probably classify as 'Puritanism'--and may I remark in passing that the value we have given to that word is one of the really solid triumphs of the last hundred years? By it we rescue annually thousands of humans from temperance, chastity, and sobriety of life."
-----Senior Devil Screwtape to his Nephew Demon Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis
Observation #4: Satan plays on our weaknesses, such as lack of self-control and vanity to tempt us away from God and into temptation and self-destruction. This is demonstrated so well in the movie as demons, known as "influencers" and "peddlers" job is to influence or push people into sin and self-destruction that they are most vulnerable to. It is done so subtely that one does not even realize that he or she is being whispered to by the demons...until it is too late.
"One of our best weapons is contented worldliness....."
-----Senior Devil Screwtape to his Newphew Demon Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis
Observation #5: All Satan needs us to do is to live a contented life focused on the world. Once we have accustomed ourselves to such a lifestyle Satan has succeeded in slowly pulling us away from Christ, to a life focused on the values of the world. This is like the frog who is slowly boiled in the pan of water because it hasn't realized that the temperature has slowly been turned up bit by bit, until it is too late, and destruction has befallen it.
"This story leaves no doubt that territorial spirits greatly influence human life in all it sociopolitical aspects." (Warfare Prayer, Ventura:Regai, 1992, p.66)
-----Peter Wagner commenting on Daniel 10:13, 20
Observation #6: Some areas of our physical world, such as certain countries, cities, etc., have a greater inhabitant of demons and experience a greater level of spiritual warfare. This is a very controversial subject in many theological circles, with each camp Biblically defending their own position. The city of Los Angeles was strategically chosen as the setting for the movie Constantine because the filmakers were looking for a city that was dark, and conveyed a sense of evil. A movment known as Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare actually maps out territories, while charting three levels, or types of spiritual warfare and demon. The stories of this movement have taken on mythological proportions at Fuller Theological Seminary where I attended seminary. I was a part of many discussions with different members of each of the three schools as stories were swapped about which parts of Los Angeles had been mapped out as having higher demon strongholds. Whatever view you hold on territorial and spiritual mapping, I know that all of us have found ourselves in environments where we experienced some heavy or uneasy feelings that we equated to spiritual realities belonging to Satan or demonic activities. Note to you: Maybe you want to check out these maps before you make your next move :-)
"After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go."
-----Luke in the Gospel of Luke 10:1
Observation #7: Companionship is not only important, but necessary to your life. Spiritual warfare, tempting situations and environments should not be handled alone. As Westerners we are used to a very individualistic mindset especially when it comes to our own independence. This is very foolish, especially when dealing with the devil and his schemes. This is in the Bible for a reason, so go out with a partner when you are going to be in tough situations and environments. "Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work. If one falls down, his friend can help him up. But pity the man or woman who falls and has no one to help him up! Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken." Ecclesiastes 4:9-12.
"So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! No temptation has seized you except what is common to man and woman. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."
-----Paul's Warning to the Church in Corinth is I Corinthians 10:12-13
Observation #8: We must be careful not to overestimate our strength, which can leave us very vulnerable to spiritual attack. Again, I see this as a huge struggle in Los Angeles as everyone wants to fit into the "cool and hip" environment of Los Angeles. This is a huge struggle for Christians in Los Angeles as everyone wants to be seen as the cool Christian who can move back and forth between the church and the world. In that process I think we often believe we are much stronger than we are, not realizing that we leave ourselves very vulnerable when we are more concerned about being cool to the world than being faithful to God.
"Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
-----Jesus describing hell in the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22:13.
Observation #9: Hell is a scary place. Constantine is one of those movies that depict hell in such a gruesome way that it will cause you to have several reactions from 1) feeling nauseas and throwing up 2) to believing in God so as to avoid Hell 3) to being overtaken with compassion for those who don't know Christ. Whether you hold the view that hell is a real place, or you hold the view of annihilation, hell is a very scary place to go.
"And there was war in heaven."
-----John writing in the Book of Revelation 12:7
Observation #10: There is going to be a spiritual war, and we are already a part of that spiritual war here on earth. It is a war that is not just fought here in the physical realm, but also in the heavenly realms. It is a real spiritual war, with real spiritual casualties, which you and I see everyday.
Spiritual warfare is a touchy theological issue. So I hope that I spurn you on to not live in a "contented worldliness" but rather that you are awakened to the spiritual realities of this life, so that you may be attuned to the workings of God.
For an interesting article, check out Robert Guelich's article in Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies in April of 1995, titled, "Spiritual Warfare: Jesus, Paul and Peretti."
Posted by rhett at 12:34 PM | Comments (0)
January 28, 2005
Say goodbye to getting any work done once you hit up this site!
sweet!
Posted by rhett at 02:46 PM | Comments (0)
This is why I blog......
Some of you may still be asking yourself, "What is a blog?" Well, I think it's about time you find out because it's an important tool for the church. And it's an ever increasing tool for our ministry.
Check out best selling author and nationally syndicated talk show host, Hugh Hewitt link and describe my blog on his blog yesterday.
--he accidentally calls me Brett...but that's cool...beggars can't be choosers, and I'm just thankful he even mentions me--
"Am I overstating what is happening via the blogosphere? I really don't think so. Visit SmartChristian and see the spontaneous organization of GodBlogCon I. When that sort of event self-organizes, then a dramatic shift has occurred in the dissemination of information.
I would also direct you to Brett Smith's new blog at The Quest, which is the college ministry at Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles. This is an example of how the new technology is being applied up and down the information change. I guarantee you that Pastor Smith --full disclosure, I know his brother and have met his parents, but not Brett-- has the trust of his college group participants. Now, instead of communicating with them once or twice a week, he is communicating with them as often as they want. That alters his influence on their lives in a dramatic fashion. Before long many thousands of pastors and parachurch workers with a desire to extend and deepend their congregations' or volunteers' understanding of doctrine, teaching or mission will be using the blogs to do so."
So here are the steps to follow:
1) Peruse the internet reading as many blogs as you can to get a feel for them. Hugh Hewitt is a good place to start. Read the bloggers he lists, and you will get a good feel.
2) Read Hugh's book BLOG.
3) Go to Blogger and start your free blog now.
Posted by rhett at 02:17 AM | Comments (0)
Sex and the Early Church
As I mentioned Wednesday night, a lot of our Christian and religious beliefs within the Church, regarding sexuality, have been negatively shaped by the influence of some of our early church fathers such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Though these men contributed amazing things to the Church and it's theology, they were not perfect and had some definite hangups about human sexuality. Philip Yancey brings this to attention in his book Rumors of Another World. You can view excerpts of this book in the article Holy Sex.
For some short, but scholarly treatment on this issue, check out the below papers, submitted by my friend and scholar, Cameron Jorgenson who is working on his Ph.D. at Baylor University. Cameron and I attended undergrad together, and were roommates at Fuller during our M.Div. program. You can read his insightful and witty humor at his blog Summa-Aesthetica, where he reflects on his interests in theology, moral formation, culture and art. For some good reading check out the following two articles below:
(I had some trouble posting some of his footnotes for some reason. But his bibliography is listed)
1) Aquinas on the Ecstatic Nature of Love
And its Relation to Sexuality and the Passions
(see below)
2) Augustine on Sexuality and the Passions
(see below)
Aquinas on the Ecstatic Nature of Love
And its Relation to Sexuality and the Passions
A Paper Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for
PHI 5311 – Cicero, Augustine, & Aquinas
Robert C. Miner, Ph.D. – Professor
Baylor University
By
Cameron H. Jorgenson
Waco, Texas
December 13, 2004
Introduction
Thomas Aquinas is remembered for many things; being an authority on sex is not one of them. While this particular investigation does not set out to prove a thesis quite that ambitious, the claim is provocative nonetheless. In his masterful Summa Theologiae, the Angelic Doctor explores the nature of love in a way that allows him to transcend problematic elements of Augustine’s account of the sexual passions. Although Augustine seems to make sexual passion inseparable from vice—similar to Cicero’s conception of grief—Aquinas’ description of the ecstatic nature of love opens up possibilities for redeeming sexual passion as a part of the rightly ordered creation.
Although his discussion of love and ecstasy is limited to one article of one question, Aquinas’ treatment is typically pithy and worthy of extended discussion. What follows is an attempt to unpack Summa Theologiae I-IIae 28.3 and apply its insights to the question of the sexual passions. The intent is to sketch a framework within which sexuality can be understood as a redeemable passion, one that is a natural outgrowth of love and the image of God.
Summa Theologiae I-IIae 28.3
In his treatment of “The Effects of Love” in Question 28, Aquinas addresses the question of whether ecstasy is properly described as an effect. The argument is provocative. Citing Dionysius, Aquinas claims that the “Divine love produces ecstasy.” Even more suited to raising eyebrows is his subsequent claim that, “God himself suffered ecstasy through love,” making all other loves, which are ultimately participations in the Divine love, necessarily ecstatic as well. There is no ambiguity in Aquinas’ claim: ecstasy is an essential characteristic of love.
Given the boldness of the claim, one must be clear about the definition of the key term. Characteristically, Aquinas is concerned to provide that sort of clarity. He spends the first half of the responsio carving out his definition:
To suffer ecstasy means to be placed outside oneself. This happens as to the apprehensive power as to the appetitive power. As to the apprehensive power, a man is said to be placed outside himself, when he is placed outside the knowledge proper to him. This may be due to his being raised to a higher knowledge; thus, a man is said to suffer ecstasy, inasmuch as he is placed outside the connatural apprehension of his sense and reason, when he is raised up so as to comprehend things that surpass sense and reason: or it may be due to his being cast down into a state of debasement; thus a man may be said to suffer ecstasy, when he is overcome by violent passion or madness. –As to the appetitive power, a man is said to suffer ecstasy when that power is borne towards something else, so that it goes forth out from itself, as it were.
While ecstasy in its simplest form means to be placed outside oneself, Aquinas hones his definition by differentiating between the operations of ecstasy as they relate to the powers of the soul. Considered according to the ratio of the apprehensive power, love is ecstatic insofar as the experience surpasses connaturality. Transcending connaturality in this way can be either good (i.e. being raised up to knowledge too lofty for natural capacities), or bad (i.e. being debased by destructive passions or the eradication of the mind in madness). Aquinas’ distinction at this point is unique because he does not dismiss all experiences that in some way outstrip the reason. Although Aquinas seems to agree with Augustine that reason is that which is considered most properly human, he makes room for the possibility of an ecstatic relation to that which is above or outside the normal bounds of sensory and intellectual comprehension. This is an important allowance that will be explored in more detail below. For the moment, it is worth noting that Aquinas’ allowance seems to open up the requisite space to account for important human experiences that transcend ordinary perception.
Based on his discussion of mutual indwelling as an effect of love in the previous article, Aquinas claims that the apprehensive form of ecstatic love is “caused by love dispositively, in so far, namely, as love makes the lover dwell on the beloved.” This movement is ecstatic in that “the lover is not satisfied with a superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to penetrate into his very soul.”
Given the level of intimacy involved in mutual indwelling, ecstatic love in terms of an encounter with an object that transcends connatural capabilities seems inevitable. If the object is considered to be something worth knowing beyond superficiality, allowing for a certain mystery or “otherness,” love must be transcendent and ecstatic. Furthermore, it would seem that the degree of ecstasy involved in a particular love would depend on the degree of remoteness between the love and beloved. The more the beloved is transcendently other, and the more intensely it is loved, the greater the degree of ecstasy that result from that love. For this reason, the infinite difference between the divine/human relationship and all others would seem to put divine ecstasy in a category of its own.
Considered under the ratio of the appetitive power, love is ecstatic insofar as it bears one out from oneself toward something else. Because most loves have an object requiring a movement away from the self, yet not every object transcends connaturality, the appetitive aspect of love is the most common way in which humans experience the ecstatic nature of love. This type of ecstasy is caused directly by love in two ways: by love of friendship, simply, and by concupiscence in a restricted sense.
One is placed outside of oneself by love of friendship simply because “he wishes and does good to his friend, by caring and providing for him, for his sake.” The motion of friendship love is unidirectional. It is a well wishing that seeks the other’s benefit for the sake of the other, without any concern for pleasure on the part of the lover.
In concupiscible love the motion is not simple “insofar, namely, as not as not being satisfied with enjoying the good he has, he seeks to enjoy something outside himself. But since he seeks to have this extrinsic good himself, he does not go out from himself simply, and this movement remains finally within him.” The good intention does not only extend itself to another, but seeks to return to the lover as delight. It is in this way that concupiscible love “is not satisfied with external or superficial possession or enjoyment of the beloved; but seeks to possess the beloved perfectly” —in other words, although the object of love is external, concupiscible love has internal results when it returns to the lover in the form of delight.
Objections
Before he makes his case, Aquinas opens his discussion of ecstasy with three intriguing objections. Although he does not cite an authority for the first objection, a complex interaction with Augustine’s City of God seems to be in the background: “It would seem that ecstasy is not an effect of love. For ecstasy seems to imply a loss of reason. But love does not always result in loss of reason: for lovers are masters of themselves at times. Therefore love does not cause ecstasy.” The logic of his first objection seems to be as follows: Ecstasy cannot be an effect of love because ecstasy implies a loss of reason, and this is self-evidently not true at all times.
This objection seems to be fairly weak, quibbling over whether ecstasy in every case involves a loss of reason. The rhetorical impact of the questions leads the reader to think “of course lovers are capable of exhibiting self control at times,” revealing the objection to be a self-evident assertion. This rhetorical effect suggests two things. First, Aquinas’ intends to demonstrate that ecstasy is primarily concerning the externality of love’s motion, a motion that need not imply anything about reason. Second, it seems to reinforce Aquinas’ notion of the apprehensive dimension of the ecstatic effects of love, which can either involve a violent loss of reason, or an encounter with a power that the lover’s sensible powers. As noted by the objection, there is a potential for a destructive loss of reason; however, in the latter case, there is not a bestial loss of reason, but the sort of supra-rational experiences that are uniquely human. These would include mystical experiences, or radically intimate expressions of interpersonal relationships that tend toward perfect knowledge of the other.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the first objection is something that is left unsaid. Although no authority is cited for this objection, the formulation immediately calls to mind Augustine’s construal of sexual passion in The City of God. Sexual passion “disturbs the whole man, when the mental emotion combines and mingles with the physical craving, resulting in a pleasure surpassing all physical delights. So intense is the pleasure that when it reaches its climax there is an almost total extinction of mental alertness; the intellectual sentries, as it were, are overwhelmed.” Given his affinities to Cicero’s account of the emotions and its wariness of all perturbationes of the soul, even by “positive” emotions and pleasures, this assessment of the pleasures of sex are not surprising. Any emotion that exceeds the bounds of wisdom, or worse yet, manages to extinguish the light of reason, is fundamentally dangerous and out of character for the virtuous soul. While this is all internally consistent, if the discussion is framed in this way, there is no way to account for sexual desire or activity of any type, except as lust. For Augustine, it is an irredeemable passion.
Clearly, the structure of the first objection does not allow it to undo Augustine’s analysis of the sexual act. The furthest extent to which the objection can be pushed is to claim that ecstasy, defined as loss of reason, is not always the effect of love. Nevertheless, the objection does put the issue of the centrality of reason on the table; setting up the subsequent claim that reason can be transcended in a way that does not result in debasement. The self-evident tone of the objection may also seem to question the absolute identity of love, ecstasy, loss of reason, and sin.
Relation to Augustine and Sexuality
One might wonder what exactly is at stake in the present discussion. With respect to Augustine’s construal of the sexual passions, it is essential that one find a way to redeem sexuality while taking Augustine’s critique seriously. Sexual actions and their attending passions are essential components of the marital state. If he is correct that any passion that transcends reason is by definition sinful, and if sexual passion is the chief example of such a passion, then the legitimacy of married life is called into question. There is no easy way around his critique. One could undermine his anthropology, but doing so would have far reaching, and unappealing, consequences. One could also take the modern escape route and dismiss Augustine on psychological grounds, denouncing his theology as the product of repression or an unhealthy attachment to his mother; however, his biography is too complex, and his theology too rich, for such a simplistic reading.
Aquinas’ account is appealing because it starts with presuppositions that are nearly identical to Augustine’s, yet it opens up a possible means to account for rightly ordered sexuality. Aquinas’ superiority can be seen along two lines. First, the category of ecstatic love seems to offer an alternate account of the role of the intellect. In Aquinas’ construction, the intellect is central, but can encounter an object that transcends its powers of knowing. In such an instance, the intellect is raised above itself toward the object that is greater than itself. If one applies this category to interpersonal relationships, then the degree of intimacy in a relationship and the corresponding degree to which the other is transcendently mysterious, makes possible an ecstatic love between humans. This construction of interpersonal relationships does not negate the role of reason; rather it recognizes the limits of reason when dealing with the mystery of human community. Surely this is all the more true in the most intimate of relationships, the mystery and sacrament of marriage.
The language Aquinas uses to describe the mutually indwelling nature of love and the ecstatic nature of the concupiscible powers, has overtones that are nicely suited to speak of marital relations: the lover existing in the beloved, intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, not superficial possession or enjoyment but possessing perfectly and penetrating into the heart. It would seem that the ecstatic is well suited to describe the appropriately erotic—the impulse for union with another.
Another way in which Aquinas seems to solve an impasse presented by Augustine is found in his description of friendship love. In describing the simplicity of the ecstasy involved in friendship love, Augustine describes a friend as one who is appropriately treated as an end, one whom is the simple recipient of the well wishing intentions of love. This seems to counter Augustine’s distinction between frui and uti, which assert that the only proper object of such simple love is God. Aquinas makes room for appropriate love of the other as an end. While this is less directly significant than his category of the ecstatic, it would seem that making space for treating other human beings as ends (relatively speaking) is an important step in describing how interpersonal relationships with others created in the image of God might also result in an experience of transcendence and ecstatic love.
Conclusion
Admittedly, there are problems to be addressed concerning the account given above. First, although Augustine is frequently cited as an interlocutor in the Summa, he is not mentioned by name in either 28.2 or 28.3. For this reason, the only evidence of a direct connection between Augustine’s account of the sexual passions, and 28.3 is the high degree of conceptual affinity. Equally problematic is that in all his discussion of the mutual indwelling and ecstatic effects of love, the sexual act is nowhere mentioned.
Both problems could be countered directly. Concerning the first issue, one might point out that Aquinas is often moderate in his critique of those with whom he disagrees. It is not unthinkable that Aquinas could address the substance of a point on which he diverges from Augustine’s account without mentioning him by name. Regarding the lack of explicit mention of sexuality as an example of the ecstatic dimension of love, it does not seem unreasonable to appeal to a sense of modesty. While Aquinas is not a prude and often mentions the pleasures of the table and the sexual act interchangeably, he could easily have been elliptical in his language regarding love, especially since his concern was to describe the general nature of love.
Whether or not these rebuttals stand, the issue is less about whether Aquinas had Augustine in mind when structuring his argument, and more about whether the present analysis makes appropriate use of Aquinas’ description of the mechanics of love. It is entirely possible that Aquinas had no thought of the transcendent nature of the “other” in human relationships. Nevertheless, it does seem that when something like Buber’s I-Thou dialectic is proposed to Aquinas’ construct, the categories of mutual indwelling and ecstatic love account well for the nature of such relationships. Perhaps most importantly, Aquinas seems to redeem what would seem in Augustine to be irredeemable. He makes room for love that transcends reason without effacing it, opening up the possibility for legitimate mystical experience in the overwhelming encounter with the divine Other, and legitimate intimacy in the marital encounter, even in its sexual expression.
Bibliography
St. Augustine. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettinson. London: Penguin Books, 1984.
St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Vol. II. Trans. Fathers of the English
Dominican Province. Notre Dame: Christian
Augustine on Sexuality and the Passions
A Paper Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for
PHI 5311 – Cicero, Augustine, & Aquinas
Robert C. Miner, Ph.D. – Professor
Baylor University
By
Cameron H. Jorgenson
Waco, Texas
October 18, 2004
Introduction
While Augustine is by all accounts one of the most important theologians in the history of the Church, his influence on the subsequent theology of sexuality has not always been assessed positively. His magnum opus, City of God, explores the topic of sexuality primarily in connection with his assessment of the passions. In keeping with the great moral philosophers of his day, most notably Cicero, Augustine saw the passions as an essential area of concern. Given his own struggle with sexuality prior to his conversion, Augustine understands sexuality to be the perfect illustration of an especially obstinate desire. More than any other passion, sexual lust embodied the elements of the human soul that resist the proper ordering of the human person: being subject to reason, wisdom, and charity.
What follows is an attempt to provide a close reading of the sections of City of God that deal with sexuality. Following a close investigation of Augustine’s arguments, I will offer suggestions about how his insights can be seen as relevant for the contemporary conversation, and offer a critique of his conclusions according to his own logic. It is hoped that the insights of this paper could be exemplify a via media between those who have strong reservations about Augustine, largely on the grounds of his views about sexuality, and those who wish to defend his thought at all cost.
City of God, I.16, 18
The first extended discussion of sexuality is offered in the first book of the City of God. The topic is addressed primarily to offer pastoral counsel concerning the problem of Christian women being raped by pagan captors, and what may have been seen by some as an appropriate response: suicide. Augustine makes clear that suicide is never a valid option for the Christian, declaring that Christian women should “not add crime to crime by committing murder on themselves in shame because the enemy had committed rape on them in lust.” Beyond this, however, Augustine makes a distinction about the nature of lust that both assuages whatever feelings of guilt Christian victims of rape may feel, and lays the foundation for his extended treatment of sexual passions in Book XIV.
Augustine makes clear that rape does not violate chastity. He argues that virtue is that which rules over the body, “from her throne in the mind, and…the consecrated body is the instrument of the consecrated will.” This being the case, if another sins against the body, it can in no way be a detriment to one’s virtue. If the will is untainted, neither is chastity. Augustine clarifies the issue even further: “for if purity is lost in this way, it follows that it is not a virtue of the mind; it is not then ranked with the qualities that make up the moral life, but is classed among physical qualities, such as strength, beauty and health.” Virtue is not, therefore an issue of physicality, but purely an interior condition of the will. No externally imposed act can in any way violate the goodness of a will unable to avoid the act without sin (i.e. suicide or murder). To reinforce this point, Augustine provides the example of the midwife who, “whether by malice, or clumsiness, or accident,” destroys a virgin’s maidenhead during a manual examination. He claims that no one would be stupid enough to claim that the virgin had lost any bit of chastity due to the accident. In stark contrast is his second example of the corrupt woman en route to fornicate. Even though the act has not yet taken place she is not chaste. Since her mind is unchaste, so is her body; just as the woman chaste in mind is chaste in body, even if she has been physically violated.
One enigmatic sentence appears at the end of chapter sixteen. Its difficulty may foreshadow a strand of thought that would not be picked up again until Book XIV. Augustine says,
And so whenever any act of the latter kind has been committed, although it does not destroy a purity which has been maintained by the utmost resolution, still it does engender a sense of shame, because it may be believed that an act, which perhaps could not have taken place without some physical pleasure, was accomplished also by the consent of the mind.
The problem is the shame associated that results from the rape. Augustine suggests that the source of this shame may be a belief in the mind of the victim that an act resulting in some physical pleasure must also have been the result of some consent. It may give pause to a contemporary reader that Augustine associate pleasure with rape, and this as being the source of shame. Beyond this, however, is the question Augustine leaves unresolved: whether physical pleasure must be accomplished by the consent of the mind. This intriguing question is left unanswered in Book I. It is not until Book XIV that related issues are raised and the mechanics of lust are more fully explored.
City of God, XIV.16-19, 23-26
Lust, which can refer to all sorts of inordinate desires, is most properly connected to sexual lust, the type that excited the “indecent parts of the body.” Augustine makes much of the shameful nature of the genitalia, referring several times to the etymology of the common term “pudenda (‘parts of shame’).” While the primary reason given for the shameful character of lust is its resistance to the will, as will be explored below, Augustine gives a few other reasons as well.
One reason sexual passion is problematic is its connection to pleasure. Lust “disturbs the whole man, when the mental emotion combines and mingles with the physical craving, resulting in a pleasure surpassing all physical delights. So intense is the pleasure that when it reaches its climax there is an almost total extinction of mental alertness; the intellectual sentries, as it were, are overwhelmed.” Given his affinities to Cicero’s account of the emotions and its wariness of all perturbationes of the soul, even by “positive” emotions and pleasures, this assessment of the pleasures of sex are not surprising. Any emotion that exceeds the bounds of wisdom, or worse yet, manages to extinguish the light of reason, is fundamentally dangerous and out of character for the virtuous soul. While this is all quite consistent, it should be noted at this point that according to this way of framing the discussion, there is no way to describe sexual desire except as lust—it is an irredeemable passion.
A second strand in Augustine’s account of sexual passions comes in connection with his description of the Garden of Eden. He maintains that in the Garden Adam and Eve felt no shame for their nakedness until after their sin, at which point the “grace that prevented their bodily nakedness from causing them any embarrassment” was removed. “The consequence was that they were embarrassed by the insubordination of their flesh, the punishment which was a kind of evidence of their disobedience,” and they immediately made for themselves clothes out of fig leaves. Augustine goes on to conclude: “thus modesty, from a sense of shame, covered what was excited to disobedience by lust, in defiance of a will which had been condemned for the guilt of disobedience.” Augustine seeks to establish a direct link, perhaps even a causal relationship, between the first sin and lust. While the connection between the first sin and all subsequent sins is a commonplace, it is not entirely clear in what way the special emphasis on sexuality is established.
A third part of Augustine’s account of the sexual passions involves the privacy connected to the sexual act. These insights are an extension of the above discussion of the first humans. Just as the first sin resulted in covering the “parts of shame,” the sexual act itself became cloaked in secrecy. Whether the act is the sort of debauchery that could result in public censure, or whether it is the consummation of a marriage, the sexual act requires privacy. As with the covering of the genitals, modesty in the sexual act is the result of shame. This is the point of Augustine’s rhetorical question: “What can be the reason for this, if it is not that something by nature right and proper is effected in such a way as to be accompanied by a feeling of shame, by way of punishment?” The impulse toward privacy is evidence of something more sinister, tainting even the holiness of marital relations.
The fourth, and most prevalent emphasis in Augustine’s theology of the sexual passions, is the rebellion between sexual impulses and the will. Because of the emphasis Augustine places on the will, that which defies subordination is especially problematic. The sexual drives are the human actions par excellence that demonstrate this mutiny in the body. Without sin, the sexual parts would be as subject to the will as any other part. The act of procreation would be as voluntary as any other human work: “(had there been no sin) the man would have sowed the seed and the woman would have conceived the child when their sexual organs had been aroused by the will, at the appropriate time and in the necessary degree, and had not been excited by lust.” As it is, the sexual organs are notoriously stubborn, refusing willed arousal even for those who are motivated by lust. This sort of inner contradiction, and the shameful refusal of a lower part to be ruled by that which is higher, is evidence of a creature badly disordered. It is this theme to which Augustine returns time and again throughout his account.
Implications and Critique
Much can be learned from Augustine about sexuality, especially in a culture as unreflectively affirmative about sex as ours. First, Augustine’s cautious stance toward the power inherent in the sexual act, clouding reason, and motivating actions incompatible with virtue, are well founded. There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, it seems right that he would sound a note of caution regarding lust in marital relationships. Certainly, given the powerful forces at work in a marriage—the convergence of two lives and wills—there is a risk of sinful desires to skew the appropriate expression of love and invading the relationship with destructive effects. Above all, Augustine’s words are a helpful reminder that right reason and a will shaped by faith is the intended motivating principle in a human life. Self-control is possible. While he makes clear that self-control in sexual matters is supremely difficult, it is a possibility that can be realized. The recognition of the real struggle, and potential for real victory, is encouraging.
While there is much to commend about Augustine’s account, several points of critique can be made, often employing his own logic elsewhere. First, it seems odd that sexuality is characterized by an emotion Augustine considers irredeemable. Earlier in Book XIV Augustine argues that “the important factor in those emotions is the character of a man’s will.” He goes on to clarify that “a rightly directed will is love in a good sense and a perverted will is love in a bad sense.” Augustine makes a final beautiful move to redeem the emotions, “Christians…the citizens of the Holy City of God…feel fear and desire, pain and gladness in conformity with the holy Scriptures and sound doctrine; and because their love is right, all these feelings are right in them.” It is not entirely clear why Augustine does not choose to use this same type of argumentation to redeem sexual love in marriage, making room for even the ecstatic pleasure of conjugal relations. By stating that all sexual desire is by nature lust, Augustine has little constructively to say about the physical aspects of marriage. Apart from achieving apatheia, lust is bound up in the fabric of marriage itself. Rather, it seems that by his own logic, Augustine could say that sexual love, motivated by a rightly ordered love for the spouse could appropriately express itself physically. Perhaps such a move would also validate sexual relations beyond those specifically motivated by a desire to procreate. If part of a well-ordered love for ones spouse, such mutual pleasure should not be considered sinful.
A second brief point of criticism is Augustine’s direct link between modesty and shame. It does not at all follow that a couple’s desire for privacy is inevitably linked to a sense of shame or a desire to escape punishment. Given the intimate, personal, and (in the case of the marriage act) holy, nature of sexual relations, they should be expected to be conducted in privacy. Just as one does not have their most intimate conversations over a loudspeaker for all to hear, one would not want to perform the most intimate of human activities without privacy—even in the Garden.
Finally, the problem of the involuntary nature of sexual drives must be addressed. As mentioned above, it is the unwilled character of lust that makes it so problematic. It seems that this has in part to do with Augustine’s characterization of biological processes. He notes that the sexual organs ought to work according to will as do the hands and feet as even the lungs obey the will, enabling breathing and speech. But this picture of the human body is not entirely correct. While breathing can be regulated to a certain extent, after a strenuous run, breathing is unavoidably heavy. The eyes can be opened and shut at will, but one blinks thousands of time each day apart from any conscious decision. Countless other examples of involuntary physical processes can be noted, none of which have negative moral implications. While sexual desire is certainly problematic, and resistance to the control of the will is a complicating factor, it seems to be an overreaction to categorically reject all sexual desire as lust because of the biological necessities involved.
Conclusion
Augustine offers some brilliant insights concerning the nature of sin and the passions. He also offers some soothing pastoral advice to those who have been raped, or who are facing such horror, by assuring them that their virtue is not threatened by such violence. His emphasis on the well ordered soul and the primacy of reason are helpful constructs in discerning the nature of the moral life—but even in the midst of his strengths there are points at which Augustine could be positively modified. It is his genius as a thoughtful pastoral theologian that makes it possible to provide most of these corrections out of his own work.
Works Cited
St. Augustine. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettinson
Posted by rhett at 02:00 AM | Comments (0)
January 27, 2005
Sex: Part 1/ Sex, Christianity and Culture
Last night I began my four part series dealing with the issue of sex, Christianity and culture. In short, it is a series looking at what the Bible has to say about sex, and how culture, for the most part, has very differing opinions. In this series I want to challenge all of you to look at sex as a beautiful and wonderful thing created by God.
Philip Yancey, in his book, Rumors of Another World: What On Earth Are We Missing?, tries to point people to look beyond just their desires and urges, and to a Creator, a Designer. In the book, Yancey states:
"UPTIGHT CHRISTIANS forget the fundamental fact that God created sex. Having studied some anatomy, I marvel at God laboring over the physiology of sex: the soft parts, the moist parts, the millions of nerve cells sensitive to pressure and pain yet also capable of producing pleasure, the intricacies of erectile tissue, the economical and ironic combination of organs for excretion and reproduction, the blending of visual appeal and mechanical design. As the zoologists remind us, in comparison with every other species, the human is bountifully endowed.
A connected view of life assumes this is God's world, and that despite its fractured state, clues of its original design remain. When I experience desire, I need not flinch in guilt, as if something unnatural has happened. Rather, I should follow the desire to its source, to learn God's original intent."
(You can view portions of the chapter Designer Sex in Christianity Today, here).
Most of us, at least I think...Read the instructions to equipment, or electronics, or to our car...to the things that we buy. We know that by reading the instructions, assembling the product correctly, and paying attention to the details, can keep us from a lot of future trouble, mistakes and devastation. So why is it then, when it comes to the issue of sex, that seems to be an issue that we ignore the design of? Wouldn't it make sense to look to the Creator of Sex, and see what He has to say about it? And wouldn't what He has to say about it make sense? Probably keep us from heartache and pain, and help us experience sex in the most fulfilling way?
As I told you last night. I stand by the Biblical truth that the only proper expression of sexual intercourse is in a committed, monogamous, marriage, between a man and a woman. I believe that that is God's design, and is explicit throughout the Bible, especially as that groundwork is laid out in Genesis 1-2, and finds its expression in such writings as Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, I Corinthians, and many other places.
Why are we talking about sex? Because I believe for too long that culture has been the dominant force in relaying to us, and feeding to us our views of sex, while the church has lost it's voice. This seems especially true in Los Angeles where Hollywood rules the roost, and continues to barrage us with a steady stream of sex, telling us that we seem to be missing out on life if we aren't participating in sex. And mind you, in many distorted forms! So I think it is time that the church begin to teach more seriously on this issue, otherwise it may find itself irrelevant to a culture that is looking for fulfillment and direction in all the wrong places. I think that Rob Bell, the pastor from Mars Hill Bible Church made a great case in the video last night that culture really doesn't get it..doesn't really understand sex, and that it is a spiritual thing. For those interested in that video, go to Nooma for short excerpts of each video, or to purchase them. The video last night was called Flame and was a wonderful look at the three Hebrew words for love in the Song of Solomon. Bell made the case that society tries to live off only one flame, one word, the word that means sexual pleasure, arousal, while God really created sex only to be enjoyed in conjuction with all three words: friendship, commitment and sex. Only when all three are expressed, do we experience true sexuality, in the spiritual way that God designed. To hear more of Rob Bell's teachings (the best preacher in the country), go to his on-line archives.
The famous Fuller professor, and Christian ethicist Lewis Smedes writes about sex, saying:
"It is simple to make an idol: slice one piece of created reality off the whole and expect miracles from it. The miracles may be positive or negative; they may heal or hurt. If the idol has the power to heal, you keep it around you; you touch it, kiss it, rub it, or manipuate it any way you can. If the idol threatens you, you place a taboo on it, which means that you do not touch it, do not even mention it, for fear that familiarity will have a hurtful backlash. Idols work both ways: we make an idol of something either by expecting too much good from it or by fearing evil from it. Making an idol of sex happens both ways. We make an idol of sex by first isolating one dimension of sexuality--the genital. Then we either expect everything from it that we need to be happy or we fear that it will hurt us. Either way, sex has become an idol."
I think that is one of the most amazing statements about sex. All of us have made an idol of sex it seems. Some of us have looked to it for all our answers and fulfillment in life, hoping that that will bring us intimacy and love, and quench the longing that we have had. It has become distorted. While others of us have been so afraid to talk about sex, that we have placed a taboo on it, and we are unable to have a real and honest discussion about the issue, while all the while it is affecting negatively something that God has designged to be a wonderful thing for us in a marriage relationship.
We all have different views on sex, and for the most part they are ones that we have inherited, or have held on to for a long time. Some of our views can be traced to our family, and either their openness, or lack thereof on this issue. Others of us can trace it to our upbringing in the church, which is interesting in and of itself, since the Church has held some strange views on this issue, dating all the way back to St. Augustine, who saw the doctrine of orginal sin as being passed on through the sexaul act. And many of us have had sexual experiences that have shaped our views in many negative ways.
So over the next three talks I want to focus on three very distinct things. 1) I want us to look at the Created Goodness in sexuality, looking at how God created sex, and for what purposes, and in what context that it is to be expressed. I want us to begin to take off the taboos we have placed on sex, and to begin to have an open discussion. And I want us to let go of the magical power that we thought sex held for us, hoping that would be the magical pill to fill all of our needs. 2) I want to look at the Sinful Distortion that sex can create in our lives, and how we try to fill the emptiness and voids in our life with things such as sexual relationships, pornography, "hooking up" the way we dress, and many other things. 3) I want us to look at Redeemed Potential, and how God can take our sinful pasts and redeem them. That no matter what we have done, we have never run too far away from God to not return. And sex seems to be one of those sins in our lives that we often seem as unredeemable. I believe that that is one of Satan's biggest lies and attempts to keep us away from God, by giving us so much guilt and shame, that we feel God will never have us back.
So as we journey through this series, look for daily updates, thoughts, articles and many other things.
I will be linking articles and the such in each blog, as well as on the side margin under the sermon resources.
I would also like your input and feedback. So please send me any info. that might be helpful, and please post comments that I can respond to.
But for now, let's move forward together in honest discussion about sex, seeking in prayer and diligence what God has to say about sex, and not Hollywood.
Posted by rhett at 12:26 PM | Comments (0)
January 24, 2005
The identity of Christian Men?
It seems that everywhere I read these days Christian men are going through an identity crisis. Is this crisis subtle? Well, that depends on whether or not you have been paying attention to secular and church culture. Rather, it seems the crisis has been brewing for a long time and has begun to find voices in books such as John Eldredge's "Wild at Heart", while the message has been visualized in films such as Braveheart, Fight Club and Gladiator.
If you wonder why this subject, then look no farther than this article on Yahoo yesterday.
The mantra: "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy &*$% we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off." Tyler Durden in Fight Club.
The diagnosis: Men, especially Christian men are bored. Bored with life. Bored with church. They have been taught that to be a Christian man means to be a nice "yes" man where the idea of being a servant is equal to being a doormat without any voice. That is a simplifed and basic sketch of the diagnosis. I am one who is still thinking through this issue, but have had some interesting thoughts resonate within my ownself after watching the above movies, and after reading some of the literature.
The solution: The issue is more complicated than some would like to make it out to be, and there are opponents and advocates in both camps. But I agree that a lot of it is a spiritual issue, and where you find your solution may depend on what you believe. Jesus in John 10:10 says "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."
There is much reading and discussion that must be done on this subject. But I am interested in you as a man.
After reading the Yahoo article, what is your opinion on this topic?
For a satirical look at this article visit my friend Cameron Jorgenson. Cameron is a Ph.D. student at Baylor with an emphasis in moral formation, art and culture. He is a friend from undergrad, and was a roommate in seminary at Fuller. He is a witty writer and one of the smartest people I know.
Posted by rhett at 04:13 PM | Comments (0)
January 22, 2005
Good to be back in the blogosphere....And why you must find out what a blog is and start one!
I just spent the last week on vacation in Costa Rica. And though I was not tempted to find the nearest internet cafe and check the news and blog, I did miss perusing through the blogosphere. For some unbeknownst reason that I can't comprehend, I have grown a fondness to checking in on all the other bloggers on a regular, if not daily basis.
I finished Hugh Hewitt's book BLOG over the vacation, and maybe I felt a sudden urgency to return to the land of the blogs out of fear that I may have missed something. Or that another million blogs had been added. Or that my new idea for a blog had come to fruition at the hands of some other person.
After reading the book BLOG, this is my call to everyone in our college ministry, or whoever reads this website, to purchase the book which is now 316 on Amazon after being released a week ago.
If you don't know what a blog is, you need to find out. And after reading BLOG, I am more convinced than ever that one should learn as much about blogs as possible, and determine how they can utilize one in their own life.
For a better understanding of blogging, and the role it is already taking in ministry and theology, and will continue to take, check out Hugh Hewitt's comments on the morning of January 22nd at 8:40am where he talks about the role of theological and pastoral bloggers. Or check out Tod Bolsinger's comments on the role and importance of blogging pastors on January 13.
This is a subject that I will hit on time and time again, as I am convinced of the importance of blogs in theological, pastoral and church circles. I am hoping that I can change the culture around my own church, and college ministry, and begin to change the habits of my own students, teaching them to not only visit important blog sites regularly, but to get them to blog themselves.
"Life must be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward" Soren Kierkegaard
I think now is the crucial time for the church to understand the history of where it has come from, but to live forward, moving into the future. And I believe that blogs will play an important role in that. For anyone who doubts the role and importance of the transformation of information in culture, and in the church, you must study up on the role that the printing press had on Martin Luther and the Reformation. Hugh Hewitt's book BLOG is a good place to start to understand this.
Posted by rhett at 02:01 PM | Comments (0)
January 12, 2005
My blog on a little hiatus....
I will be on vacation this next week....so my blog may have little or no activity...but there's plenty for you to go back and read....
Check out the other bloggers on my page, and catch up with what's going on with the theological-pastoral bloggers, and in the "emergent"/postmodern conversation.
Posted by rhett at 10:40 AM | Comments (0)
Community Continued....
For some great reading on the topic of community, visit the daily blog of Tod Bolsinger, who is the pastor of San Clemente Presbyterian Church. Tod was the former college pastor at Hollywood Presbyterian, and graduated from Fuller with a Ph.D. in Practical Theology.
Tod has lately been blogging on the issue of community, which he knows much about, as one of the cited theologians in the Christianity Today article that I wrote about in the previous post, as well as the author of It Takes A Church To Raise A Christian: How The Community Of God Transforms Lives.
Go to Tod Bolsinger for Tod's daily blog. It's a
Posted by rhett at 02:10 AM | Comments (0)
January 11, 2005
How can you enjoy the benefits of Christ if you detach yourself from the living Christ?
That is the closing question from Tim Stafford, senior editor of Christianity Today, in his latest article titled, "The Church, Why bother?"
As you may have noticed from my last post, the topic of community, and its relation to church has been on my mind a lot. Or more appropriately, our relationship to Christ, and the role that the church plays in that.
Without dissecting that too much, let me say a few things, taking off from a quote by the 3rd century bishop and martyr, Cyprian.
"YOU CANNOT have God for your Father unless you have the Church for your Mother."
Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church
Obviously from this quote, it would appear that one cannot both be a Christian, and yet not seriously consider the role of the church body in your spiritual walk. Just as everyone has a mother and father, so is there also a link between you as a Christian and your churchgoing...your role in church community. And though some of us might not have an intact family of both mother and father, or though we might have a family that does not always get along, so it is with the church at times. But nonetheless, you are family. And nonetheless, as a Christian, you are part of the church family, in which you are a vital member of it's body, as Paul so cleary demonstrates in I Cor. 12:12, "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
Stafford, nor I would question a person's authenticity in relation to their conversion, or salvific experience, but what would be questioned is one's commitment to Christ, if he or she is not involved in a church body. A church body provides many things, from encouragement, to growth, to accountability, an avenue of worship, and on and on. These are things that one cannot attain, or hope to aspire to outside of a body of believers in the church.
Stafford says, "The church is the body of Christ, and it carries his wounds. To know Christ is to share in the fellowship of his sufferings--even if the suffering comes at the hands of the sinners who sit in the pews or preach from the pulpit."
To skip out on church, so as to avoid pain, suffering, disappointment is impossible. But rather, as believers in Christ Jesus, we have the greatest potential to grow spiritually through the testing, and trying of our faith through enduring patience within the context of the church community. "Somehow long-suffering is appropriate to a place and a people who worship Jesus. 'How could we experience him in his death,' Lillian wants to know, 'if we could not tolerate some little deaths of ourselves?'"
As Christians, we have the unique opportunity to be a light to the world around us by the way we not only live in peace and joy in community, but also by the way we live in strife, and suffering, and patience with one another. In the Four Loves, C.S. Lewis states CT '03., "Nature cannot satisfy the desires she arouses nor answer theological questions nor sanctify us. Our real journey to God involves constantly turning our backs on her; passing from the dawn-lit fields into some pokey little church, or (it might be) going to work in an East End Parish." There is something bigger out there, pulling us into something that may seem small, and rigid and cooped up, like a church, when in reality, church and the community within let's us experience and fulfill our greatest desires of belonging, even though we may at times be disillusioned by the reality only we can see.
Bonhoeffer puts it this way CT '03., "Only that fellowship which faces such disillusionment, with all its unhappy and ugly aspects, begins to be what it should be in God's sight, begins to grasp in faith the promise that is given to it."
These words seem very much like the words of most marriage counselors when a newly engaged couple arrives to their office. The couple may have all these lofty and unrealistic ideas and expectations of what a relationship should look and be like, without having even considered the hardwork and effort that is put into that relationship. In marriage, like in the church, we may expect a bed of roses and heaven on earth all the time, without realizing that those things are products of the hardwork, trials and suffering that are a part of the journey. For the counselor, this is their attempt to "burst the bubble" as they may put it, and help the couple correctly understand the greatest potential they have together when they understand the reality of all the hard work and joy and effort and happiness that is put into that relationship. With a correct understanding of disillusionment, where reality is put into context, greater potential is able to come to fruition. This is truly a movement from me, to we. And so this is often the case with our relationship with the church as well. A move more me in the church, to the we in the church.
In a CT article from June 23, 2003, titled "Suburban Spirituality, David Goetz states, "Disillusionment with one's church, then, is not a reason to leave but a reason to stay and see what God will create in one's life and in the local church. What I perceive to be my needs—'I need a church with a more biblical preacher who uses specific examples from real life'—may not correspond to my true spiritual needs." CT '03..
When we honestly reflect on our relationship with Jesus Christ, and the role our church community plays in that relationship, do we have a Gnostic faith as Tim Stafford states. "I would call it Gnostic faith. For them the spirit is completely separated from the body. They think your spirit can be with Jesus Christ while your body goes its own way." Or, can we honestly reflect and say that their is an integration of both body and soul, of how we communicate and live before God, and how we communicate and live before those in Christian community.
Read in full the article The Church, Why bother?.
And for more quotes on the importance of the church in our spiritual walk, read Reflections: The Church.
Posted by rhett at 06:18 PM | Comments (0)
January 09, 2005
Community? What is it?
Well, I'm not going to answer that question in this blog, but rather steer you towards some resources. As a lot of you know I have been struggling with what community is: What it looks like? How it works? Etc., Etc.
Most of these questions are coming out of my desire to better understand the role of the church in this postmodern age, and especially as I struggle to understand God's desire for The Quest at Bel Air. As the church grows, it has been continually difficult for people to plug into community, or to feel any sense of belonging. Some of that responsibility falls on those sitting in the pews on Sunday, and their responsibility to get involved and take opportunities that are offered. And some of that responsibility falls on the church as it tries to figure out "who it is", "what it looks like", etc. Both parties, extending hands out to each other, and taking hold of one another. That seems like the proper analogy for me.
Well, I haven't figured out these answers yet, but am searching. But today I was in Dallas, TX visiting my fiance's parents. And we went to church at The Village Church where I heard a great sermon from the lead pastor Matt Chandler (check out the sermon for 1/9/05 when it posts). He's in the midst of a series on love, and today he discussed the role of community in our love relationship with God. He began with a quote from John Calvin in Volume 4, Section 2, Chapter 1, where Calvin stated that God is Father, and the church is mother. (After further information, I have tracked that quote has been attributed to Cyprian, not John Calvin.
This quote got me thinking a lot about the importance of church, and the community found in church. Sometimes we can get so down on the church, and community, because we feel like our needs aren't being met, so the first thing we often want to do is complain, or be bitter, or usually, go find another church.
But the quote from Calvin expresses the important unit of father and mother, and our relationship to God and how it is tied to the community of church. In Donald Miller's latest book, Searching for God Knows What, he quotes Augustine as saying, "The church is my mother and a whore." I can't find that quote anywhere...so if it's true, obviously I haven't read Augustine well enough, or done my Google search that well. But I would say that that quote that Miller attributes to Augustine summarizes our feelings about church at times. We both adore her, and at times, can't stand her. (If you know where this quote is located, you will have some type of prize).
These are just some thoughts to ponder as we all continue to ask questions about church and community and as Bel Air heads into a six week home group Lenten series. Hopefully this will be a time where people who feel outside of community can get plugged into it, and those who are in it can continue to grow and encourage the church.
If you are looking for some resources or a good book on the role of community in church, start by reading a book by the pastor of San Clemente Presbyterian Church, Tod Bolsinger. His book is titled It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How The Community of God Transforms Lives.
Posted by rhett at 05:06 PM | Comments (1)
The Movie: "Constantine"
I have been hearing a lot of buzz about this movie Constantine, especially in Christian circles, as it deals with the themes of spiritual warfare and casting out demons, etc...and in Los Angeles. How relevant for us.
Craig Detweiller has an interesting article in the new hardcopy issue of Relevant Magazine. You won't find the article in the online magazine though.
Posted by rhett at 03:18 PM | Comments (0)
January 07, 2005
Dating & Marriage: Is It Love Or Infatuation? And What's Important...Fear of God, Looks, Money, Power, etc.
If you are like me, living in LA, it's hard not to be star struck, even if you have lived here for years. The fascination may have waned over the years, but you still get a little excited when you see someone out in public. Like the time i saw Adam Brody, also known as Seth Cohen from the O.C., out at the Coral Tree, and in line with Dustin Hoffman. Or the time I saw Arnold Schwarzenegger and his family at the Coral Tree as well. Hmm, maybe that's a good place to see stars, which is probably why I stopped going there.
And with our fascination comes our tendency to elevate them to a certain status level, where we want to read all about them, dress like them, go where they hang out, and eat and drink. Why do you think the tabloids sell so much? We want to be like them. And because of this fascination and curiousity to catch up on what they are doing we begin to build a sort of false familiarity and intimacy, thinking we know who they are, what they are like, based soley on their public persona, and no first hand experiential knowledge.
I do this. We all do this. So I was somewhat surprised when I was driving to the gym tonight and I heard on KROQ that Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston split. I was sort of shocked because I thought they were different. They seemed like an ideal couple. But how would I know? I don't know them. My perception of them and who they were, and are, was solely shaped by the movies they were in, the photos we saw of them, the interviews they gave, and the things People, Us or In Touch magazines touted about them. Hardly credible evidence to claim any knowledge of someone.
Ultimately, I think most of us were infatuated with Brad and Jenn, "the couple", and who they were as status symbols of looks, money, power, fashion and more. We all want to have that sort of image to those around us. We all want to be in a relationship that has some of those qualities. But as a Christian we are also looking for something different. I don't know anything of Brad and Jenn's spirituality, but I do know that for those of us who want to seriously consider dating someone, the other person's spiritual life plays the most important part. Or does it? Should it? Is it balanced out with other components as well? Wherever you come down on this issue, I think we often sacrifice the spiritual role in a relationship for the more immediate and tangible things.
Much of scripture has many different things to say on this issue. In the Old Testament Proverbs 31:10-31 makes the case for a woman who fears God over charm and looks:
30Charm can mislead and beauty soon fades.
The woman to be admired and praised
is the woman who lives in the Fear-of-GOD.
31Give her everything she deserves!
Festoon her life with praises!
In fact, if you think looks are so important over and against everything else, you better take a look at the humorous comment earlier in Proverbs:
Proverbs 11:22 (New International Version)
22 Like a gold ring in a pig's snout
is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.
So when choosing a "Wife of Noble Character" as Proverbs describes it, or a husband of the same quality, fear of God seems to be the overriding factor. Not looks, money, power, sex, fashion, etc., etc. Why? A simple but true statement would be to say that most of the Bible proclaims a fear of the LORD as more important than any other quality one can have. I guess that's why I was somewhat surprised at one of our online Quest polls a couple of months ago. When asked what quality was the most important when finding a boyfriend or girlfriend, the response "seeking God" finished tied for second with "intelligence" while "attractiveness" finished in first, almost five percentage points ahead.
So how does this play out in my dating life? What about dating non-Christians? What about marrying non-Christians? Well, a proper answer would take more time and space than this entry will allow, so I will turn your attention to Paul's writings in 2 Corinthians 6:14 (New International Version) where he states the following:
14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
Wow! That's a difficult statement to understand and read at times. So I will allow you the thinking and reflecting and praying about these issues that have been discussed. Ultimately, I think that just as we were infatuated with Brad and Jen and their supposed ideal relationship, we too become infatuated with someone, sometimes being blinded in our infatuation to what God's Word says is really important.
I am no expert in this field. I have just recently gotten engaged to the woman I have been dating since May of 2003. But through our relationship I have truly learned what is important for us as a couple, and what things fade and are inconsequential, and what is meant to last and endure and prosper. I am almost 30, so I have waited a while to find myself in this position, but many of you are dating, or are thinking about dating, and you may never know when that times comes. That's why it's important for you to develop and form healthy dating habits now, because it's not like one day you will just decide to throw on the switch and make the right decisions in relationships.
So as we soon head into a series on sex, talking about dating and marriage, and as we get closer to that much loved, and much hated holiday, Valentines Day, I know that dating is on your minds. That's why I would like us to be in open dialogue about these issues, as well as providing some resources for you.
The first article are questions that one should consider asking of themself when they are thinking about dating someone.
12 Questions to Ask Yourself About Someone You Might Date
The second article is about 12 Tests that can help determine if your relationship is based more on love or infatuation.
12 Tests of Love by Chip Ingram
I as well as others would like to hear from you. So fire off any comments you may have.
Posted by rhett at 10:27 PM | Comments (0)
YES...IT'S OFFICIAL...I'M OBSESSED WITH BLOGGING
Friends, I have it bad. I didn't know exactly how bad it was until my fiance's family jokingly, but lovingly referred to me as "the blogger" during Christamas break. Why? Well, it wasn't unusual to find me several times a day scouring through the blogosphere pulling reading all the news items of the day.
if you don't know what a blog is, then you are like many people. But you better find out soon, because it's sweeping the world. If you aren't sure, an easy crash course is to visit Hugh Hewitt who many consider to be the godfather of blogging. If you still aren't sure, then pick up his new book BLOG which hasn't been released yet and is already climbing the Amazon charts.
And just in case I wasn't obsessed enough, I entered a contest in the blogosphere, related to the book. You can view this contest at Radio Blogger
You could have seen my first ever, and lame attempt to put together some photo shop picture for the contest, but I did it in a psd file and not a jpeg....still learning....
later,
rhett
Posted by rhett at 02:30 AM | Comments (0)
January 05, 2005
In the Aftermath of the Tsunami, God is in the Forefront
We seem to be people with a very short memory at times. It was only a little more than three years ago that the Twin Towers in New York came crashing down in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, yet we seem to have moved on in certain respects which are beneficial, and in others which are not.
We have picked up and moved on, making new what was possible in the wake of the terrorist attack. And we have also moved on in our discussions about God since then as well. That was until an earthquake, followed by a tsunami wreaked havoc in parts of Southeast Asia. And now God is all of a sudden back in the headlines.
God has always been there, but like the tourists lying on beaches, not knowing what lay ahead, so it is with God sometimes. He is always present, but we tend to easily submerge him under the surface, and out of our minds, and out of our dialogues. Then without knowing what happened, there God is in the forefront again. Whether God is present in our minds and civil discourse may be a matter a free choice, or a matter of not knowing where else to turn when such devastating things happen.
The brilliant French Jesuit philosopher, paleontologist and biologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Pierre Teilhard de Chardin had a great quote when he said, "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." So though God may not be always be in the forefront of our discussions, unless there is a disaster, nonetheless He is always present.
And it seems that these last few weeks have awakened our spiritual beings with the plight of humanity, begging God, and anyone and everyone for some type of answer to what has happened.
Any tragic or devastating event can raise all types of theological questions, but the most pressing seem to be the following:
The Problem of Evil
The Sovereignty of God
The theology and conversation pertaining to this disaster, and these theological issues is broad and diverse, but to begin a dialogue and discussion on these issues there are a few good sites to visit:
Dr. Mark Roberts
Dr. Al Mohler
I hope that these sites, whether you agree with them or not, spur you on to begin to ask questions in the wake of such devastating loss.
Posted by rhett at 06:15 PM | Comments (0)
