Theology

Experience

/ scblair / 1 Comment

“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” Jer 31:33

It’s relatively easy to accumulate knowledge if you put your mind to it.  I went through a spell of having 5 or 6 college courses on CD in my car at any time, on topics from Greek philosophy to “great Christians of the world”.  I called it Buick University, home of the fighting Taupes.

But I realized that most of this seeking after more and more knowledge was less helpful than I thought.  I knew much more than I did, for sure.  And that knowledge influences me in lots of ways.  However I started to see it as my own attempt not just to “better myself”, but to prove myself to myself.

I think my tradition (Calvinism) pushes this head knowlege a lot.  There is so much focus on doctrine, on saying the right thing and doing the right thing.  I remember hearing about arguments behind the scenes at church concerning the music not being as doctrinally sound as it should be!  And more arguments today about modern praise music being too “easy” or doctrinal.  Surprising, seeing that a lot of praise music is lifted literally from scripture.

I’m trying to move less into my head and into my heart.  I can know a lot, but if I don’t know God all that other knowlege just puffs me up or, even worse, distracts me from Him.  It’s easier to know Calvin or Merton or – gasp – Pau and Moses l than it is to experience God.

Awareness

/ scblair / Leave a comment

I see more and more that simply being aware of something isn’t enough.

CPE is a lot about finding your weaknesses as as well as your strengths.  I think most people find that it’s about their weaknesses and “issues”.  But CPE is just as much about uncovering your strengths.  For me it’s been an experience of uncovering both and accepting both.  However, simply being aware of something is not enough.

Awareness of an issue involves acceptance of it, but that only gets you so far.  That’s the starting point, not the end.  You then need to decide what you are going to do with your issue.  Realize that any particular issue has two sides to it – not just all bad or all good.  Then look at how you are going to use this issue in a positive way while trying to limit the negatives.

For example, I tend to be extremely hard on myself at times.  The upside of this is that I tend to work hard and set high standards for myself.  The downside is that I can set the bar too high and then beat myself up for not clearing it.  Awareness is being able to say that I’m hard on myself, but the problem is that I’m still overly hard on myself.  I can stop there and learn to live with myself, or I can change the downside of it.  Thankfully this is what I’ve been doing, and I’m so much the better for it!

I know someone who has gone through four units of CPE, which is pretty advanced.  She’ll talk about her issues as if she has mastery of them.  Yet these issues still continue, and there doesn’t seem to be any movement to do anything with them or change them.  Any change involves a loss, and a fear of what that loss will cost.  And when that loss is part of what we sense to be our selves, that change can be very intimidating.  Better to live with the devil you know than the devil you don’t, especially when you’ve been living with that devil for 40-some years.

Sin works in the same way.  To simply be aware of sin is one thing, to turn from it is another.  And God calls us ultimately to turn from sin, not just be aware that we are a sinner.  We fall into the same traps however.  We fear change, we beat ourselves up for failing to turn from sin, or we feel that change is impossible so why bother.

Change does not need to be complete right out of the gate. Turning from sin – or our issues – is a lifetime event.  It is done, and constantly being done.

Theology in Practice

/ scblair / 1 Comment

The Other:

Jesus’ ministry often involved interacting with those who were ill, dying, and marginalized by society.   These were the people that Jesus favored though, calling them “blessed”.  I feel that in the same way, the dying today are marginalized, dehumanized, and feared by our culture.  However, Jesus still favors these over the mighty and powerful.  Caring for the dying not only mirrors Christ’s ministry, but fulfills his call to “mourn with those who mourn” and to care for “the least of these”.

Those who are terminally ill and dying remain creations of God, and still maintain His image.  They therefore have dignity, value and honor that are not destroyed by their illness, and deserve to be treated accordingly.  Not only do the ill maintain their value as part of creation, but are also a means by which God reveals himself.

The ill and dying approach God just as they are.  Yet they may mask themselves because of their illness.  Disease can carry feelings of fear, anger and loss among others, all of which may be hidden by shame.    Jesus’ reaction was not to shame the dying, but to approach them in that shame and take its power away through touch, association and healing.

My Self:

As a chaplain, I function as a witness of Jesus and an agent of grace with those I encounter.  Just as in some traditions the sacraments are a means of transmitting and transferring God’s grace, my presence can be sacramental as well.  I believe that a major part of being a chaplain with the dying is in the role of shepherd.  While a shepherd protects the sheep, this is only part of the role.  Shepherds also provide safe environments where the sheep can flourish.  Shepherds also do not try to change the sheep into something other than they are.  Being a sheep is not a problem, so trying to fix the “sheepiness” of another will not only frustrate the shepherd but devalues the sheep.

I also approach my position as a servant, as Jesus came as a servant to all, and led through that service.

As the ill approach God just as they are, I approach God just as I am as well.  I bring my own gifts, stories, fears and sin to the encounter.  Shame causes me to want to hide as well, but recognizing this can allow me to empathize with them as a fellow sufferer.  God chooses to use people within history and within their own history for His work, and these particularities are significant to each encounter I have.

Finally, working with the ill and dying is a way that I encounter the living Christ in the world, for in caring for “the least of these” I care for the suffering and dying Christ.

The relationship:

The relationship is not merely a one-on-one relationship, for God is present and active in every relationship as well.  The other is, as a teacher of mine stated, just as much in God’s hands as I am.  I can hold loosely to my own agendas and be more at peace when I recognize this.

On Textual Criticism

/ scblair / Leave a comment

During a brief lull in my day I peroused the news wires and found an op-ed piece by Bart Ehrman on the Huffington Post concerning biblical authorship.

Ehrman follows the academic tradition of viewing the biblical texts through the lens of textual and historical criticism.  That is to say, he doesn’t take anything the bible says at face value.  While I studied biblical criticism in seminary, I can’t say that I understand it completely.  However what I can say is that even what I do understand doens’t make sense all the time, at least to my logic and reasoning.

Textual criticism holds that most of the bible is at best a “pious fraud” or at worst, according to Ehrman, outright lies.  In his article Ehrman focuses in on the idea that only “the most rabid fundamentalists among us” still regard the bible as literally true and free from error, and goes on to say that significant parts of the scriptures are outright fabrications.  He focuses in on the latter half of the NT primarily, namely 1 & 2 Peter, and Paul’s letters.

Without going in to much detail as to why these letters are regarded as inauthentic (Ehrman doesn’t either), here’s the thinking: if you compare letters to each other there should be more similarities than differences.  Some letters are pretty certain to have come from Paul, others not so much.  So if we compare those that we aren’t sure about to those that we are sure about, they should be similar in style and composition.  If not, one is probably inauthentic.  Note that this is a very cheap-and-dirty version of the hypothesis here.  Letters like 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are probably not Pauline because they are so different from his other letters in form, thought, and theology so he couldn’t have written them.

However, here’s my own thinking on the matter.

Take a paper that I wrote in the beginning of my Systematic Theology class and compare it to one that I wrote (or maybe I did) at the end.  Will they be similar?  Yes, but how much so?  Thinking, wordage, form and maybe even structure will all be different.  There may even be inconsistencies from one to another.  Why?  Because I was a different person at point A than I was at point B.  That, I think, is a huge problem with this theory of criticism: it requires that people be consistent over sometimes long periods of time based on a very small sample size.  It seems like a lot to hang on a big assumption, and I don’t find the assumption to be necessarily valid.

Also, if the texts are not authentic, why are details like Paul’s urging Timothy to stay in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3) and to bring him a cloak that he left in Troas (2 Tim 4:13) included?  If I’m writing a pseudonymous letter, I would want to avoid such details as much as possible, because they can easily be refuted (I can see Timothy arriving in Troas – “A cloak? Paul who?”).

Are there problems in scripture?  Sure.  But I, along with the majority of my non-rabid Evangelical friends and comrades would suggest that these problems negate the message.  If Mark wasn’t written by Mark, does that mean it’s a complete lie?

Again, I’m not even trying to make this a complete refutation of textual criticism, Ehrman, or anything else.  This is more just me talking out loud than anything.  Take it at face value.  Who knows – maybe I didn’t even write this!