1 Thessalonians 1:1-3 Part 1: Faith

A Historical Study of the Bible

A Historical Study of the Bible is a study in the order the books were written in.

Intro - The story of Paul's work in Thessalonia is found in Acts 17:1-9. It tells of how Paul came into the city "reasoned" with the people and caused a whole bunch of ruckus. There are some parallels in Acts to 1 Thessalonians worth mentioning. Both make use of the "kyrios" title for Jesus. "Jesus is Lord". This would have been in conflict with the Emperor cult which was universal in Roman lands. We also see in the Acts story a man named Jason, who is never mentioned in 1 Thessalonians who apparently stood up for Paul and housed Christians. 

The Acts passage also says how "God fearing Greeks" became Christian. It was a common practice in the Diaspora for Jews to proselytize Gentiles. Any monothestic Gentile could join the Jews in synagogue and learn from the Torah to be "indoctrinated" these "God fearing Greeks" could later convert to Judaism. It was the perfect ministry ground for Christians evangelists to take advantage of. These Greeks for the most part rejected the paganism of their time and were knowledgeable of Jewish culture and apocalyptic which the Christian message relied upon. 

Thus, we learn from Acts that the Thessalonian church was largely Gentile, but had extensive knowledge of Jewish scripture and custom. They know of Jesus' resurrection (17:3) and because of this even the universal Roman cult to worship Caesar as Lord is replaced and these believers only call Jesus their Lord. And this creates controversy in the culture. 

v1 - The intro picks up almost where the Acts passage leaves off. We see Silas who is included in the Acts pericope, and we see Timothy, who comes into the picture later in this book. What we do not see is the traditional Apostolic confirmation that comes into play in later Pauline letters. All that we see is the simple name "Paul". This is indicative of being a very early letter of Paul and we can see further developments of this address as well. In Galatians which is the next book to study, Paul is an apostle sent by God and Jesus. In 1 Corinthians Paul's apostleship becomes more centered on Christ and the will of God becomes secondary. Romans has perhaps the greatest apostolic accolade where Paul cites his credentials in five eloquent verses.

It is thus, reasonable to conclude that this is a very early letter of Paul, and while it may not be his first letter, it is of near certainty that it is the first letter in the NT that we have record of. 

v2-3 - It is customary in Greek letters to include a "health-wish" after the introduction. "Health" in the Greek mind was not simply a medical concern. It was an overall state of life. It was synonymous with happiness. Paul borrows from this pattern to include in his introduction an address for spiritual health which he sees embodied as faith, hope, and love. Sentiments which get repeated in later Pauline letters.

We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is Paul's first use of his "famous three". Faith, hope, and love are an enduring legacy of Paul and we can see that they were present at the very start. They become of monumental importance when 1 Corinthians is written, but Paul weaves these themes in all his writings. The basic teaching of Paul here is that for spiritual health faith, hope, and love are necessary and primary virtues. Galatians 5:5-6 says,

But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

This is the same formula Paul uses re-applied to the context of the Galatians letter. We already referenced the 1 Cor. passage which is the most widely known. Philippians is a bit more creative in presenting the "famous three". Paul uses the story of his chains and suffering to present an immanent view of faith, hope, and love to show the Philippians believers how these virtues work themselves into the experience of grace and the gospel in ones personal life (1:16, 20, 26). The admonition is for believers to experience this same gospel through faith, hope, and love. At this juncture Paul advances his teaching on the famous three by associating it with the Gospel of God. This development moves us beyond the mere "spiritual health" teaching found in 1 Thessalonians and gives us insight into the importance of these virtues as they relate to the Gospel. And especially in Romans (Paul's magnum opus) do we also find this trinity of Gospel virtues. Romans 5:1-5 says,

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

Clearly, faith, hope, and love are not simple theological ideas in Paul's mind. In 1 Thessalonians they are the virtues of spiritual health, but these virtues develop into the cornerstone of Paul's spiritual life. So the question becomes... what is faith, hope, and love?

Instead of skipping to the obvious answers found in non-Pauline sources. Let's look at what Paul means by these terms so we can get a full and accurate portrayal of Paul's Gospel message. Let's start with faith...

In 1 Thessalonians faith produces work. This is the same word used in Ephesians that says, "not by works" (2:9). This is consistent with Paul's teaching. Paul has never divorced faith from works, as some might think. In reality Paul simply places faith before works, and places faith as sufficient for salvation. Works are the natural outcome of faith. Paul and James are in agreement.

Understanding the relationship between faith and works helps us understand what Paul means by faith. The word he uses for "work" in 1 Thessalonians is "ergon" (2041). This word is not simply "slave labor" but is entrepreneurial. It is effective work, artistic, and industrial. It is the kind of work done with a purpose, like a mission. So for Paul, faith is that element which makes work worthwhile. It is that which gives us purpose, meaning, significance.

1 Thessalonians mentions faith eight times. Romans 35 and Hebrews 31. They are clearly the NT winners, but Galatians is a third of the size of Romans and Hebrews, roughly the same size as 1 Thessalonians and has 20 references to faith. Making it pound for pound the winner of NT faith references. Galatians is the next book Paul wrote after 1 Thessalonians.

For Paul, faith is what justifies us (Gal. 2:16, Phil. 3:9, Rom. 4:5). This is the total requirement of the Gospel. Faith. But what does it mean to have faith? What is faith? How does one know if they have true faith, or false faith? Well, Paul is not a systematic theologian, but there are many clues in his writing to outline what faith meant to Paul.

The first and most important aspect of faith is what we have looked at already. The distinction between faith and works highlights for us the depths of faith. "Work" in the sense that Paul uses it, is not how we might understand "work". Paul's understanding of "work" might better make sense to us if we compare it to the word "production". Work, in the modern mind, is mechanical and empty. It is the mindless operation of our faculties. We work to eat, and we eat to live. Thus, for the modern man work is simply a survival mechanism.

But Paul's use of the word "work" is not meant to convey this idea of mechanical survivalism. Work, or production, is something man does to make something... to create. Man does not work, as in mere operation. He works, as in sublime production. He produces. He creates. He fashions. It is this aspect of man that is both glory and folly, and Paul understands this most of all through the Law.

For the Jew, the Law was not simply a list of commands that had to be obeyed. It was the pattern of reality, and it was the glory of man to participate in this reality and produce this reality for society and culture to live in. Jews did not see obedience to the Law as something mechanical, in that if they did what God wanted then they would get something they wanted as well. They saw the Law as something to be created among men, among the Gentiles, among the world, in Palestine the Law would restore Israel, and in Jerusalem the Law would usher in the Messiah. For the Jews works of the Law created and produced the kind of reality that God desired for all mankind.

It is so important to understand this idea of "work" that Paul uses when he speaks of faith, because it is this idea of "work" that demands faith. Paul is not speaking of two different ideas that are detached from one another. Paul's understanding of work implies an element of faith. Paul is not divorcing work form faith, as many misguided Christians seem to think, which is only a result of their Western industrialized mentality. Paul is a master thinker of the highest caliber and within this idea of "work" is able to establish what is required for Christian faith.

For Paul, work is an existential reality. Man creates himself, and in so doing destroys himself. His creation is his work. The old myths and religions preached that to solve this problem man had to work harder. Paul saw that this system is flawed, and that the solution to man's problem lay not in the work he did, but in what gave that work meaning. What made work worthwhile? Faith became the answer. The reality is that man has no answer to why he strives to exist in the world. Why he struggles so hard for so little. Paul saw that man's work pointed to something greater. It is this ineffable greatness of life that is given the term faith. Faith is the declaration that man's work will always have meaning and significance regardless of the destruction it ushers into the world. For Paul, faith has little to do with propositional beliefs, and more to do with the courage to face meaningless existence and to force your own identity and mark upon the universe.

Be on alert. Stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. - 1 Cor. 16:13

the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. - Gal. 2:20

For Paul faith is the answer to meaningful and purposeful work. But faith is also a mystery. Just as Paul demonstrates faith in the duality between work and meaning so he too demonstrates faith in the duality between wisdom and mystery. In the ancient world man was confronted with many harsh realities that trampled on the spirit of man. First, he had to work long hours as slaves. Work, work, work. Not only did man have to work hard and for long hours, but it seemed to be unending. Every year man had to work the same land, deal with the same weeds, and fight the same predators. What was the point to it all? Religion in the ancient world offered man a great release. It gave sense and meaning to the repetition of life. Ritual and Liturgy gave these repetitive elements symbolic characteristics that gave man the opportunity to participate in the divine. This spoke to the common ailment believed to exist in man. Today, we relate to it as anxiety, or angst, but in the ancient world it was work... toil.... labor. Man realized that work was inevitable, inescapable, and unavoidable. But this is not bad. Work, just like the endless repetition of seasons and storms, is an activity that takes part in the plan of God. Work was meaningful, but its meaning had to be grasped outside the realm of the work itself. 

This same problem existed for wisdom. Wisdom in the ancient world was practical wisdom, but it was not pragmatic, in the sense that its aim was directly toward mere immediate or utilitarian concerns. Practical wisdom was directed toward the happiness and health of man. But the problem that existed with wisdom is that it also amounted to sophism and endless philosophies of empty chatter. Wisdom gave man the tools to live a good life, and even a life that pleased God, but it appeared no different than all the false philosophies of profit and selfish gain. Practical wisdom gave into doubt, just as productive work gave into bondage. Faith redeems work through meaning, and it redeems wisdom through mystery.

holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. - 1 Timothy 3:9

my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature ; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away ; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory. - 1 Cor. 2:4-7

What is mystery? It is the power of God. Mystery in relation to wisdom is the secret knowledge that grounds practical wisdom so that it will not collapse into sophism. The mystery is what makes knowledge something more then mere human conjecture. It makes it possible to live in a world of doubt, just like meaning makes it possible to live in a world of bondage. For Paul this is what faith means. Faith is that courage which refuses to accept the world in which we live and to make this life something holy, something glorious... "to our glory". 

So many try to equate faith with belief in the Christian community. And this is not necessarily bad. But in the most basic NT sense, faith is that sense of courage which seeks to live a glorious life. Without this most basic elemental sense of faith the beliefs which become attributed to it will be empty, shallow, and self-destructive. Paul had a specific vision of faith when he wrote 1 Thessalonians and now that we have studied his writings and seen the central images and dualities he primarily used with faith/works and mystery/wisdom we can see how for us today we can relate to our own faith. Now I am not reducing faith to courage, or denying that propositional beliefs are necessary for salvation. What I am saying is that faith must be primarily described as courage before any propositional content can be attributed to it. It is this attribution that I believe is most important for believers to understand, because it is the key to a victorious faith, a faith that can conquer both doubt and meaninglessness.

Musings from Enoch - Book I

Well, I have finally begun my study of the Pseudepigripha. This is a monumental undertaking for me, and one that I wish will merit insights into the Bible that I have been struggling with for quite some time. Some of my primary concerns are: What were the varying beliefs about resurrection? What was the Jewish eschatology? What did the figure Son of Man mean? Son of God? What about pre-existence and angels? If an angel were "incarante" would they be held to the same resurrection and a normal person? And so forth... These questions have been spinning around in my head since I have been delving into the new world of higher criticism, and they hold some fundamental repercussions concerning Christian foundations. So without further ado here is my analysis of the first part of the book of Enoch...

 Enoch begins by reinterpreting the protology and cosmology according to the new world they were exposed to during the Exile. In the diaspora Jews were exposed to pagan beliefs that challenged and inspired their own spirituality and consequently these new beliefs had to be integrated into the Jewish paradigm. Angels, demons, spiritual warfare, oppression, and living a downtrodden life while being elected. These new realities are introduced through the narrative of Enoch.

The author of Enoch has masterfully used the story of Noah to reinterpret the origins of humanity. Enoch was

an antediluvian prophet who was "taken" to be with God. Thus the author was able to put Enoch in an interesting position. Jews during the exile began to believe that the world would soon come under the judgment of God and so they could look back to a time when God's judgment came upon the earth to construct a new paradigm where God's judgment would come in the future. 

The first verse reveals a possible eschatology that as Christians we may not be aware of. God would remove the wicked from the earth so that the righteous can dwell on it in the blessing of God. The typical Christian eschatology is just about the reverse of this. In Christianity God removes the righteous so the earth can be condemned with the wicked and then the righteous can come back to a new earth. This possible eschatology has given some a good reason to think that the verses in Matthew 24 actually refer to this other possible eschatology rather then what has become the standard Christian eschatology. So when it speak of two men being in the field and one is taken. The one taken is the wicked one and NOT the righteous one that many assume to be the case. The key indicator to this is that Jesus says it will be like in the days of Noah.

In chapter 7 of Enoch he begins to describe the "giants" that came from the union of women and angels and it seems like the author might be describing characteristics which they found in their rulers in the diaspora. The giants were oppressive and embodied injustice. Prophecy and eschatology were often used as Jewish methods to speak about social issues of their day. An oppressive ruler could be cast in a religious sense as an anti-Christ. Early Christians also faced oppressive rulers which could be a reason why they adopted this same kind of apocalyptic language.

In chapter 9 of Enoch it mentions how the dead will rise. "They will bring their suit" to the gates of heaven. This is an interesting phrase that I am puzzled about. In chapter 22 it mentions this "suit" again, and it seems to suggest that it is the righteous who possess this "suit" and the wicked will be destroyed. For all intents and purposes this resurrection is given to the already dead and it will be for the righteous dead. 

Enoch 10 has an important verse in it which is just about a direct quote from Revelation 20:10 that describes the torment in hell that the fallen angels will suffer. This verse in Revelation is one of the only verses that actually speaks of hell as a place of eternal torment, and if there was a cultural predisposition to refer to hell in such a manner then we might be able to conclude that such a verse is only mentioned symbollically and not literally. The verse in 20:10 bears similarities to the Noahic covenant, anyways. It speaks of "day and night" a significant reference in the Jewish mind which tracked the passing of time from "night to day". The reference of "day and night" is a sign of the firmament being dropped and the day and night skies being made visible. Thus, I believe the Revelation 20:10 verse is more about the social and political realities that God was going to change forever, rather then about people being tormented for all eternity. This was apocalyptic language of the time.

There is also reference to the tree of life, and in that passage there is another reference to the tree of wisdom. Enoch calls it the tree of wisdom, but it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Just like in Revelation, one day we will eat from the tree of life and live forever.

In Enoch 14 it mentions tongues of fire which surround the Temple of God in heaven. This again can give us insight into the mentality of the early church concerning it origins. This also places a context to refer to the early churches distinguishing the tongues of fire with the ability to speak in tongues, which is a reversal of the Tower of Babel narrative. Since, early Jewish eschatology seems rooted in the Noahic narrative it seems likely that the multitude of languages would have to be overcome for God's kingdom to be established on earth. So tongues of fire and speaking in tongues can be seen as signs of God's Kingdom being established in the Jewish mind.

Enoch 15 comes to explain how demons came to exist. The giants who died lost their bodies, but their spirits had no place to go. Their spirits belonged in heaven, but they were banished from heaven. They did not belong to the earth (human souls sank below the earth and were seen as part of the earth) so they longed to be back in bodies or to cause torment to others. Interestingly enough, this does give us a formula by which we can speculate about angelic incarnated beings whose bodies die. Enoch says that their spirits go to heaven. This may or may not refer to a possible belief in resurrection for Jesus, but it does set a precedent.

Then Enoch goes on to describe the various levels of heaven and the after-life. There are places where the fallen angels will go. Places for the wicked who die and places for the righteous who die. 

That is just about all for the first book. It establishes a protology in which an eschatology can be formulated. Later Enoch will elaborate in eschatology and the end of the world. It will be interesting to see if it connects with his protology as I believe it will.

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part V: The Unified Experience

We cannot turn back the clock. We are stuck in the modern world. Sticking our head in the sand like the fundamentalist cannot produce a unified experience. Putting our head in the clouds like the moralizers of Liberal Protestantism cannot produce a unified experience either. We have to have genuine religion in order to be a unified person. We cannot reduce faith to moral conviction. In our postmodern world it is generally accepted that man needs spiritual nourishment. What I am proposing is that for the Christian our spirituality should unify us as a person with our faith. I think that the Higher Criticism of the Bible through the structure of Neo-Orthodoxy can do this.

What do I mean by a unified experience? Fundamentalists look for a unified experience by claiming that their beliefs are similar to those of the early believers. They use their beliefs about the Bible to unite themselves with a perception of what they believe is ultimately important in their spiritual lives. This is a common religious practice, and one that I do not deny. I seek a unified experience as well, and I think many people do not understand the unifying experience that can happen if we change the way we read the Bible. It makes sense that if we change our method of interpretation then our unifying experience of the Bible must change as well. It makes sense that many would appear resistant to this change, thinking that maybe they are loosing a part of themselves, because the unifying experience integrates itself into our meaning-structure. But I assure you that this is not the case. Not only does Higher Criticism offer a valid unifying experience, I believe it offers one that is more effective then fundamentalism.

The fundamentalist focuses his unifying experience upon his orthodoxy. The Liberal Protestant focuses his unifying experience on orthopraxis. The Neo-Orthodox is able to blend the two together. For the fundamentalist it is important to believe what the early believers, believed. For the Liberals it is important to act like the early believers. For the Neo-Orthodox it is important to be like the early believers. Fundamentalists give attention to an object. It is an object of belief. It is a "what" not a "who". Liberals give attention to a behavior. It is subjective with no content. It is a "who" with no soul. Neo-Orthodox give attention to what the early believers were like and how we can imitate their lives in our modern world. It possess an object and a subject.

Neo-Orthodoxy seeks a unifying experience by reading the Bible like the early believers read the Bible and understanding it in our modern world, like the early believers understood it in their "modern" context. All interpretation is re-interpretation when it comes to religious texts. The Neo-Orthodox believes that Higher Criticism can best engage the believer in the same, or similar, process that the early believers engaged in when they read the scripture, and that is a meditative process.

Meditation is not a rational endeavor. It is not about compartmentalizing or dividing up themes and models. To meditate upon scripture is to absorb it into yourself, to make it a part of your identity without it entering into your rational faculties. The early believers meditated upon scripture in order to fuse it into their lives without the mess of rational and practical considerations. This is most confirmed by the ancient practice of lectio divina, which is the earliest known practice of how early Christians read the Bible, but we know from the Old Testament itself that meditation was major practice in ancient times of understanding Scripture.

When I say that meditation is not a rational endeavor I mean that in a particular manner as it concerns the Western practice of reason. Meditation does not follow any propositional or syllogistic reasoning pattern. It is not about premises and conclusions. It is simply about absorbing the information. Repeating it to yourself over and over again, and contemplating upon the various connections the object of your meditation creates, and when these connections reveal the inner workings of your life as it compares to the scripture you resolve in prayer to model your life by those patterns. The standard is the Bible, but the application emerges from a union of meditation and reflection.

Modern man has a difficult time connecting with the meditative process. We desire to grasp and understand the objects of our attention. To simply accept and absorb information seems elementary, juvenile, or weak minded. Fundamentalism is superficial and objective. It is far removed from the meditative process. But Higher Criticism does open us up to an experience that is similar. Higher Criticism lays bare the content of Scripture. It removes the impossible elements that cause our mental defenses to reject it and allows the message to penetrate our minds, making it able to become a part of our contemplative process. Man cannot contemplate on miracles and wonders in this day and age, because we are removed from them. That is the simple reality. This is not a denial of the miraculous, but a modicum by which modern man is able to contemplate upon the word of God.

For instance, if a fundamentalist were to meditate upon the phrase, "He will rise in three days". He will be limited by the depth his contemplation can take him. He can certainly be enlightened by all the cultural dynamics that took place in ancient times concerning the eschatological significance of "three days", but ultimately these insights will be blocked by the reality that for the fundamentalist this information is an addendum and has no real impact on the reality that in three literal days someone rose from the dead.

But the neo-orthodox is able to accept this information more intuitively into his meditative process. The phrase "three days" can become a center piece of interpretation and allow ourselves to experience the world that the early believers would have experienced. We can see how significant it would have been to say that a person rose after three days, and that this would have had to of been a watershed for such a community. Whoever this person was he has enormous eschatological significance. The literal meaning of the "three days" becomes insignficant. It is not denied, because it no longer becomes important, and it is no longer allowed to block our contemplation and integration of the object of our meditation. Through this we can see how important this man would have been to the believers of his time, and how important he can be to us.

Higher Cirticism allows for the background cultural influences to become apart of the narrative, and because of this it is allowed to enter into the contemplative process, which is able to integrate the more personal information into our spiritual development. And the mind can accept the results because it is not barricaded by presuppositions of the past or authority.

Higher Criticism allows for a spiritual unified experience and it does so without betraying the modern spirit of man. Fundamentalism rejects this spirit and resorts to authority and fear in order to do it. In the process it adopts the methods it rejects in order to interpret its own Bible. The fundamentalists seek a unified experience through orthodoxy, but cut themselves off from the depths of contemplation. It is because of this that I believe Higher Criticism and Neo-Orthodoxy provide a more genuine and authentic Christianity then fundamentalism.

The Burden of Church

This comes from the heart. I have recently left the church I had been attending for twelve years. I am
frustrated, hurt, lonely, and yes, angry. Big surprise, right. I think it rather queer that as Christians we expect other Christians to feel this way when it comes to "church departures". I mean, are we so two dimensional and limited in our own spirituality that we cannot possibly conceive that decisions like these are rather a combination or varying and complex webs of emotion, desire, and expectation.

Sure, I am angry, but I am also hopeful. I am disappointed, but I am also sympathetic. I am hurt, but I am also encouraged. Do I have to be one or the other? Can't I be both/and? I am a human. I can have two contrary feelings at once, and not have any clue what any of it means. Is this not a more accurate description of the human experience? So while it may be easier for you to characterize or pigeon-hole me try to first understand. I wish to be transparent and open. I wish to be an active participant in my own demise. If I am to fall flat on my face it will certainly be by my own doing. So here I stand. Take your best shot...

I wish I could simply come here to you today and say that I have all these intellectual and rational arguments as to why it was best for me to leave the church. I wish it could exist all in my head, but alas, as a humble philosopher I cannot simply "think" away my life without at first trying out my beliefs and principles in the real world. That said, I have felt for a long time that I did not quite fit in at my church.

I love books. I love to read. I love to read every perspective on an issue. I love to question my own position on issues, and I love to gain new insight that I had not considered before. I love to learn, and I love to teach. I love to simply argue, debate, and dialogue over an issue to force, in a certain way, a truth which perhaps all parties had not considered. I love to stand strong and articulate an idea, a belief, or a principle in such a way that others can understand it, and agree to it, or reject it, and if they reject it that they reject the true "it". This is a raw passion for truth.

This is the core of the falling out I had with the church. My previous church grounded itself on the "mission" to "create relational environments for discipleship"... Sounds good right? I thought so. But as I peeled away the layers of this central tenet over the years banging my head against constant barriers and opposition, I began to see something horrid and deplorable. Something I almost cannot bear to write about, and something I feel needs to be addressed to the utmost seriousness of any church attender.

The wall is anti-intellectualism. Now, I think I can say in full confidence that this is the reason my twelve years of faithful service met in such failure. It's not that I am "too" smart for the church. The church simply does not want to learn. It does not want the truth. It pains me to say it this way, but I have good grounds to conclude this.

I was told by more then one member of staff that this church was not a "teaching" church. I was told that staff was selected for their merits to be "relational" and were not considered for any educational merit. I was told that "intellect" or the engaging there-of was not a relational environment. I was told that it mattered not whether or not a person engaged their mental faculties to understand their faith as long as they stayed married to their wives and remained "good boys and girls", of sorts.

Now you can imagine that this list of charges was not simply stated to me in such a blameworthy manner, but I do feel that this is a fair and true accounting of what I have recently experienced. Here is the reality. I went to a very large church that has recently seen decline in attendance. Younger people are leaving and the older people are becoming more dominant and identical with one another, and wouldn't you know it that for the most part this means being and acting like the head pastor.

So what I pose is the rather honest question... if "relationship" without regard to "intellect" is the best way to discipleship then WHY (for God's sake!) is the church mimicking and parroting what they see and hear rather then acting on their own behalf? When the product is a church that looks identical to each other and also looks like the head pastor then should we not question our approach to relationship? Can we not at least entertain the idea that such an approach to relationship is simply a manipulation and a coercion against the masses designed not to inspire them to discipleship, but rather to subject them to it. If the consequences of such a church resembles this pattern then does it not warrant such a consideration.

Now, I am not a man who lives with his head in the clouds. I get it. I get that you simply cannot argue a person to live a righteous life. But WHY is this the ultimate and final objection to considering another alternative to church????!!!!!! Can I not at this point claim that you cannot mind-control a person to live a righteous life? Both arguments seem valid, but also completely miss the point.

We live in a dangerous new world. And danger is not intrinsically bad. In the right light, this danger can be an adventure, and the church is left in the wading pool. If it is to be respected in the modern world it has to be willing to engage in the intellect of man, and it has to be willing to accept that relational environments does not mean some mushy-gooshy couch crying session where we admit to masturbating or having lustful thoughts. A relational environment can be simply a group of people who know nothing about each other personally but debate and argue with one another with the utmost respect and honor. It can be led by a person who is not "doctrinally" in line with the most enhanced Evangelical confession, as long as such a person is honest, humble, and open to correction. If the church wants to commit itself to discipleship in the modern world it has to be willing to let go of the reigns of power in "relational environments" it has to be willing to let there be a dynamic instead of a program, an energy instead of a structure, and a trust instead of control.

Now I am not saying that it is a either/or. I get the need for relational discipleship. I do, but can we make room for the intellect to be a relational environment, too, and if we do what does that look like? Are we willing to let go of the forces that are clearly manipulating and distorting our vision? Because I ask you, who is truly to blame for what a ministry produces? If you truly want disciples, do you think you can gain them through "relationships"? Or is it a bit more complicated then that? I think it is. And I worries me to my core that this insidious claim might be a bit more pernicious then I think.

After all, I really do believe that everyone at my old church is an honest person, and genuinely believes that

they are honoring God, but what it they simply allow themselves the luxury of believing in this so that they do not have to look deeper to the potentially more malicious intentions? What if they enjoy manipulating and controlling people, so much, that they are willing to be blinded by their faith? The sad reality is that no effort is made on their part to distinguish themselves from this rather dark possibility. And this in my mind, calls forth the most basic and necessary condition for intellectual honesty to exist in a discipleship matrix. How else can you know that you are just not some master manipulator, unless you open your community to freely inquire and develop?

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist: Part IV: Hermeneutical Musings

The basic controversy between Higher Criticism and the Literal-Grammatical Method (fundamentalism) is how to approach the plain reading of the text and the cultural influences of the time. If we can consider these as two separate entities lets identify them as...

1. The plain rendering of the text

2. The cultural background.

Now both sides agree that these two entities exist, and both agree that an accurate interpretation of the Bible requires both these elements, but we disagree as to the order. Fundamentalists are willing and wanting to engage in studies which heighten their understanding of the cultural background, but such knowledge is never able to provide a breach upon the rendering of the plain and simple meaning. 

I believe this is because fundamentalists see the importance of a universally accessible Tome of sacred

writings, due in part to their belief that unbelievers must suffer an eternity in hell. Every unbeliever is informed of his fate in the Bible and those who still choose to disbelieve must suffer the consequences. Thus, fundamentalism is in many ways a self-confirming spirituality that allows the devotee the luxury of knowing that he is right regardless. If a person were allowed to justify their unbelief in hell based on the cultural background of the Jewish people then the reality of spiritual devotion seems to be in jeopardy  So again we see fundamentalists responding to a threat.

In a rather ironic twist which borderlines on paradox the fundamentalist accepts a rather ubiquitous double standard when it comes to his Scriptures. The fundamentalist derides reductionism as a perversion of science and claims that true knowledge must be able to be influenced by sacred scripture, but what the fundamentalist utilizes in approaching scripture is a reductionistic method of interpretation. If a text can only mean what the plain reading renders then you are reducing that meaning and limiting it regardless of the cultural depth we see in the past.

The reality is that fundamentalists only comfort themselves with superficial knowledge of the past only to appease themselves that they are interested in the "heritage" of the Bible. Such knowledge only accompanies what their preconceived interpretations are. They do not look to the past to be informed by it. They believe they are already informed by it. They look to the past to simply find confirming evidence of what they already know. This is understandable, but it is not justifiable. And it fits neatly into the model of fundamentalism that we are seeing. The fundamentalist fears that an honest look into the past will eradicate the Christian faith and because of this he creates a hedge around his beliefs which cannot be penetrated.

Fundamentalism arose during the Enlightenment by overemphasizing (1) the plain reading of the text, and I would say that it operated in tandem with Liberal Protestantism which also arose out of the Enlightenment by and overemphasis on (2) the cultural background. The Liberals were wrong. They wanted to remove the Bible almost entirely, because it was simply a myth, and they wanted to make a religion of rational morality. The fundamentalists were right to oppose them.

Neo-Orthodoxy does not fall into the trap of Liberal Protestantism. They do not remove (1) simply because it is a myth, and they do not focus on the moralizing qualities of (2). The cultural background does have a precedent when it comes to understand what the plain text means, and in this manner there is a priority to (2) over and above (1), but at the same time no text was ever written to simply convey its plain rendering. And Neo-Orthodoxy saves the plain reading of the text by provided a more amiable framework to accept it in. Liberal Protestantism derided the Bible because it was myth, but Neo-Orthodoxy embraces the use of myth in religion as a modicum of humans being able to express their experience of God. Many theologians along the tradition of Higher Criticism have found themes and models present in the Biblical narratives which arise as contrived insertions to make a theological and spiritual commentary upon the event itself.

For instance, Jesus' miracles are in many ways re-creations of Moses' or Elijah's miracles. The fundamentalist sees this as evidence that God miraculously engineered history so that Jesus would repeat the very same miracles Moses or Elijah performed, but the critic sees this as an insertion on the writers part to convey the message that the power or the God they saw in Jesus was the same God that empowered Moses and Elijah. The critic does not call the authors liars or deceivers  but he understands that cultural influences determine in many ways what a piece of work has to say. The message has to be received.

So the plain reading can guide the investigation into the cultural background, but the cultural background always sets the foundation for the plain reading. Neo-Orthodoxy is able to synthesize (1) and (2) together and though they work in a hierarchical structure they are united, unlike Liberal Protestantism and fundamentalism.

I propose that Higher Criticism through Neo-Orthodoxy can provide a more unifying experience of Scripture then Fundamentalism can do through the Literal-Grammatical Method. And I will do this in my next article.

The Great Resurrection Debate - A Prolegomena

This is a blog to a rather long review of a book titled, "The Resurrection of the Son of God", by NT Wright. Wright is an accomplished scholar who is often on TV and is referenced most by WL Craig, during his debates. This book in question is an 800 page tome concerning pertinent facts about the resurrection from ancient Jewish sources and early Christian writings to confirm that Jesus' resurrection could be nothing other then a literal-physical resurrection.

NT Wright has no problems mentioning that he writes this book in response to modern higher criticism of the NT which has revealed a possible alternative to the resurrection narrative that would have been the original beliefs of the Jews who would later be called Christians. Wright considers this modern "misinterpretation" to involve six tenants. 1) Jewish eschatology was "fuzzy" and diverse. 2) Paul did not proclaim a bodily (literal-physical) resurrection. 3) The earliest Christians proclaimed an exaltation and spiritual resurrection of Jesus Christ. 4) The Gospels are, thus, a re-interpretation and do not represent actual history. 5) The appearances and sightings of a resurrected Christ are best understood in the context of Paul's conversion experience. 6) Jesus' body is still in the ground, so to speak. Whatever happened to it, it was not "raised" or given new life.

I wish that I have read this book, but alas, this is simply a comment on the comments on the book of NT Wright, which is apparently on the comments of modern Biblical criticism. I have however, read a few pages and do have some critiques which I can outline without any authoritative standing. I attempt such a critique, because this book has become a hallmark for many Evangelicals, and I feel a responsibility to take it seriously.

NT Wright's position seems to be that first century Jews could have no other opinion about the resurrection other then it being a literal-physical event. I use the term literal-physical because I believe it denotes the correct meaning implied. Bodily resurrection is still vague, because after all even angels are thought of as having "bodies". The word "body" does not make explicit a corporeality which I think is unavoidable by the term literal-physical resurrection. Upon this thesis I must accuse NT Wright of limiting himself to a very select subset of ancient documents. It is true that the Rabbinic Tradition and some inter-testimental literature confirm a belief in a literal-physical resurrection, but there was most certainly a diversity of belief in first century Judaism. Enoch and the Apocalypse of Zepheniah are perhaps the two most prominent advocates for a spiritual resurrection.

Over all, this leads me to greater skepticism of most Christian scholarship. The size of the book alone gives me pause to consider whether or not this is a genuine work of intellectual honesty or rather a brash attempt to over-complicate an argument through some form of intellectual bullying. I truly believe NT Wright is an honest person, but I can read a two hundred page book on the resurrection will give me a very modern critical alternative that is much easier to understand and explain, and still retain all the essential creeds then read an 800 page response to such ideas which for the most part seem to ignore important pieces of information. At the moment it seems the modern version has the high ground simply on the basis that it does not have to ignore information that may disagree with its argument. This is something that I find all-too-often in "Christian scholarship" and it frustrates me.

Other then that, here are the links to the reviews of NT Wright that I think need to be considered.

The first is by Robert Price, who is a prominent internet atheist and is respected by many "novice" intellectuals. Though Price's critique is colored by a very vulgar form of mockery. His points are dead on. I must admit with a bit of guilt that I did find some of Price's descriptions to be humorous. At one point he calls Wright a "used-gospel salesman". I did chuckle at that, but to be honest what I find sad is that many atheists/secularists feel the need to respond to religion in such a manner. I understand that many of them have received like treatment from our supposed "brothers" in the Lord, but being the intellectual "superiors" that they imagine themselves to be, you'd think they could develop the empathy and kindness that they think we lack so much of. Price is harsh and unforgiving, but in the end his critiques are worth understanding. It is a rather long diatribe though as so for the concise reader this is a brief summation of his 3 critiques.

1. "a complete unwillingness to engage a number of specific questions or bodies of evidence that threaten to shatter Wright's over-optimistically orthodox assessment of the evidence." Like I said, that is much Wright "leaves out" of this book simply because it contradicts his argument.

2. "He takes refuge in either side of an ambiguity when it suits him, hopping back and forth from one foot to the other, and hoping the reader will not notice." Since I have not read the book myself, it seems as though, NT Wright wants to rely on things like "symbolic" language when it suits his agenda to explain things like the spiritual resurrection taught by Paul in 1 Cor. 15, but to deny any other use of such symbolic instrumentality.

3. "He loathes Enlightenment modernity because it will not let him believe in miracles." Many Evangelicals find it a comfort to see such an "unbiased" view, but the reality is that this contains a bias in itself as well. The truth is that the Enlightenment does not prevent us from believing in miracles, but it does set some stringent perimeters on a hermenuetic which would interpret the miraculous. The thrust of the Enlightenment was toward clarity and unbiased judgments in our search for truth, rather then having an agenda against miracles, the opposite is actually true. The Enlightenment was against such agendas all-together. In this NT Wright already states his bias and confirms for us the reality that he is not concerned with clarity or impartiality.

The next two reviews are of less importance, but do highlight the faults already mentioned. This reviewer felt that Wright intentionally left out some important information and did not consider other possibilities. And this review points out that Wright goes to such great lengths to promote something to which there is a much easier answer to. 

I know many will want positive reviews to seem "balanced". To be honest, I feel the positive reviews can't be whole-heartedly trusted at this point. I don't believe Wright to be a bad guy. This is definitely a work of importance, and NT Wright is able to accurately understand the problem that faces modern theology. He also identifies the right shifts that have taken place. The resurrection is no longer a unilateral belief system no matter how hard NT Wright tries to turn back the clock. Even if he is right, we have to contend with a belief that a spiritual resurrection is justification for Christian belief.  

So in lieu of not providing a positive response to NT Wright, I will provide a book which seems to me to be a fair and genuine interpretation of the resurrection. Now, I have not read this book either, and so in both cases I am shooting blind, but relying on what information is provided about such books this is a book that I think deserves attention above and beyond NT Wright. It is called, "Resurrection and Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life" by Jon Levenson. Here also, is a subsequent review which I think deals with the gist of the book. This book is a humble 300 pages, but it is also very scholarly. As far as I can tell Levenson advocates a "bodily" resurrection, which is something I do not dispute, but the specific details I think are debatable and up for discussion. I find this book to be more favorable to such a discussion then NT Wrights.

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part III: Pros and Cons

What are the pros and cons of the different ways to interpret the Bible? If both of the methods considered in this article are contrivances of the modern world then what can we do to decide which way is the best?

The pros of fundamentalism are that the Bible becomes more accessible to a wider audience. In keeping with the spirit of democracy, fundamentalism makes the Bible accessible to every individual (who can read). By reducing the Bible to its simple or plain rendering it is freed from the bonds of tradition and community, and the individual is able to read for himself what the Bible means.

The Bible also becomes easier to understand (relatively). If we can read a text that says "he will rise in three days", we can take that as a literal reference to temporal activity. There is no need to question or investigate deeper cultural relations which might cast the phrase "three days" as a symbolic element. And then there is the almost endless debate about what symbols mean, and what those symbols refer to. Symbols can refer to symbols which can refer to symbols. The process can be endless and quite possibly hopeless.

Fundamentalism contains an air of confidence with it. The simplicity and ease of understanding makes us sure that we have applied our interpretations effectively. The fundamentalist is then freer to engage the world concerning spiritual absolutes more-so then one who questions the simplicity and ease of access to the Bible.

The fundamentalist also has clearer moral directives on how to live his life. The Bible clearly outlines simple moral directives in how Christians should behave. If this simple interpretation were reversed then how would a Christian know how to act? The fundamentalist need not explain why homosexuality is wrong. The Bible simply tells him this is so, and that is the end of it. Moralizing can lead to endless uncertainty and doubt, fundamentalism provides clarity and absoluteness to a very unsettling enterprise.

The fundamentalist also has a closer grasp as to the kind of world earlier believers would have lived in. Typically, a simple reading of the Bible forces us into a world where miracles happen, heaven and hell exist as spatial-temporal realms, and prophecy can predict the future. Thus, fundamentalists are truer to the original believers in Christ, because they accepted the kind of world they wrote about.

This is a pretty fair rendering of fundamentalism, but if I have left something crucial out then I can easily ammend.

These are the pros of Higher Criticism. Reading the Bible through critical eyes is in keeping with the spirit of reason, also born out of the Enlightenment. Reason can give us a more honest and humble account of Scripture that relates more to the human condition and deepens our understanding of faith.

The Bible becomes more connected to our human condition. The subtlty and nuances of Scripture reveal to us a human predicament similar to our own. The culture and themes of the Bible deepen our awareness of the struggle and insight that the original authors experienced.

Higher Criticism has an aura of humility and authenticity to it. The critic always submits his insights to a universal understanding of truth and open debate. The critic allows for his insights to be subject to criticism as well, and this allows for the critic to represent his honest and sincere judgments.

Higher Criticism can reveal to us that modern people were no too different then ancient believers and that moral ambiguity and suffering were still problems for the religious man. The critic can relate better to the moral dilemmas that exist today through the Bible and seeing the colorings and timbre represented in Scripture and the struggles that early believers shared with us can deepen our commitment to spiritual principles and trust more intimately that our Creator has everything under control.

The critic is also better equipped to communicate the truths of the ancient world into his own. In this sense, the critic is closer to the ancient believer in the practice of adapting their faith and keeping their essence alive in a modern context.

These are the cons of fundamentalist belief. The first, is the near obliteration of context. A plain reading of the text may provide a simpler and more versatile text that every individual can have access to, but it is most certainly removed from the context that the original author and readers experienced the work initially.

The knowledge provided through fundamentalism is superficial. Consider a phrase written in a text which says, "He will rise in three days". Now the plain reading produces a reality that someone has died and in three days will rise again. It is pretty self-explanatory. Now the fundamentalist is not limited in this regard, he is allowed to dig deeper into the cultural background and discover that the phrase "three days" has a special cultural influence that was present at the time of the writing. The fundamentalist is allowed to weave a tapestry of knowledge which includes all the amazing details of what "three days" meant to these people. He can learn how it signified the completion of history and the number of God's perfection. All this knowledge will definitely produce a religious experience to be sure, but in the end the fundamentalist must set aside such knowledge as only periphery. It has no bearing on the actual text which reveals to us plainly and simply that someone rose from the dead after three days. In this sense, it matters very little what the cultural background was, "three days" is simply an incidental recording of events.

But! The fundamentalist may object at this point to say that such events were orchestrated by a sovereign God and actual history was manifested to fulfill the cultural expectations of that time. Okay, this may be well and good, but what is the basis for this belief? At this point the fundamentalist is going outside of Scripture in order to defend his Scriptural beliefs, and this may be justified if he were to have independent confirming reasons, but all he has is his theology. His claim is an imposing action of what he believes a sovereign God would do. Unfortunately, we cannot appeal to a sovereign God in such a way. The very principle of God's sovereignty is that He is utterly free to do anything. If we could use sovereignty as a means of making a formula out of God's behavior that it would be His sovereignty that would be the one thing which negated His sovereignty.

Also, there is no reason to think that sovereignty were impugned upon by doubting whether a plain and simple reading of a text can provide spiritual depth.

Next, fundamentalism can lead to a false sense of security. History has shown us that fundamentalists often flare up and become dominant in a culture that threatens their existence. Fundamentalists feel that homosexuality threatens the future of the church,and every fundamentalist fears a reality where the government will force churches to hire gay pastors (regardless of the freedom of religion). Fundamentalists retreat to their Scriptures in order to secure and stabilize their society, and this is a response generated by fear and loss of power.

Fundamentalists morality is almost in principle amoral, and has the potential for nihilism more then any other doctrine despite the "supposed" moral integrity of fundamentalist believers. A key component of fundamentalist belief is that what the plain reading of the text is akin to the voice of God itself. Thus, if the Bible says that people should not get divorced then the fundamentalist now has a  moral obligation according to something he has been told. It is important to recognize that doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is entirely different then doing something because you are told to do it. The fundamentalist in principle cannot recognize such distinctions and this erodes moral fiber rather then building it up.

The last con for fundamentalism is its anti-scientific devotion. Many fundamentalists have constructed elaborate models and theories in order to align the narrative of the Bible with modern scientific discovery, and such an enterprise is impressive, but in the end futile. True science gathers evidence and then forms theories. The fundamentalist begins with his theory and constructs the evidence around it. Now there are many theologians who believe that philosophic arguments can be made to support some of the narratives in the Bible, such as creation, or miracles, but this does not get us any closer to what the original writers meant when they wrote. The fundamentalist is so divorced from authentic spirituality that he cannot even conceive that many of the Biblical narratives were constructed mythically in order to deepen the believers faith rather then serve as some scientific justification for a reductionistic plain reading of the text.

These are the cons for Higher Criticism...

In subjecting the Bible to higher criticism it may appeal to reason, but at the same time it makes us relate to the Bible as we would any other book of antiquity. Reason gives no privileges and thus the Bible looses its sanctity.

The Bible becomes subjective and relative. None of its mandates can be seen as absolute or unchanging. If we allow the teachings of the Bible to be adapted then what is the point of the Bible, and spiritual devotion? God is Holy and his laws never change. Man should not simply be allowed to change what he does not like about the Bible, because that is an offense to God.

Higher Criticism is pseudo-intellectual. It hides behind ivory towers and most of its interpretations are removed from the common understanding of the Bible. It may convey an air of humility, but behind it is pompousness and narrow-mindedness. Just because a few smart people agree on a meaning it is divorced from the general rendering done by most believers and thus is an outsiders opinion rather then an insiders insight. So you can comfort yourself with false humility all you want, but you will never understand the Bible the way a Christian understands it.

Higher Criticism reduces the heroes of the faith to weak men. The great men who paved the way for our faith are seen as normal everyday people who acted in their own power. There is no power of God evident in them. They are all seen as normal people.

Higher Criticism seem devoid of any spiritual understanding. It removes the miracles, heaven and hell, and the supernatural from the meaning of the text, which is the basis of spiritual belief and practice! How could a critic be able to read the Bible like the way an early believer read the scriptures!

So there it is. Both sides have a fair share of glory and blame. I have reached the maxim of what I will allow myself to write in a single blog. I will respond to this analysis in my next article.

Morality and Religion - Part VI

---The Bible says it and that is good enough for me.---

Is this your attitude? For many Christians I believe this to be the case, and it is not that I think this is blameworthy. I do however find it out of context. Christianity has certainly always held to a Biblical devotion, and it has always been a book by which we are to frame our lives in, but modern Christianity exists in a context that was unthinkable in the first century. The Bible for the most part has tangled itself in the democratic spirit. Every man has a right to his own Biblical interpretation. This is further compounded with the complimentary belief that the Bible can speak for itself. These beliefs, which are common, empower the individual believer to accept that the way we read the Bible is the way it has always been, but this is not the case. Inventions like the Printing Press and a democratic government simply did not exist, nor could they even be thought of.

The ancient world existed through close tribal and familial bonds. In the Jewish world, which Christianity thrived in, this meant that spirituality centered on the synagogue rather then on an individualistic Biblical interpretation. The Bible was a book that united and deepened the bonds of brotherhood and fellowship. As it effected personal devotion Christians were more interested in a rote spirituality that emphasized repetition and contextual application, rather then blindly following norms and demands. They meditated on Scripture rather then simply reading it and doing it. The Bible wasn't simply a list of commands to follow. It was the structure upon which reality was to be framed. Biblical application was always a personal application. It wasn't until modern times that we began to think of the Bible as having an objective application.

This does not negate the moral norms written in the Bible, but it does show us that we have to begin to think differently if we want to understand what the original readers of the Bible believed and what the original author intended in order to understand how the Bible applies to our lives today. Thus, I think it is irresponsible to think that simply because the Bible says something means that there is a direct and uncritical response that we are obliged to perform. Even the earliest believers digested and contemplated Biblical passages before they it was allowed to work itself into their life. The Bible nurtured their life, it was not an instruction manual.

So let us get to the nitty gritty. Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, 7, and 10, Galatians 5, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3 will be the principle texts I will consider. To be sure, there are many injunctions we can review. And perhaps they are all due equal attention, but however I am limited in space and time. All these passages are principle NT passages that have clear moral directive to avoid sexual immorality,debauchery, fornication, drunkenness, and homosexuality. These are the passages that are referenced most in the NT to look for the Biblical foundations for a moral life. But to look to these passages on how to life morally is to misread and misuse the Bible. We have already argued on how this is a misuse, which begs the question... How is this a misreading?

The answer to this question has already been hinted at. We have already seen the Jerusalem church dealt with the issue of paganism. The early church was more concerned about being associated as pagan more then they were about morality. This was decided at the Jerusalem Council. So we have historical grounds to conclude that the early church believed we are morally autonomous, and in conjunction with this decision Paul gives all his moral directives in his epistles. Every command in the NT directed toward morality has more to do with paganism then it does with how we choose to live our lives. Colossians 3:5 and Ephesians 5:5 directly call these immoralizers idolaters. Galatians 5 relates its moral commands to the sinful nature, but this nature is directly connected to paganism in the previous chapter. It is 1 Corinthians that speaks more about idolatry and paganism then any other book in the NT. It speaks of virginity in 1 Corinthians 7:25 and ironically Paul goes out of his way to mention that he has no command from the Lord concerning this issue, and that is because this issue has nothing to do with idolatry. 1 Corinthians 6 concerns sexual immorality, but this is on par with simply saying sexual immorality is immorality. There is nothing distinct or special this directive, except Paul makes an argument that when we sin sexually we sin against our bodies, but this is more about self-respect as it concerns sexuality then it is about religion and sex. Romans 1 is monolithic in style and character. But this is also more tied to paganism then any other passage.

The plain and simple truth is that we have more reason to believe from the NT alone that morality and religion are independent realities then from speculation alone. History and the Biblical teaching reveal to us that Christians are morally autonomous that they are to be responsible, honest, and ethical. But as it turns out we have good speculative reasons to believe moral autonomy and religion are compatible, justified, and exemplary AND we have good Biblical reasons to conclude that historically and doctrinally this was the case for the early church.

So what do I attribute to the most common trend to submit our moral autonomy to religious directives? Why
is there such a large majority of Christians who lean on the Bible for moral foundations? I conclude with a rather ironic twist. They are the ones indulging in their sinful and pagan nature rather then the reverse. Colossians 2 speaks volumes. It speaks about the world and how we put to death the principles of the world, but the context reveals to us that these principles are the pagan practices of religion and morality being fused together. The writer of Colossians is warning people that when we submit to our morality to religion we are actually living a pagan lifestyle. Galatians makes a similar claim. In chapters 3 and 4 Paul makes an argument concerning Jewish law, but in chapter 4 a shift in thinking happens which is common for Paul where the Jewish Law becomes a symbol for human law in general, or natural law. Paul sees through Jewish eyes and because of this he is able to spiritualize the Jewish Law to see it in cosmic terms. It relates to our human condition and this condition demonstrates a predisposition to be a slave. Paul warns against this and uses the same language used in Colossians about the "basic principles of this world" (4:3). The result is that when we submit morality to religion we are in fact according to the Biblical testimony acting in such a way that we are pagan ourselves. So the fervor to please God by adapting our moral behavior to be "in line" with Scripture is taking us away from the heart of the Bible entirely.

What I propose is that we ask the hard questions about homosexuality, co-habitation, premarital sex, divorce, and other living arrangements outside the context of religion and see what honest and responsible answers we can come up with, because the reality is that times have changed and we have to take that seriously if we want to be a witness to our time and place. This is not only the smart thing to do, it seems to be the Biblical response we ought to have. I agree with the Bible that only in this manner will "reality be found in Christ" (Colossians 2:17).

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part II: A Modern Invention

The Reformation did an amazing thing. It gave a Bible to every single individual who wanted one, and it empowered them with the thought that they had the right and privilege to read it and apply it to their life. This set Christians on the course of being able to lead their own faith without having to be dependent upon the Church.

Soon after the Enlightenment began. It birthed the democratic spirit. Man was not only spiritually free. He was politically free as well. With democracy came a whole new slew of ideas that had to be integrated into the human psyche. The separation of church and state, for instance. Authority through the consent of the people. And a fair and balanced legal system that was governed by law and order.

Many of these events have benefited humanity and religion in an everlasting way. I would not dare to impugn on the theological depths of the Reformation or the philosophic richness of the Enlightenment, but there is an unchecked reality which most people are unaware of. For the most part because of these developments the religious man is just about separated by an uncrossable chasm from the roots of his religious faith.

The Bible was written in a time and for a people who had no such amenities. Not a single author ever thought that his works would one day be canonized and given to people on an individual basis for them to interpret it themselves without the aid of a deeply rooted and inculcated tradition. The writers of the NT were deeply religious men, and for them that meant community and communities are always established under traditions. The Bible for the most part is not a set of ordinances, but a revelation of traditions.

The ancient mind operated on a more holistic basis. Ideas, precepts, and intuitions were all melded together into one lump whole. It was not until modernity that we began to dissect and separate the different classifications of how we live our lives. The pre-modern devoutee definately understood the difference between religion and politics, but his mode of living life allowed him to seemlessly merge his lifestyle to accomodate any scenario. In the ancient world a triumphant religion was not one that could defy all persecution and survive. The triumphant religion was the one that could adapt to any circumstance and retain the essence of its core beliefs.

The ancient religions had to cling to traditions, because traditions could change and be adapted without controversy or theological dispute. The Jews in the Diaspora had no qualms about modifying the Torah so they could live among the Gentiles. The Jews in Palestine did the same to accommodate Roman rule. Early Christians took on this same religious style. Paul boasts of his chameleon-like faith when it comes to preaching to different cultures and people.

What this reveals to me is that the ancient world related to their faith entirely differently then I do in the modern world. For me, religion is about understanding, believing, and acting in the right manner to please God. It is almost entirely a mental process which guides my actions, but the ancient world had an entirely different conception. I think this way because the modern world has empowered me to be independent and to rely on my own reasoning. It has given me my own Bible to read on my own, and it has freed me from the bonds of tribalism. But at the same time it has alienated me from the authentic heritage of my faith. The pre-modern believer considered his community of faith just as important as the revelation in Scripture. In fact, the two could not be separated. Without the community of faith the scripture was just empty words. It was their lives being poured into each other and through the light of the Biblical narrative that revealed what God's plan was for them. When they read about Moses, Elijah, or Jesus they saw themselves and each others struggles and identified with the stories in their own context. The Bible was not a book to be read. It was a Holy Book. It was meant to be lived! We almost have no idea what that means for us today.

We think that the application of the Bible comes from a right understanding of what the Bible means and says, but this was not how the pre-modern man read the Bible, and it was not how the Bible was written. For them the right application of the Bible came through an immersion in the meditative quality of scripture and the cohesion of the community of faith that was bonded by the same Holy Book. They didn't read the Bible to understand it. They read the Bible to meditate on it. They didn't compare which church "lined" up with the Bible. They interpreted the Bible through and in the Church.

What we have to realize, because of this, is that fundamentalism is just as much of a modern invention as is higher criticism. That is a hard truth for fundamentalists to realize. Justin Martyr admitted that Christian beliefs were just the same as mythological beliefs. Augustine, Aquinas, and most other medieval theologians allowed for allegorical interpretations of the Bible. It was not until the rise of scientific rationalism during the Enlightenment that fundamentalism really took hold.

The Holiness of Scripture was being threatened. Many philosophers and scientists were beginning to see that the world that the Bible painted was not the world which existed in reality. Thus, many were seeing that the Bible was simply a book of myths, like any other religious book. There was no special privilege given to the Bible to make is "appear" as though it came from God. Christians had to rise to counter this new criticism. Scripture had to be maintained as Holy and Sacred, and in this new world that meant that the Bible could never be seen as a myth. Literalism took hold in the Church, and in an odd turn of events Christians began to read the Bible "scientifically" in order to counter the supposed scientism of secular culture. What resulted was a new method of reading the Bible.

Now I believe that one of the most important questions a Christian must figure out is what is the right way of interpreting the Bible. It will become one of those monumental undertakings that will shape everything which follows after it. I cannot stress enough why we must be sure of these things, because this is one of the most unspoken of Christian disciplines. Everyone in the Evangelical community assumes everyone else is a fundamentalist and takes certain assumptions for granted. But if fundamentalism is a modern creation then what ground does it stand on? Why can't there be other ways of interpreting the Bible?

I am no longer a fundamentalist, because one of the first things I realized was that reading the simple plain meaning into the text is not necessarily the historical method of interpreting Scripture. It has been applied in many ways throughout history, and for us in our modern world we should have a spirit of openness to consider what possible alternatives exist so that we can make the most sense out of Scripture instead of limiting ourselves. There is simply no reason to favor fundamentalism, or think that it holds a privileged position as a method of Biblical interpretation.