Point B in Mind

This is the third installment of the ongoing "Personal Theology Outline" series. The second installment can be found here. The fourth installment can be found here.

An Explanation of the Front Matter

In my first two posts, I discussed key events in my life that changed how I view the world and laid a foundation for how I work to improve my theological and philosophical framework. Now, after reading those posts, you may be left with a sense of "This man is long-winded and semi-articulate at best." I would say that it is likely that this is a valid assessment of the issue. Thus, I feel compelled to explain my intentions for this blog and why I have taken the time to lay forth this groundwork as I have.

Writings Open to All

First, I want this blog to be general enough that anyone (even those who do not know me personally) can read it and understand my perspective. My paradigm will play into every issue I go to discuss from this point on. So, I feel compelled to portray it plainly.

Part of that urge to "lay it out" comes from my role as a mathematics instructor. In teaching mathematics, if the material is going to be understood then the foundation must be clear. When I teach, I often do so with the end in mind--with "what do I ultimately want them to learn" ever present in my approach.

The Destination

Thus, these first writings are done in a way to start at the "Point A" of how I see things and end with the "Point B" of the issues that keep my wheels turning. So, in closing, let me close by outlining where I hope to go with this blog. Eventually, I would like to get to the questions of

• What is a proper perspective of God?
• What does the love of God look like?
• How does nonviolence fit into Christian theology?
• What is a proper view of divine providence?
• What is a proper view of suffering?
• What is the role of a Christian with regards to political structures?
• How do we deal with violence in the Old Testament?

These are just a few of the issues that I am stirring over right now. Obviously, as time goes on more issues will warrant my attention (as concluded in my second post). But, these issues are "Point B" for now.

My Ever-Shifting Paradigm, Part 2

This is the second installment of the ongoing "Personal Theology Outline" series. The first installment can be found here. The third can be found here.

Establishing the Worldview

In my last post, I outlined how some general elements of my upbringing and several key life-events brought me to a place of what some might call "intrafaith skepticism." Yet, how is this sense of skepticism pacified? How is it alleviated? How do questions and answers work together? There are three main components of my approach to synthesizing my world.

The Book that God Built

Because my paradigm is a Christian one, the Christian Canon is my foundation for everything. But, when someone proclaims that "the Bible is my foundation," how does that play out? I, for one, have been across the spectrum when it comes to this question. 

Growing up, I adhered to a strict "literal" interpretation of the Bible. Whatever the words on the page said was what God meant. In some senses, this was well and good. That approach stems from a desire not to twist the Bible to mean anything other than what it says. And there are passages where that approach can work. But, there is one big problem with this--the fact that I, as a twenty first century American, have cultural views that are vastly different than those of a first century Jew or Greek. Thus, whenever I would read the Bible according to my definition of "literal," I would read into the text my cultural presuppositions. Unwittingly, I would reshape Jesus into my image. Now, He did not look just like me; He still had many things to correct me on and places to push me towards. But, the fact remained that He looked more like a twentieth century American than a first century Jew.

After some time, I realized the fallacy of reading the Bible outside its original context. Some might say that my first step into the wider world of Biblical criticism was obtaining a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. This tool allowed me to examine the lingual context of the Bible. I could look up the Greek and Hebrew equivalents of various words found in the Bible. This enhanced my knowledge of the text in that it became more than just one dimensional to me (albeit only two dimensional at the time) in that I now saw that the just one translation of the text really did not do it justice.

But, just owning a Strong's Concordance does not a make one a Bible scholar. I soon realized that, if I wanted to really understand what the Bible said, I need to understand the context in which each portion was written. Thus, I happened upon socio-rhetorical commentaries of various books of the Bible. These commentaries serve to paint the backdrop of the original culture. As a result, the original meaning can be interpreted through context.

Now, is this a set in stone interpretation? Not necessarily. Biblical studies are always progressing. Today, we are closer to a true reading of the Bible than we have been in millennia. Yet, this is not a static field. For example, the "New Perspective on Paul" is a relatively new movement in biblical interpretation (circa 1977). What will be the lasting effects of this movement? Will it become a interpretive norm? How will it influence future biblical scholars? Only time can answer these questions. But, biblical studies will never be the same because of this view (they will either be strengthen by explaining it away or strengthened by embracing it).

By the same measure, "new" scholarship is not the only scholarship that I find interesting. There is also a need for our modern theology to be consistent with that of the Early Church. Thus, readings of the writings of the Early Church Fathers provide wonderful insight into what the writers of the New Testament meant in their writings. Meanwhile, we also find that the Early Church Fathers were limited in their insights into certain matters in the Church. There is a balance of trust and skepticism that must be obtained with reading their works.

How does highly dynamic field of biblical scholarship affect me? The truth is that I must constantly be seeking the best scholarship in my interpretation of the Bible with regard for the fact that fresh and better scholarship is always emerging. That is the only way that I can get out of the way of the text and let it speak to and change me.

A Seemingly Inconvenient Confession

A second element of my paradigm is something that some may find laughable. It is this: experience. Whatever view of God I uphold must be consistent with the good God that I have experienced in Jesus. Obviously, my portrayal of Jesus must be consistent with that of Scripture. But, I find that the view of God I have in theory must match what I have encountered of God in practice.

Many criticize experience as largely invalid. Yet, I find that few can hold to an idea that does not correspond or correlate to what their experience dictates in some way. For example, what is science? Is it not but an organized effort to describe the structure of the physical universe? Is it not just an effort to create a general description of our experiences? I would hold that theology could be described as the "science of God." Think about it: in theological study, we attempt to verify that our personal experiences correspond properly with reality as a whole. We are attempting to describe the link between experience and principle.

Furthermore, in the study of apologetics, we find that experience contributes to one of the three categories of apologetical issues (the others being presuppositional and evidential). While it is technically the more "irrational" of the categories, it does contribute to our worldview.

Having defended experience as a contributor to one's theology and worldview, I must at this point acknowledge its limits. While experience can be a filter for the peripherals of theology, if experience is ever found to be in conflict with Scripture, Scripture must take precedence. Yet, a theology devoid of experience is spiritually bankrupt. Where is the balance? Ultimately, it is indeed a tightrope. Experience often defines us. But, experiences can be misinterpreted. In the end, we have to give credence to experience without letting it pull us away from what is true Christianity.

A Homogeneous Blend

The final filter applied to my paradigm is a combination of intellectual integrity and logical consistency. That is to say, every element of my worldview must be free of contradictions and must flow together with perfect congruity. There must be smoothness and continuity. If I happen upon an element of my theological/philosophical model that is inconsistent with the whole, it must immediately be put to scrutiny. Many times, it is the one item that requires reshaping. Other times, it is a number of ideas surrounding the one that need revision. I hold to this approach because I believe that there is nothing contradictory in God and, thus, what I discover about Him must be consistent as well.

This tenet of my outlook also serves to strengthen my entire theological set. Because of this standard of intellectual integrity, I constantly seek to strengthen my worldview to the point where it can withstand the same criticisms that I may level against other views. This pushes me to better understand those things to which I adhere.

This filter also affects how I process exposure to new philosophies. I find myself searching to see if this new way of thinking would properly conform to my present theological/philosophical set or if it should replace some pre-existing element. Thus, my paradigm is always shifting, always adjusting to new ideas and circumstances.

Conclusions

This is my paradigm, built around the Bible, experiencing God, and the belief that everything I hold to must be consistent with itself. This kind of worldview can be challenging as it does not allow for a static approach to theology and philosophy. It calls for constant progress, constant assessment. Ultimately, the goal is a faith that is clear-eyed and consistent. And, hopefully, I am on my way.

My Ever-Shifting Paradigm, Part 1

This is the first installment of the ongoing "Personal Theology Outline" series. The second installment can be found here.

Where Have I Been and Where Am I Going?

I have been giving a lot of thought lately to how I approach life, philosophy, and theology. There may seem to be a little overlap here but, for me, it comes down to the following little questions: How do I handle moment to moment issues? What are the "big picture" issues that correspond to how I live life in the moment? How do I approach the Bible and how does that influence my perception of "big picture" issues? When I consider my life to this point, it feels as if there have been several key moments and circumstances that have influenced my spiritual growth and my perception of the answers to these questions. Therefore, in order to explain my stance and my paradigm, I feel that I must share my journey of faith.

Beginnings

I grew up in an independent, Charismatic/"Full Gospel" church. Because I grew up through the 90s, I did not see the same extremity of the Charismatic movement that my parents and grandparents experienced in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. They experienced the good and the bad of the Charismatic movement in those years (which is another story unto itself). So, by the time we started attending my home church when I was three years old, we had come by a form of the movement that was a little more stable. This church had (and still has) a pastor filled with integrity who preached the gospel with directness. My parents were (and still are) dedicated churchgoers; I probably missed Sunday School and Church at most four times a year.

Now, this may sound young to many readers but I accepted the salvation and lordship of Christ at the age of four. Obviously, there were many things that I did not understand about the faith when I first undertook it. But, this is a common issue to many who come into Christianity--even those who come to Jesus at the age of eighty.

During these formative years of my childhood, I grew in my knowledge of the Bible and the story of God's people. I learned and memorized scripture. I learned countless story after story from the Bible. I had kind, loving Bible teachers who found joy in sharing Scripture with young people. I was surrounded by people who really cared about the Bible and applying it to everyday life.

When I was 12, I had a very real experience with God while at a church camp (or conference) in Oklahoma. I experienced the goodness of God in a very tangible way. I encountered what Tozer would describe as the manifest presence of God. Part of this experience was steeped in Charismatic doctrine that some find questionable. In recent years, I have questioned my experience but, in the end, I cannot deny that I met God in a special way that one Thursday night in July in a church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Some may speculate that, because I had an early start to the faith and I was surrounded by Christians that were both passionate and authentic, my journey of faith must have been without many of the troublesome elements that others encounter. Sadly, this was not the case. As often happens with "young" or new Christians, I became increasingly self-righteous and judgmental. I held onto my self-contrived doctrine of "my opinions are the truth." I did not discuss the Bible with people; I lectured them on it. I loved God but my love for people was not fully developed.

The Crisis of Identity and the Changes that Result

In 2005, I graduated high school and started attending Murray State University. Like most college freshmen who first encounter a large degree of independence, there was a moment where I realized that I could reshape my identity completely. Through middle and high school, I was involved in my church's youth group and various other Christian groups. Some of my friends dubbed me "Brother Joel" because of my roles in these various ministries. But, during my first week of college, I toyed with the idea of abandoning all of that for the pleasures college presented. Thankfully, I could not find it in me to follow through with that idea. Thus, I averted this crisis of identity.

Meanwhile, there was a storm brewing within me. The series of questions that would constitute my true crisis of identity had commenced long before my high school graduation. You see, there were many aspects of my Charismatic upbringing that left me with gaping vulnerabilities in my faith. These things were not issues for my parents or my grandparents because they were first generation Charismatics. They had come out of other religious backgrounds and thus found the Charismatic movement to fill in some of the gaps that their former Christian traditions had been missing. Meanwhile, I developed these issues because I only knew the Charismatic tradition.

The first question that I struggled with was that of orthodoxy. I feel as though most Christian traditions do not struggle with this issue to the extent that I did. They are long established and have a history of orthodoxy. They have denominational structures that ensure orthodox beliefs. To some extent, they have their own branding. If you go into a new town, you expect that the Methodist church you enter with be a typical Methodist church, that they will favor Wesley over Calvin and things like that. But, with an independent church, you do not necessarily know what you will be getting when you go through the doors. You have to wonder, "Will this be a snake-handling church? Will they roll on the floor and swing from the chandeliers? Do they believe in the Trinity?"

The honest issue that I ran into was that I had no way of being sure that my church held to orthodox teachings. This was in no way the fault of my church. It was just a matter of comparison--I had nothing with which to compare my church. I was never really part of another church. I did not have the tools or skills needed to easily assess the orthodoxy of my church.

The second question that arose in me was that of the "Church Universal." As part of our Charismatic doctrine, we advocated the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues as a second work of grace in the believer. For me, this doctrine created a sense of "us versus them" between Christian traditions that descended from the Azusa Street Revival and those that did not. I thought that we had a monopoly on the Holy Spirit and that everyone else was just missing out. But, in the end, this creation of a subclass of Christians disturbed me. In my small hometown, this paradigm worked--I did not encounter a lot of authentic Christians around town. The ones I knew, for the most part, went to my church. Yet, when I went to college, I began to encounter a multitude of authentic Christians who broke this mold.

Thus, I set out to discover orthodoxy and repair my damaged paradigm. Part of the repair came about through joining a college ministry that seemed to be the antithesis of what I was raised in. This ministry had worship with one guy and a guitar instead of a full band and had a minister with a clean shaved head, a goatee, and a doctorate. It was here that I discovered more about the Church Universal. We discussed what other believers believed and where those beliefs originated. We discussed Church History and where we fit into the story. The most beautiful thing was that, for the most part, this ministry was big enough to handle diversity on the peripherals--the things that did not affect the core dogmas of the Church. Yet, by the same measure, we did not shy away from discussing what heresy was. Thus, it was here that I learned what orthodoxy looked like and how the Church as a whole fit together.

While I was learning what was orthodox and what doctrines had been historically held by the Church in different segments, I began to realize that just because a doctrine has been historically held does not dictate that it is indeed the truth. You see, it was during this time that I encountered two Johns--Piper and Calvin. In the spring of my freshman year, I attended a Passion conference. It was there that I heard John Piper speak for the first time. There were countless people in the crowd that were enthralled by his message. Yet, I was appalled. I found that his treatment of human suffering lacked the compassion found in the face of Jesus. He merely painted suffering as the glory of God--as if God did not care about our suffering because it makes Him look good. At one point, a man sitting several rows away from me stood up and yelled, "You're crazy, Piper!" and walked out. Though I remained in my seat, I thought to myself, "I'm completely with you, buddy."

Around the same time, I was exposed to five-point Calvinism (to which Piper ascribes himself). From the start, I had a very visceral reaction to the philosophy. It did not seem consistent with a God that would send His own Son to die on the behalf of broken humanity. It was at this point that I realized that whatever image of God I would come to embrace (i.e. what view of God's providence I would adhere to) would have to be consistent with the God I encountered when I was 12 and the loving Jesus that I encountered in the pages of the Bible.

The Here and Now

Thus, we come to today. Between the start of my college career and today, I have been exposed to much more of the Church and writings from famous theologians. I could discuss how my brief friendship with a youth leader at camp that resulted in my exposure to N.T. Wright or how The Case for Christ introduced me to Bruce Metzger, Greg Boyd, Ben Witherington III, and William Lane Craig. And, through it all, I have learned a lot. I now realize that I am far from having the final, right opinion on everything. But, I have also come to realize that that does not matter as long as I keep Jesus first and I can echo those core tenants set for by the Church Fathers at Nicaea:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. 
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

So, where does that leave me today? Truth be told, I find myself today in much of the same kind of situation in which I found myself when I first reached college. I find that I am searching to find the truth on a lot of issues pertaining to my faith. But, I now do so with the understanding that it is not about believing the right things but instead about having the right relationship with the Triune God.