The Pseudo-Apocalypse of Saint Paul

This is taken from The Writings of St. Paul. Excerpts are presented, and the brackets indicate my own thoughts, likely alluding to intertextual echoes. The writing takes place from Saint Paul's POV, so any 'I' is indicative of his "own" voice.
"CH22. And I [Paul] looked around upon that land, and I saw a river flowing with milk and honey [a typical description of the holy land; Ex. 3:8; Deut. 6:3], and there were tress planted by the bank of that river, full of fruit...

"And then he took me up from that place where I saw these things and behold, a river [Acheron, a river of Hades] and its waters were much whiter than milk, and I said to the angel, 'What is this?" And he said to me, 'This is the Acherusian Lake where is the City of Christ, but not every man is permitted to enter that city; for this is the journey which leads to God, and if anyone is a fornicator and impious, and is converted and shall repent and bear fruits worthy of repentance, at first when he has gone out of the body, he is brought and worships God..."

The implication is likely drawn from the eschatological denouement in Revelation 21-22. Apparently salvation is possible post-mortem in this pseudo-apocalyptic writing.

"CH33. When I heard this, I wept and groaned [contrast with John of Patmos, who never weeps over those who suffer in his literature, Meeks/Fitzgerald] over the human race. The angel answered and said to me, 'Why do you weep? Are you more merciful than God? For though God is good, he knows that there are punishments, and he patiently bears with the human race, allowing each one to do his own will in the time in which he dwells on the earth...'"

"Ch37. And I saw another multitude of pits in the same place, and in the midst of it a river full of a multitude of men and women, and worms consumed them [Isaiah 66:24; Sirach 7:17, 10:11, 19:3; Judith 16:17]. But I lamented, and sighing asked the angel and said, 'Sir, who are these?' And he said to me, 'These are those who exacted interest on interest and trusted in their riches [Prov. 11:28; The Book of Tobit; Sir. 5:1; Matt. 25:31-46] and did not hope in God that he was their helper [possibly a reference to Gen. 2:18].'

The punishment of fire and worms and the 'pit' are firmly indebted to the First Testament and even maybe Second Temple Judaism.

"And I saw other men and women covered with dust, and their countenance was like blood, and they were in a pit of pitch [often a reference to final destruction i.e. Isaiah 34:9; 2 Esdras 2:9] and sulfur running in a fiery river, and I asked, 'Sir, who are these?' And he said to me, 'These are they who committed the iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah [interestingly, another post-NT reference in the third century where Sodom is indicted for the sin of homosexuality], the male with the male, for which reason they unceasingly pay the penalties.'

The writer is certainly in turn with various biblical texts involving death and destruction, co-opting them for his own message of taking us through a manifest pit of shame and torture.

"And their infants addressed the Lord God and the angels who were set over the punishments [of the mothers and fathers who defiled the image of God; Gen. 1:26-27], saying, 'Avenge us of our parents, for they defiled the image of God, having the name of God but not observing his precepts; they gave us for food to dogs and to be trodden on by swine; others they threw into the river." But the infants were handed over to the angels of Tartarus who were set over the punishments, that they might lead them to a spacious place of mercy; but their fathers and mothers were tortured in a perpetual punishment."

Interestingly, the infants are not bound by the sin of their parents. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite. The view of original sin has likely not come about, as Augustine isn't here yet. Very interesting and very different it seems from what the New Testament teaches on this topic.

The finale is God finally coming down to the hellish place at the behest of Paul and the wailing of everyone there. He is moved by their repentance and offers them a "night and a day of refreshment forever."

Apparently Saint Paul has inspired greater fan fiction than Dante.

--Nick

Translated by J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993). Cited in W.A. Meeks and J.F. Fitzgerald, The Writings of St. Paul.

The Bible Made Impossible: The Collapse of Evangelical "Biblicism"

I've started reading Christian Smith's book entitled, "The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism isn't a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture." Smith is a top sociologist at Notre Dame (and an evangelical Roman Catholic, a title I particularly enjoy) and I found his book challenging and profound. Much of what he said enlightened me in regards to what Scripture is, what it claims and what we claim about it.

Smith isn't arguing against inerrancy per se (though he makes a few cracks about it in passing), but rather how we read the Bible and how individual claim to hold it as their authority. In another way, when inerrancy becomes a defining point of one's salvation or sole authority. This boils down to a larger critique of evangelicalism, namely pervasive interpretive pluralism.

I will post a little quote by Smith and let you do with it what you will. Scot McKnight has a series over at Jesus Creed about Smith's book so I won't beat the horse further into giblets.

Smith:

I am not suggesting that the Bible is just a set of historical writings set in particular cultures, or the record of human subjective experiences of the divine that has little to say to contemporary people without being translated into terms modern people can accept. Instead, what I say here is simply that the biblicism that in much of American evangelicalism is presupposed to be the cornerstone to Christian truth and faithfulness is misguided and impossible. It does not and cannot live up to its own claims" (1).

Thoughts?

--Nick

Footnote:

1. Christian Smith, "The Bible Made Impossible" pgIX.

The Christology of Jurgen Moltmann

Karkkainen:

"Because the hope of resurrection goes back to the decisive victory of God in Christ over death, it encompasses and includes the hope of God's righteousness within history, yet it also transcends history. Interestingly enough, in contrast to Pannenberg, Moltmann refuses to subject the event of the resurrection to the scrutiny of historical-critical research, even though he obviously regards it as an event in time and space. He does so because the even of the resurrection calls into question the concept of history as it is conceived of within the limits of the modern scientific approach. The proper way to approach the resurrection is to connect it with the future eschatological hope; to believe in the reality of the resurection, one must let oneself be thrown into active hope."

 Karkkainen, Christology: A Global Introduction pg151.

Karl Barth, the Church as the Reconciling Christ

"The question of truth, with which theology is concerned throughout, is the question as to the agreement of the Church's distinctive talk about God with the being of the church. The criterion of past, future and therefore present Christian utterance is thus the being of the Church, namely, Jesus Christ, God in His gracious revealing and reconciling address to man.

Does Christian utterance derive from Him?

Does it lead to Him?

Is it comfortable in Him?

None of these questions can be put apart, but each is to be put independently and with all possible force."

Karl Barth, "Church Dogmatics" I.1 pg4.

Women out of Place

Allison:

Growing up I did not face gender discrimination. In fact, at my church in Alhambra and in my home the ability for women to become leaders was not argued for, it was the norm. When I had questions my dad would encourage me to look into the Bible and sort through the passages with him. Even though he gave me his position he taught me how to read the Bible for myself and to arrive at my own conclusions while drawing from other people’s strengths. He would also learn from me as I learned from him. At church my questioning of ideas was only encouraged more and I was never made to feel out of place in many of the discussions the adult men were having. Women also regularly expressed their ideas and took initiative. Our assistant pastor was female. Nothing seemed odd or out of place on that account. I was not told it was ok. The issue did not come up in my environment. All of this to say, I never got the impression that anything was out of the ordinary. I never had a gender crisis or confusion over who I was as a girl or how as a girl I fit into God’s plan. I never thought of myself as acting or thinking like a boy or not being like a girl either. Boys were different from girls, but not over which was supposed to be more active, take more initiative or lead. Even now, my church in Santa Ana has readily funded my seminary education. However, many women in the church have not had my experience or upbringing.

I started to notice that something was a bit different when in an introduction class (special class to meet people and get situated) at Biola I realized I was the only girl. I hadn’t noticed at first since I was too busy engaging in theological discussions with my classmates much as I had always done at church. It was only when the teacher arrived that we all realized we were in this intro class because we were Bible majors. The first thought that occurred to me was: “That’s why we all started talking about theology!” Next I wondered why I was the only girl in the class. The reason did not occur to me. The reason also did not occur to me later for why some people at the school treated me as incompetent (read my stories about sexism). This was generally not the case, but looking back, there were enough “isolated” incidents to make them not so isolated. What also began to be strange to me was when I would hear backhanded compliments about how smart I was—smarter than any other women the person speaking knew. I also began to hear various people describe my own theological interests as masculine. One friend suspected I was just pretending to act feminine sometimes to cover up my masculine tendencies! At the time I had mentally dismissed him as a bit out to lunch since 1) I was a female and so probably was not pretending and 2) Nothing in my previous experience told me only men did theology and debated. I didn’t know it, but the experiences of other people were shaping how they saw me and how they read the Bible.

For the rest, click here.

--Nick

Origen, Homilies & Hermeneutics

"While he was not the first Christian to write commentaries on the books of the Bible, the scope of his achievements in this area was unmatched in the ancient Church. His are not the earliest Christian homilies preserved, but the size of the corpus of his homilies makes them the earliest that can be studied in breadth and depth. They reveal him as an accomplished preacher of the Bible and a concerned pastor of the Church. He seems, moreover, to have been the first Christian to conceptualize the hermeneutical process. He devotes a large portion of the fourth book of On First Principles to how the Bible should be interpreted. This issue is also raised in his homilies.5 His approach to the Bible prevailed in the Church among both his followers and his antagonists for centuries. Beryl Smalley has said, "To write a history of Origenist influence on the west would be tantamount to writing a history of western exegesis.6"

Origen, "Homilies on Genesis and Exodus." Page 2.

5. See, for examples, Ex. Hom. 5.1.
6. The Study of the Bible in the Middles Ages, 2nd ed. 1952 (reprint ed. Notre Dame, In., 1964), 14.

Three Views on Hell: Introduction

http://www.rethinkinghell.com/

I have the pleasure of hosting an extended debate on this most contentious topic. I selected several up and coming theologians, and requested from each an essay to describe their views of the nature of eternal punishment.

A few things first.

COMMUNITY 

All three essays are written by professing Christians, and as such, I expect the utmost respect to be shown to one another. Disagreement is encouraged, but condescension and a lack of charity are discouraged.

FORMAT

The goal isn't to provide an exhaustive commentary on all bible passages or philosophical arguments. Instead, this is more an attempt to boil things down to bite-size chunks that are more easily expanded upon. 

Each writer has 700 words to make their case. Their responses may be as long as they would like, but since I am moderating this series, I have the right to delete a comment or request a rewrite.

Likely, since we are all good boys and girls, this shouldn't happen.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I may add a follow up post to this series, offering links to various responses by the contributors. I know the annihilationist contributor plans on offering a response or two.

Thanks to each author!

THE ESSAYS

Annihilationism

Universalism

Eternal Conscious Torment

THE RESPONSES

These responses are much longer than the actual essays. Which is nice. Enjoy.

Annihilationist response to Universalism.

Universalist response to Annihilationism.

Annihilationist response to Eternal Conscious Torment.

May this debate continue in far greater respect than has been conducted elsewhere. Please engage and enjoy. May He be glorified.

--Nick

Allah: A Christian Response; Chapter One

WINDING THE WIND

Building off the foundations of his opening about the stakes between Muslims and Christians, Volf begins with a speech delivered by Pope Benedict XVI after the crisis over the Danish caricatures of Muhammad in 2006. The relevant portion is quoted below:

"In the international context we are living in at present, the Catholic Church continues convinced that, to foster peace and understanding between peoples and men, it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected."

Volf then begins with a historical analysis behind the initial support from Muslims for the Pope, and then the sudden backlash that followed when the Pope seemingly turned their back on him. Having not studied this issue in any real depth beyond mining the internet for the alleged cartoon, this was a real eye-opener. This is the world's most powerful Christian and he seems to be sounding tolerant and in the mood for the building of inter-religious bridges. What changed?

The Pope said:

"Intolerance and violence can never be justified as a response to offenses, as they are not compatible responses with the sacred principles of religion."

Volf believes that this reference to Muslim's rioting after the caricatures, and the Muslim backlash against the Pope's words was both productive and dissatisfying. The Pope seemed to be revoking his initial support. But the material seems far deeper than just that.

I will confess, it strikes me as both odd and amusing that caricatures would invoke such a violent response, but this coming from an American sitting in his parents house.

Muslim scholars responded with an "Open Letter" that contained a refutation of the Pope's words, a letter that in one year would become the document "A Common Word Between Us and You."

At this point, Volf has contended that the Pope has actually revealed a great chasm between both Abrahamic religions. His history lesson, build on modern principles, extrapolates from the past wars to create a tapestry of open wounds and smoldering fissions. There is a distinction made between Christianity's "God as reason" and Islam's "God as pure will" that travels back to the 14th century. Miroslav contends that historical Christianity seems to teach that God encourages reason, deliberation and persuasion; the perception of Islam is far more based on arbitrary violence and the use of the sword. In Benedict XVI's view, the Muslim God is a completely arbitrary deity, and therefore Islam is incompatible with deliberative democracy.

Now given that the Pope made comments about freedom and the "intolerance" of Islam in his speech, he inadvertently opened old wounds and showed a perceived distinction between both faiths. For me, this was illuminating. Whatever your thoughts thus far, Volf cannot be dismissed as not chasing the devil into the tall reeds of details.

From my own experience, I have noticed a great chasm between both faiths, but I had never thought to reconcile them together. I still don't think we really can, but Volf has certainly planted something in there. Away we go.

GENERAL RIVER OF CONSIDERATIONS

Even beyond the distinctions between Christianity and Islam (trinity being a big one), Volf contends (himself a strong trinitarian) that he has no interest in creating religious pluralism. He seems to view that as an intellectual cop-out and too easy to fall into. Christians, we are not dealing with some crazed liberal fundamentalist out to overturn everything we hold dear. Nor are we dealing with an impotent scholar who cannot recognize his beard from his nose. Miroslav Volf's work cannot be dismissed, and it ought not be. In fact, in an interview he admitted that the blurb on the back of Allah ["Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?] wasn't his doing and he did seem to express some doubt as to it's intended result.

However, Volf does seem intent on creating a sort of political pluralism. He does leave room for his being overly idealistic, and I do think he is. This is not a slam, but I'm a cynic. At this point, I'm hoping he's right but one glance at the headlines about material within our own borders doesn't give me great cause for celebration.

I'll leave it to later chapters for Volf's thesis to hopefully work it's magic.

A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU

Inspired by the Open Letter mentioned in the first section, the expressed goal of the drafters was not to create division, but to mark similarities. I will several verses (I think that is what they are called).

According to the Qur'an, "Do not contend with people of the Book except in the fairest way." (AL 'Ankabut, 29:46). 

Taking up the claim that Muhammad follows the example of many heresy hunters, Benedict mentions the famous verse from the Qur'an, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Al Baqarah, 2:256).

And the one that stuck out to me and it is according to the Open Letter, "God has many Names in Islam, including the Merciful, the Just, the Seeing, the Hearing, the Knowing, the Loving, and the Gentle. Their utter conviction in God's Openness and that "There is none like Him." (Al Ikhlas, 112:4).

"If justice, mercy and knowledge are God's own attributes, then there is no room for divine capriciousness." (Volf, pg26). I will contend that capriciousness could be compatible with such things, provided it is redefined. But, that would be a redefinition, right?

LOVE OF GOD, LOVE OF NEIGHBOR

According to the Open Letter, Islam is at it's heart about love of God and love of neighbor. Though the Qur'an never explicitly states 'love for God,' a human attribute is applied to God. There is none like Him. The drafters of the Open Letter remind Muslims that their hearts must be completely devoted to God. According to the hadith, Muhammad stated, "None of you has faith until you love for your neighbor what you love for yourself." The Common Word then goes on to bring about the two greatest commandments written to Muslims and Christs, love of God, love of neighbor.

They view it as an area of common ground, where Christians and Muslims can rejoice in similarities. This could be the bridge, Volf argues, to bring us closer together. As we found in the first post, Muslims and Christians make up a substantive percent of the world's population, and getting us to play nicely together in our respective sandboxes might be a worthy option. Even, if Volf concedes, it is overly idealistic.

I will conclude this section with a remark from Nostra Aetate, written by the Second Vatican Council:

"The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful, and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God."

CONCLUSION

I will confess that I didn't know this section existed anywhere. In fact, I know many Christians would say it is wrong, dangerous or even heresy to say such a thing. I know many/most Christians would never even think of such things.

I will also confess that I don't really know what to make of such things from the Second Vatican Council. I am looking forward to seeing what Volf writes and how he nuances much of his arguments. Thus far, I am unconvinced, but Volf's thoughts cannot be dismissed.

--NIck

Marius Lombaard, "Necessarily Absolute Relativism?"

My good friend from down under (South Africa, I guess) recently wrote a book review and his subsequent thoughts. As usual, his thoughts are irenic and challenging. Marks of a humble soul.

Lombaard:

Sometime during the last year I read a book that was really thought provoking titled: “Truth… & The New Kind Of Christian”.
 
Although the books main subject deals with Postmodern Christianity, specifically the Emerging Church, a book can be written on the subjects of the last few chapters alone.

In this post I won’t go into detail about post-modernity or the emerging church (I might write a detailed book review later though); rather I want to touch base on an interesting distinction that changed the ways I view truth and knowledge.

For most people, the alternative to absolute truths are relative truths. And most average folks will live by one of those standards of truth. You either believe in absolutes, or you believe that everything is relative.

Relativity says: what is right for you, isn’t necessarily right for me and vice-versa. Don’t dare to tell me what I ought to do, because truth is relative, and who are you to dictate what is right or wrong for me? The conclusion is therefore that truth is not absolute, but rather relative to the person.

Absolutes say: there are absolute truths in this world. Doesn’t matter what you say:

• Murder is wrong
• Rape is wrong
• Torturing babies for fun is wrong
• Genocide is wrong
• Slavery is wrong

Therefore the conclusion is that there are absolutes we should all live by. We can’t escape it, it is a fact of life that we all live by absolute truths.

Some people have suggested that the truths we live by are merely how we have evolved and that society has decided what is right and wrong. But if this is true, then we are led to believe that we could have evolved otherwise, and society could have developed and chosen otherwise. That is, it could’ve been decided that murder, rape or genocide is not wrong after all. But that possibility is absurd! A culture or society that believed this would soon exterminate itself and cease to exist and develop, since it’s people would be justified in their emotions and anger to murder each other for the silliest things that so easily and frequently kindles our anger.

So it is at least clear that there are at least some absolutes we all live by. But I want to introduce a third possibility: objective truths. What are objective truths? How does it differ from absolute truths?

In “Truth… & The New Kind Of Christian”, Smith looks at four properties of truths to see in what ways they are the same, and in what ways they differ:

For Smith's and Lombaard's thoughts, continue HERE.

--Nick

Jeff Cook, "Everything New"

This looks quite interesting. I love the pitch video.

--Nick

CNN, "Millennials, Doubt of God"

CNN:

The percentage of Americans 30 and younger who harbor some doubts about God’s existence appears to be growing quickly, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. While most young Americans, 68%, told Pew they never doubt God’s existence, that’s a 15-point drop in just five years.

In 2007, 83% of American millennials said they never doubted God’s existence.

More young people are expressing doubts about God now than at any time since Pew started asking the question a decade ago. Thirty-one percent disagreed with the statement “I never doubt the existence of God,” double the number who disagreed with it in 2007.

Atheist organizer takes ‘movement’ to nation’s capital

When asked about doubts of God, no other generation showed a change of more than 2% in the past five years.

The survey found that the percentage of millennials who identify with a religion is remaining constant, while most other generations have seen religious identification increase in the past 10 years.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

The Egalitarian/Complementarian Divide (Part V)

Shaping Influences:

The Influence of Culture

Sacred and secular cultures have had massive impacts on Evangelicals, and as a result, have influenced the gender debate. It is common to hear how much secular culture and liberalism have influenced Egalitarianism or how Egalitarianism will inevitably lead Evangelicals down the path to liberalism or even the acceptance of homosexuality. Massive amounts of effort has been dedicated towards making this alleged reality known and warning the faithful of the danger of falling down the slippery slope. For example, Grudem, the founder of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has clearly dedicated himself to such a cause by pumping out works with titles such as: Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?, Evangelicalism and Biblical Truth, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism, and Is Evangelical Feminism the New Path to Liberalism? Some Disturbing Warning Signs.

Other authors are subtle in expressing their fears of liberalism or the decline of Scriptural authority. For instance, Thomas Schreiner hints at his thoughts throughout his critique of William Webb (who does believe all we need for faith and practice can be found in Scripture). Schreiner continually characterizes Egalitarians as continually promoting “new thesis” and contrasts this with the traditional view (his view) that apparently does not need to be continually defended because it does not change. “Is the goal of publishing to write what is true or what is new? One of the dangers of evangelical publishing is the desire to say something novel.” After giving a fantastic Egalitarian positions not widely held, he gives a kind introduction of Webb before ending his introduction with “but I think all will agree that the book attempts to break new ground on the women’s issue” (all emphasis in Schreiner’s writings are mine).[1]

Kostenberger ends his review of the works of Egalitarians Roger Nicole and Gordon Fee by characterizing them as dishonest. “Personally, I do not think the end justified the means, nor is the pride paid worth the possible gain…In the end, this debate is about truth, not politics; about exegetical responsibility, not propaganda…We ought not to trivialize the issue by substituting rhetoric for substance. We ought not to marginalize the issue by obscuring the clarity of Scripture.”[2] Egalitarianism is thought to be a new, novel or even sinister force that has come to displace Biblical authority. Even authors admitted to be contributing good scholarship (as Schreiner said of Webb) are also understood within a certain negative backdrop or framework. Many Complementarians believe Egalitarians have read back into Scripture what is at heart a secular ideology, even if Egalitarians do this inadvertently. Mary Kassian expresses this sentiment all over her chapter titled “The Slippery Slope” in her book titled The Feminist Gospel.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Becoming Mo(o)re, "Homosexuality, Irrationality & False Dialogue"

This isn't to say I agree with everything he's written, but Calvin is a great writer. I found this challenging.

He says:

Despite the clarity of Scripture on the matter of homosexuality—nowhere in the Old Testament or the New Testament is homosexuality not considered sinful—I have found myself talking about the issue more than I ever thought I would. In political, social, and religious spheres the topic of homosexuality has seemingly taken center stage. From the Queer Underground at Biola University to the President of the United States affirming his support of gay marriage to the state of North Carolina recently passing a constitutional ban on the institution, homosexuality seems to be everywhere.

My question is why? Why do we spend so much time on this issue? Many of my friends and acquaintances (and strangers citing why they’ve left the organized church) note that all sins are the same. We don’t get riled up over gluttony do we? Nope. In fact, the church potluck only serves to supplement a person’s need to engorge oneself. So, why then is homosexuality such a big issue?

First, Scripture speaks openly and frankly about the importance of sex. It lays out for us what is appropriate, the context in which it should happen, and shows the consequences of unbridled sexual desire. Accordingly, sex is such a powerful thing that it reaches down to a person’s very identity and personhood. All sins that we commit are outside of the body, except for sexual sins. Scripture differentiates not on the heinousness of the crime, but on the drastic cost of sexual impropriety. Whether pre-marital sex, extramarital sex, or homosexual sex, the Bible is clear.

But, another reason the church is focusing so much time on homosexuality is because it has been made into an issue for us. . .

For the rest, and it is worth your time, click HERE.

--Nick

John Sanders, Free Will Theism & Universalism

Open Theist John Sanders engaged with Universalist Thomas Talbott in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate. I think it was a decent response to Talbott, though I wasn't necessarily convinced in regards to Sanders. Still a most able response.

Does Talbott’s view of being fully rational respect human choice adequately? Do you consider free will essential to how God made us? Does God “risk” when God makes humans and gives them free will? Or, does a libertarian sense of free will entail that God had to take risks when God made humans? Why do you think God made a world in which humans could rebel against God? Is that the best of all possible worlds? Why?


Followers of this academic debate will not be surprised to learn that Sanders doesn’t think Talbott takes freewill theory seriously enough. In the end, Sanders thinks Talbott robs choice of power because God makes conditions that virtually require, or at least necessarily entail, a choice for God.

He begins with a smaller point: Talbott’s belief that humans in heaven can’t be happy knowing the suffering of those in hell. Sanders’ big point is that we don’t know the heavenly condition or ourselves well enough to render such a judgment.

Sanders argues for a libertarian free will and that means humans could have chosen otherwise when they chose to do something. His point here is that God gives humans that kind of free will and that entails humans choosing not to respond to God. So God risks non-love and rejection when God gives humans libertarian free will. Talbott finally argues that such a libertarian free will does not describe God’s redemptive plan.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

Christus Victor, a brief case

OPENING

I begin with an affirmation to the universal church, that Christ's death and resurrection is central to all atonement theories. In that, I agree that each atonement theory is grounded in some portion of the meta-narrative of Scripture. This includes the oft-maligned and majority held Penal Substitution Theory and even the Moral Influence Theory held by many within the Emergent crowd.


Simply stated, Christus Victor is the atonement theory that views Christ's death and subsequent resurrection as a cosmic victory over sin and death, which had kept humanity in captivity. It views the resurrection and the death of Christ as triumphant. This does not say that other theories do not have their place, or do not, in their own way, attempt to work out the same factors in their own views.

However, I do think that Christus Victor ought to be our primary lens by which we view atonement theories. I will offer some reasons why, and I do not expect this to cover each point of atonement nor do I plan on answering objections to my view. I simply am giving some reasons as to why Christus Victor should be our primary lens, and not at the exclusion of other theories.

In the first thousand years of church history, Ransom Theory or Christus Victor was the dominant view of atonement. Adherents included Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa, who wrote:

When the enemy saw the power, he recognized in Christ a bargain which offered him more than he held. For this reason he chose him as the ransom for those whom he had shut up in death's prison. [1]

I think the early church had an aptitude for recognizing the spiritual realm, often equating salvation as a battle for souls, with God and the Devil fighting for each individual. Very theatrical, of course. However, I do think this method of viewing everything through a lens of spiritual warfare, but also God's ultimate victory, is what sets Christus Victor up as the best lens. It is both supernatural in focus and cosmic in scope.

1) PRINCIPALITIES, POWERS & THE WARFARE MOTIF

Through St. Paul, I do think Ephesians 6 offers us a glimpse as Christians into another realm. V12-13 speak directly to "wrestling against the rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over this present age, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Using a militaristic battle cry, we are called to resist such "cosmic powers" and "evil."

Recognizing the role of the "Adversary" as a cosmic schemer of this "present age" is a helpful reminder. Indeed we see the conflict written against "hostile waters" which seems to indicate a time of folklore where the Hebrews believed the earth was enshrined in water, with water being a sinister force. However, God is shown to be king over such hostility, causing it to flee at the "sound of His thunder" (Ps. 77:16). 

It is God who is ultimately victorious over such forces (Hab. 3:15) and who sits above "the mighty waters" (Ps. 29:3-4, 10). Given the language used throughout Scripture to God being bigger than opposing forces and being a force to reconcile and be reckoned with, see Eph. 1:22, Ps. 8:6, 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:27, Colossians 1:15-20. The language of warfare and utter destruction is well attested, almost to the point of being anesthetizing.

You even have the Hebrews adopted foreign "monsters" such as Leviathan. Leviathan (possibly a reference to Tiamat, a Babylonian god of the primordial sea) is shown to be ferocious with many heads and the ability to breathe fire (Job 41:26-27), but was shown to be no match for YHWH. According to Ps. 74:12-14, God utterly destroyed him. The imagery of appealing to foreign gods and monsters of mythical proportions was and is symbolic of YHWH being supreme over such created beings. Even in Colossians 1, Paul explicitly emphasizes the sovereignty and preeminence of Christ against a foreign ruler, namely Caesar, who believed himself to be above all things. In essence, St. Paul is writing a letter of treason against a "principality" and using him as an example of the power of the one true God as both source and sustainer.

Regardless of the terrifying aspect of the worst of creation, we can bet our lives that YHWH is above all things and that this cosmic battle is not eternal in duration. The warfare motif is a strong and consistent theme throughout Scripture, and it is even stronger in the New Testament.

2) RANSOM & IMMORTALITY

In Adam, we have the consequence of mortality, without any hope of immortality apart from Christ, which is a gift that God gives to the saved. Even in the Old and New Testament (Prov. 12:28, Ezekiel 18:4, I Cor. 15:53-54, 2 Tim. 1:10 and others), we can see that immortality is something to be sought after, and a gift that only God can give. Thus, mankind doesn't seem to be born with immortality and can only become immortal (Strong's 862-- Aphthartos -- Uncorrupted, imperishable, immortal (of the risen dead)). God alone appears to be immortal (Rom. 1:23).

In this, sin has it's grip upon humanity. It not only keeps us from attaining immortality, which is contested in that we may have never had it, but also showcases the full effect of Adam's sin and Christ's death, which brings life and justification (Rom. 5:12-21). In him we have deliverance and the forgiveness of sins.

In this same vein, deliverance from sin and death seems to be a dominant theme in Scripture. Mark 10:45 speaks about Christ "giving His life as a ransom for many." In the present context of servanthood and submission, to think of the Son of Man as anything less than a conquerer was unheard of. Christ as a servant did, in a cosmic way, destroy everything that was sin. Moltmann speaks of this as such:

God allows himself to be humiliated and crucified in the Son, in order to free the oppressors and the oppressed from oppression and to open up to them the situation of free, sympathetic humanity.

The line of thinking is deliverance from bondage and oppression and the sin of this world. In refuting the heresy of the time, St. Paul speaks of this as "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time" in I Timothy 2:5-6. As is seemingly consistent with Pauline literature, the idea of past bondage is given over to Christ, who destroyed the "old man" that was once Saul, and is reborn as our St. Paul.

We are not ransoms, but prisoners. Prisoners to, simply put, sin. This includes to our flesh but also to the "God of this age" (2 Corinthians 4). In Jesus laying down his life as a substitute, he effectively destroyed what had reigned as condemnation. In fact, much of his earthly ministry was to subvert the effects of the Law, and his death, by perverse trial and condemnation by a ruling principality, culminated in the utter worthlessness of "human justice."

The cosmic significance is staggering, and seems to fit better within Christus Victor.

3) INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY & "ALREADY, NOT YET"

This is the easiest part to argue for. It isn't often that you have Thomas Schreiner and N.T. Wright in agreement on one topic. However, I do think Christus Victor strongly supports IE and I shall give some examples.

All things are seen as "already established" and "awaiting consummation." Christ's ministry on earth included the healing of the blind, casting out demons and speaking in tongues. When the 72 returned to Jesus, they proclaimed that "even the demons are subject to use in your name!" (Lk. 10:17). Having unclean spirits proclaiming Jesus as "the Son of God" (Mark 3:11) symbolizes the uniqueness of Christus Victor in that it is shows the effects it has upon believers, but also demons.

The idea that the Kingdom of God was established and birthed in the 1st Century and is awaiting the full consummation is a widely held Christian belief. I believe it fits perfectly with Christus Victor.

4) YHWH'S FINAL VICTORY

To emphasize God and Christ's victory of sin itself is also foundational to the Christus Victor model. Given the warfare motif as seen above, to believe that God reconciled "all things to himself" (Col. 119-20) seems to suggest spiritual entities as well on top of the possibility of the "new earth" being "won over." This is speculative so I won't insist upon it.

In Ephesians 1, we see that God putting "his enemies beneath his feet" seem to signify the utter end of sin in the sense of "already, not yet." This fits perfectly with God's perfect love in saving sinners from bondage, and that nothing can ultimately separate us from him (Rom. 8:35-39, John 1:29, 3:16).

This holds true to the teaching that the "Adversary" is "driven out" (John 12:31). In doing so, Jesus "disarmed the powers and the authorities, [He] made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col. 2:13-15).

The cross symbolizes the ultimate destiny of sin, the cosmic significance of God triumphing over this temporal evil, and that paying such a cost is "costliest grace," according to Bonhoeffer. This world has been "set free" and "liberated from bondage" (Rom. 8:18-23).

The cross symbolizes God's perfect love, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

The cross symbolizes the healing brought forth by Christ's desire to save and to heal (Matt. 8:1-17, with emphasis on v17).

5) CONCLUSION

Gregory Boyd sums up Christus Victor as thus:

Whereas other models tend to isolate the meaning of Christ's death from his lifestyle, his healing and deliverance ministry, his teachings and even (in some cases) his resurrection, the Christus Victor model reveals the profound interconnectedness of everything Chris was about. All these things are ultimately about one thing: establishing the reign of God by vanquishing the reign of Satan and the powers through the power of self-sacrificial love. [3]

In summation, Christus Victor seems to not only emphasize the cosmic scope of all things, but also maintains substitutionary atonement and the element of sacrifice. It can include the Healing View and the Moral Influence, with Jesus' moral teachings, healings and living by example central to His ministry.

FOOT NOTES

[1]. Gregory of Nyssa, "An Address on Religous Instruction," Chapter 23. LCC, III, 300.

[2]. Jurgen Moltmann, "The Crucified God."

[3]. Gregory Boyd, "Four Views of the Atonement," 46.

Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, "Atonement, Justice & Peace"

I thought this was quite interesting. I love deconstruction. 

Does—or should—atonement theology have practical implications for the church’s mission in the world today?  Is penal substitution the only, or even the best, biblical understanding of the cross? 

Scot has invited me (Darrin W. Snyder Belousek) to introduce my book, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church(Eerdmans 2012).  This book challenges the church to rethink the cross—to reexamine the standard evangelical theology of penal substitution atonement and to reorient our thinking about justice and peace from the perspective of the cross. 

My first intuition that something was not quite right with the penal substitution theory—the idea that God has dealt with our sins by having reckoned our sins against Jesus and punished him with death in our place on the cross—came about twelve years ago, while questioning the death penalty. 

I had become convinced, based on Jesus’ teaching (“Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone”), that Christians should not support capital punishment.  But I was wanting to press the question deeper, to the core of Christian faith—the cross.  Jesus’ death, after all, was a death penalty.  If there was a definitive Christian answer on the question, it must be found there. 

The only atonement theology I knew was penal substitution.  I could thus reason: If God had already punished Jesus for our sins, then we who were spared by the cross from the death penalty we deserved had no right to insist that others deserved death for their sins.
That made sense, but it didn’t seem right.  I soon figured out why. 

The penal substitution theory is based on retributive justice: sin must be “repaid” with death, and God “repaid” our sins by punishing Jesus.  But so also is capital punishment: the murderer must be “repaid” his crime with the penalty of death. To affirm penal substitution, therefore, is to affirm the same logic that justifies the death penalty.
I faced two problems.  First, the penal substitution theory couldn’t address the question: you can’t overcome the logic of retribution (capital punishment) with the logic of retribution (penal substitution). 

Second, the penal substitution theory didn’t square with Jesus’ teaching of God’s kingdom, which is not ruled by retribution: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you…” (Matthew 5).  If the cross is the cross of Christ, I thought, our interpretation of the cross ought to be consistent with the teaching of Jesus.
The more I thought it through, the more the conundrum grew.  

According to Paul’s gospel, Christ’s cross is both the revelation of God’s justice (Romans 3:21-26) and the demonstration of God’s love (Romans 5:6-11).  According to penal substitution, God’s justice is satisfied in retribution, Jesus punished for our sins.  Yet according to Jesus’ teaching, God’s love transcends retribution: He blesses righteous and wicked alike with sun and rain (Matthew 5).  How could the cross be both God’s justice by retribution and God’s love beyond retribution?  Is this God’s love—that God punished Jesus instead of us? That didn’t seem right, either.  I needed to begin again.

For the rest of the post, click HERE.

--Nick

Christian Piatt, "'Angry Queers,' Mark Driscoll & Mars Hill"

Unless it wasn't obvious, I'm not a fan of Mark Driscoll. That said, I do not find this conduct to be helpful in any way. Its unbecoming of rational people. I find myself largely agreeing with Piatt on this one, save for nuances that can be explained if asked.

Christian Piatt:

I had a stew of emotions when I read about an activist group in Portland calling itself the “Angry Queers” vandalizing a satellite church of Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill network. Neighbors in the area reported seeing a handful of young people in black masks smashing stained glass windows and damaging other property on the church campus early Tuesday morning.  A group called the “Angry Queers” sent a letter to a local news affiliate taking responsibility for the damage.

I get the anger. I feel that anger when I read things that pastors like Mark Driscoll say about the LGBT community. It’s wrong and it should be confronted publicly.

But please, for the love of God and one another, not like this.

Local pastor Chuck Currie, known for his vocal criticism of Mars Hill’s theology and portrayal of women and the LGBT community, is right in calling for this to be treated as a hate crime.

“If Mars Hills Church represents the worst of Christianity,” said Curry in a recent Huffington Post article, “and I believe it sadly does, those response for this attack represent the worst of Portland.”

He’s right.

There is such a thing as righteous anger, and we all should call one another to account when we treat individuals or groups as “less than.” But such

Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll

a response actually serves an opposite purpose from what I believe was intended. By noting that the vandalism changes nothing about the church’s mission, Mars Hill ends up being the more tolerant party in this case. Granted, they’ve stopped short thus far of publicly forgiving the vandals, but they’re not returning the violence with an equal dose of anger.

It also compromises the entire face of the pro-LGBT movement. It serves to reinforce the stereotype some have of LGBT people as somehow beyond the bounds of “typical” Americans. From my perspective as a straight male of some privilege, I can’t, for the life of me, see how anything about this stunt helps further the cause of the Gay/Lesbian community or to call Mars Hill to account for their intolerant rhetoric.

I tend to believe that violent responses to injustice point to a lack of imagination. It suggests that the angry party can’t see any way out of their situation other than with aggression or violence. But in my experience, it’s the creative, nonviolent responses that truly end up making a more lasting impression on the public. Author and theologian Walter Wink has influenced my thinking about this more than anyone.

Wink says, as I’ve talked about in previous articles, that we often look at injustice and assume we have two options: do nothing or respond in kind. But by acting like that which we consider wrong, we become more like it. Think of Luke Skywalker inStar Wars, who cuts off Darth Vader’s hand, only to find that his own hand has become the very one he struck on his enemy. Wink also proposes that, in doing nothing, we tacitly condone the wrong that we would otherwise call to account.

Fortunately, Wink finds a third way in the life and teaching of Jesus. I’ll not hash out his entire proposal here; for a more thorough discussion of Wink’s third way, click the link to the earlier article above. But I do want to share a story that, though I’ve told it before, is worth sharing again.

I am part of a denomination called the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Yes, the parentheses are actually part of the name. Every two years we have a gathering called the General Assembly, where all Disciples are invited to come together to worship, learn and share stories and a meal. It’s pretty cool to have thousands of Disciples and squashed into one city at the same time. But at times, it also draws some negative attention.

Protesters from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church

Several years back, when we were meeting in Kansas City, Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist folks showed up to protest our denomination because some of our congregations ordain LGBT clergy. The Westboro folks are notorious by now for picketing military funerals and grabbing attention in some of the most unlikely – and generally unpleasant – contexts. They also tend to verbally antagonize folks with the hope (yes, really) that someone will assault one of their members. They, in turn, sue the assailant, which in turn funds their strange little church.

This is a perfect example of the negative consequences of a lack of creative imagination when it comes to responding to injustice. The Westboro folks have actually figured out how to exploit that deficit of creativity for personal gain. It’s abhorrent, but we do always have a choice.

When they showed up to our Assembly in Kansas City, I got a little taste of their strategy first hand. As I waited to cross the street, one of the protesters started calling me names and getting up in my face, though very careful not to actually touch me. Wary of my short fuse, Amy quickly grabbed my arm and took me in a different direction. But I could see the immediate appeal of laying one of them out on their ass.

But leave it to our younger folks to show us all a “third way.” they gathered a couple dozen youth across the street from the hollering picketers and began to sing to them. They didn’t make fun of them, or call them any names. They didn’t even address them directly. They just sang some of their camp songs and then left.

Their response inspired me, as evidenced by the fact that I’m telling the story some ten years later. It was a small, simple gesture at the time, but it’s funny how simple, Christlike responses can have unexpected, amazing and lasting effects.

Don’t believe me? Go back and read the stories about this guy named Jesus and his handful of followers who wandered around by foot, helping people, telling stories and living out this strangely unnatural “third way.”

Fast forward two thousand years, and I’d say that relatively simple ministry made a difference. And per Jesus’ explicit instruction, not a stone was cast in the process.

It is possible; we just have to have the willingness and capacity to imagine it.

Piatt/Mars Hill

--Nick

C. Michael Patton, "Why Arminianism Doesn't Sell"

I thought this was quite interesting. 

I made an observation recently that may be completely off base, or it may just betray the reality of the tight Evangelical circles in which I travel most of the time. Either way, here it is:

Calvinists have a corner on theologically-themed conferences. Arminians have apologetically-themed conferences. Leadership conferences don’t do theology.

Is this true? It seems true from my standpoint. Think about the major conferences out therethat are theological in nature: Desiring God, Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and Ligonier Ministries. All of them fill churches and arenas with thousands of people. Passion fills the air as speakers talk about theological issues in the church. John Piper, Don Carson, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, Tim Keller, and the like are invited to speak. Diversity runs deep in these theology conferences. Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologians, paedobaptists and credo baptists, charismatics and non-charismatics, and premillenialists and amillenialists are all represented. However, it is hard to find an Arminian invited to (much less putting together) such engagements. Why? I don’t know, but I suspect that it is because Arminianism, as a theological distinctive, just does not preach. Don’t get me wrong. I did not say that Arminians can’t preach. They most certainly can. And I did not say that Arminianism is not true (This is not the question on the table). It is simply that the distinctives of Arminianism do not sell in such settings. Evangelicals love to hear about the sovereignty of God, the glory of God in suffering, the security of God’s grace, the providence of God over missions, and yes, even the utter depravity of man. This stuff preaches. This stuff sells tickets.

For the Arminian to put together a distinctive conference, things would be a bit less provocative. Things like “The Responsibility of Man in Suffering,” “Man’s Role in Salvation,” or “The Insecurity of Salvation” won’t preach too well. Think about how hard it is for a Calvinist to try to plug in a token Arminian at a general theology conference. On what subject do you let them speak? “Roger Olson, I would like you to come to our conference and speak on . . . (papers ruffling) . . . ummm . . . (papers ruffling more) . . . Do you do anything in apologetics (except suffering)?”

Of course, there was the John 3:16 conference, which was Arminian. But that was not a general theology conference. It was a specific conference which amounted to a polemic against Calvinism. During the conference, the speakers simply countered all five points of Calvinism. This is symptomatic of so much of the Arminian distinctives with regard to their message. Much of the time Arminianism is simply seen as “Against Calvinism,” whereas Calvinism is more affirmatively focused on the sovereignty of God. Even the latest books published on the subject betray such a reality: For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger Olson. I think one can find this same general approach in the theological blogosphere. Calvinists have something they are for, while Arminians are always on the defensive, fighting what they are against. Finally, as far as I know, the John 3:16 conference only happened once (in 2008). That it, or anything like it, has not been renewed or rebooted may serve to prove my observation.

Now, apologetics seems to be a different story. Not only to do you have Arminians filling the pulpit when it comes to defending the faith, they seem to dominate. William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Norman Geisler, and Gary Habermas are all on the roster. It is “Team Biola.” This is not to say that Calvinists don’t do apologetics. However, they normally do so in a less “evidentialist” style that just won’t teach. Have you ever tried to teach people to defend the faith using presuppositional and transcendental arguments? Enough said. The simple observation I am making is that apologetics is heavily dominated by Arminians today. However, I don’t think there is anything distinctive about Arminianism which would make them more equipped to hold apologetics conferences. Perhaps, the focus on the free will of man makes the whole apologetics enterprise more necessary and effective in Arminianism. Theoretically, Calvinists, because of their compatibleness (holding the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man in tension), could teach evidentiary apologetics just as truly as an Arminian. ”Did Christ Rise from the Grave?”, “Who is Jesus?”, “Is God a Moral Monster?”, or “Responding to the New Atheists” are all topics on which Calvinists and Arminians could teach together without sacrificing their theological integrity. There may be some distinction with a topic such as “If God is Real, Why is There Evil?” But that is the only apologetic issue which I think could be an exception in this group of topics.

Leadership conferences, on the other hand, are normally very diverse. Why? In all probability, they are not very theological in nature. Stirring passion about finishing strong, leading by serving, and preparing a sermon does not require any theological commitment one way or another. However, if the leadership conference turns on men’s issues or women’s issues, the complementarian/egalitarian elephant enters the room. And, generally speaking, most complementarians are Calvinist and most egalitarians are Arminian.

That said, these observations are not timeless. They are what I see today. I think they represent the chicken or the egg question (I don’t know which comes first) to the resurgence of Calvinism in the pews today. My hypothesis is that Calvinism preaches better than Arminianism. In a confused world of suffering and pain, we want to know that God has it under control, not man. Calvinism instigates more of a dramatic change in theology than does Arminianism. We are more naturally inclined toward the Arminian idea of free will and God’s sovereignty. People normally don’t “become” Arminians. But nearly all Calvinists can tell of a passionate “conversion” experience as to how Calvinism dramatically changed their way of thinking about God. This creates incredible passion. Therefore, we invite Calvinists only to these theology conferences (even when the organization, itself, claims to be more broadly Evangelical). And people leave with a full heart. On the other hand, when we want to fight against the New Atheists, we do not need to discriminate against the finer points of theology too much. Therefore, we invite either Arminian or Calvinist apologists.

C. Michael Patton

--Nick

TCM, "Would You Only Marry a Virgin? Living Ubuntu"

As usual, my good friend Calvin has a lot to say. To read this would be enriching and challenging for you. Read it.

Confronting The Elephant in the Bedroom of Christianity

I began this article by talking about my friend who faces the dilemma of a Christian culture that holds virginity as one of its highest ideals. The more stories I hear like hers—the more narratives of brokenness and familial shaming I’m told—the more my heart breaks for the individual and for our community of faith.

Anomaly or not, I feel as if a lot of well-meaning Christian men and women hold to a view of human sexuality and purity that is in no way redemptive. Again, culture shapes this more than Scripture. We carry around these attitudes of what we will and won’t accept in a relationship. Some people advocate dating. Some advocate courtship. Some advocate a near Puritanical approach to sex and dating. Some advocate a mutual and responsible exploration of “the other.” Intimately bound up in most approaches taught in the church, even some of the ones I agree with the most, is a sense of individualism and a “What’s in it for me?” attitude. Many single men and women walk around with lists. Topping the list is generally a desire for someone who is pure. Or at least someone who hasn’t gone “all the way.”[1] Some of them hop oneHarmony so some nebulous algorithm can help them make sense of what it is they want. We pay lip service to the idea that God is involved in the mix. But, he’s not really. Of course, we get appropriately indignant when our sincere relationship with God is questioned at this juncture. Not, too indignant, though. We don’t want to appear too esoteric or worse…Pentecostal.

We worship virginity. We bow to it. We raise it up as our standard. We hold it as the Church’s highest ideal. But, it can only be the Church’s highest ideal when firmly attached to an individualistic view of the faith. However, if we hold to a more communal understanding of the faith and take Scripture into account, we begin to get a view of the connections we miss when we’re too close to the tree to see the forest we’re in.

The “I only want a virgin” mantra is to miss the point of the Cross.

Some may scoff at this. Why can’t someone choose who they want and what they’re looking for in that person? After all, if they are to live with this person “until death do we part,” then doesn’t it make sense to live with someone who makes you comfortable? If marrying a non-virgin makes someone uncomfortable, well, they shouldn’t have to live with that. What is more, if one person keeps themselves pure—with maybe a little base-running in there, but getting thrown out at home plate—why shouldn’t they expect the same from a life partner? God calls us to purity and what’s better than two pure people marrying each other and beautifully displaying Christ’s love for the Church?

Far be it from me to throw a wrench in the works, but what if two people with individualistic ideas about life, faith, and love marrying one another doesn’t reflect God like they think it does? What if virginity isn’tsupposed to sit at the top of one’s list of criteria to look for in a mate?

I’m sure some of you are livid at this point. But, I just don’t see virginity at the center of the Gospel. I like Rebecca St. James just as much as the next person, but maybe a generation of “Wait For Me” men and women are tacitly being taught something that isn’t true.

Hosea and Living Ubuntu

Consider the story of Hosea. For all the claims we make of God “guiding our relationships,” when I look at Scripture I have a hard time thinking I’d want him pulling the strings. The more and more I thumb through its pages; the less our declarations seem authentic. When I see God involved in people’s relationships [in the Bible], I see him doing all sorts of things that most of us would never do. Like telling someone to “take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom…” Not only is Hosea told to marry a non-virgin, but a woman he knows ahead of time is going to cheat on him and who is going to bear to him hellspawn. You never hear that story in churches. When they cart the example couple out in front of the youth group with their story of “We waited and we couldn’t be happier…”, I think that maybe we are being disingenuous about the stories the Word of God gives us and only serves to reinforce a negative view of people who have chosen to do otherwise.

The Cross, however, is about more than staying virgins until marriage. I’d even venture that the Cross of Christ isn’t even about your virginity. The Cross—the old rugged cross—is about redemption. And without redemption we are unable to see the world as God sees the world—broken and desperately in need of hope. Hope that gives us new eyes and abolishes a personal faith in favor of a communal faith.

Might I suggest that to enter any relationship with virginity as the highest ideal is to reveal that one is not ready for a relationship at all? It reveals within the individual a spirit of unforgiveness and an “unknowing” of what it means to be human.

In his treatise on forgiveness, Bishop Desmond Tutu speaks of the African Weltsanschauung known asubuntu:

It is to say, “My humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.” We belong in a bundle of life. We say, “A person is a person through other persons.” It is not, “I think therefore I am.” It says rather: “I am human because I belong. I participate. I share.” A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed, or treated as if they were less than who they are.[2]

What does any of that have to do with virginity? Everything.

The story of Hosea is a story of ubuntu. The story of the Cross is a story of ubuntu. And with a new set of eyes, men and women who remain chaste are able to see men and women who do not remain chaste through redeemed eyes. They are able to adopt a more redemptive posture in regards to the mate they chose—choosing not to see what was, but rather what could be…together. They are now able to walk inubuntu, seeing themselves in the other and not diminishing their worth because their choices were different.

Would YOU only marry a virgin? Take our reader poll. 

Conclusion

If you’re still reading this, let me close with stating what I am not saying and reiterating what I amsaying.[3]

First, I am not advocating that virginity is some hopeless, pie-in-the-sky pipedream. I am not saying, “Well, since the statistics are stacked against you, you might as well go out there and do it and do it often. Wrap it up tight.” God has called us to a particular standard of living. While there is room for disagreement on how that standard is walked out in this life, there is a standard nonetheless.

Second, I am not advocating that young marriage is the ideal for everyone. Just as with anything, if taken to the extreme, a solution that works for some might be detrimental if practiced by all.

Now, let me reiterate my main points, so that there is no confusion. As Obama says, “Let me be clear.”

First, I am advocating young marriage for those who feel called to it and for those who cannot control their passion. The two need not be synonymous nor mutually exclusive. Scripture teaches that this is not a sin. If you feel led to do so, you are free to do so.

Second, I want to stress the fact that statistically, the longer one puts off marriage, the higher one’s chances climb of having sex before marriage. This isn’t an excuse. It is not an attempt to pardon people from any type of moral standard impressed upon us by Scripture. I am simply stating a statistical fact. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Third, Christians are called to a standard not just of physical purity, but also of purity of heart. To anubuntu heart. It is from this wellspring that a redemptive posture is made possible to us and available to others. It is through this purity of heart, available only by the renewing of one’s mind, that we are able to see and worship God correctly and see and love our neighbor as ourselves—even a neighbor we are considering dating.[4]

---

[1] Interestingly, I have talked with people who are in Christian relationships and have myself participated in enough Christian relationships of my own to have discovered that many young men and women rather enjoy “first, second, and third base.” So long as the penis does not penetrate the vagina, many young Christian men and women enjoy as much of each other outside of marriage as they possibly can.

[2] Desmond Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness (New York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 31.

[3] This is a creative means of saying that if you comment on this article and say something that I am not saying when I have clearly and emphatically stated exactly what I am and am not saying, I will call you out on it. However, if you have read my words and choose to agree or disagree with my point, feel free to dialogue with me on this. I don’t claim to have it all figured out. If you do, please enlighten me.

[4] Is has been pointed out to me that I have taken the long way around in regards to getting to the issue of redemption and I might have treated it as more of an afterthought than as the main point. This was done intentionally as I am currently writing another series on the matter of direct forgiveness and redemption based upon a few films and the worlds of Bishop Desmond Tutu and Christian scholar Miroslav Volf.

TCM/Ubuntu

--Nick