Category Archives: Theology

Oct 09 2012
Leave a comment
Jesus, John Lussier, Love, Relationships, Theology

30-Second God

Image
(Photo copyright of T:R:C)

A theology professor at my school offered the following scenario:

You’re waiting downtown for the MAX, reading your Bible. As you see it coming down the tracks, perhaps a minute at most away, a man comes up to you. He looks at your Bible and says “I have recently become interested in spiritual things, and would like to know who you think God is.” You can’t miss the MAX, a family-member is waiting downtown for you. What do you say?

The professor then asked the class in 30 seconds to write down what they would say. I get what this professor was after in their story and question. He wanted us to get down to the basics, the most central elements of who we think God is. The class went over some of their answers:

“God is Jesus Christ, who offers you salvation from your sins.”

“God is the creator of the world, and loves it.”

“God is a community of divine persons, living in perfect community.”

The professor even offered his own definition:

“God is that one, infinite-personal, triune Spirit who created and governs all things.”

He went on to explain why he included various elements:

I want to avoid polytheism so I said one… but I also have to acknowledge God as the Triune, three-in-one… He is a personal deity, involved in the world, so I avoid deism, and he is Spirit, so I avoid pantheism.

I don’t tell you all of this to ask what you would say. But to ask, is this what we really are after as Christians? Is the above enough? Can we really square our thirty-second God with reality? (I am not saying  this particular prof. is being heretical or is off his rocker. The man absolutely has good intentions here. I just am pointing out a small area of difference, in a vast sea of agreement.)

Another professor I have studied under might classify the above as a worldview approach to Christianity. From this perspective, for all intents and purposes, God is an argument. Whoever has the most systematic, coherent, and consistent view of God wins. If you can beat your verbal opponent then you can convert them. Biggest god wins. (The same prof. talks about another just as negative way of Christianity and missions: the market-driven approach. Fulfill their needs and wants enough and you’ll get them in… but we don’t have time to talk about that one right now.)

The world-view driven approach to Christianity doesn’t satisfy me. You get deep enough into it, and you start to realize that the God of the Universe, Father-Son-Holy Spirit, isn’t just a definition, a paragraph, or even a book (or 66 ones). No, this God is a divine community of love. You see Him in the love of the Other. You don’t get him down to a list or thirty second snippet, you experience Him in a lifetime. You know Him in love. He is expressed through Christ, through the Spirit, through God’s people. My professor calls this the relational-incarnational approach (giving us a classic 3-point lecture). At the heart of this approach is a divine eternal Community of Persons in love, whom freely choose to create, and to love that creation by opening up their community to it. This Community loved creation so much that it sent its child to earth, the Word:

“The Word became flesh and blood,
and moved into the neighborhood.”

So back to the scenario. What do I say to this man seeking God? I’ve got thirty seconds and then I have to go. I can’t stay. The MAX is bearing down. Time is short. Go, I have to go…

“Come, sit with me. Let’s chat for awhile. I want to get to know you and let you know me, and maybe in that exchange God will show up.”

Tagged , , , , , ,
Oct 04 2012
Leave a comment
Bible, Daniel, Jesus, John Lussier, Theology

(American) Civil Religion Can Go to Hell

Image

Election season is a near constant reminder that American’s (and other peoples around the world in similar situations) have a pretty big sword hanging above our heads. We barely recognize it, but the situation we are in is pretty dire. There is a not-so-clear and present danger that we might give in to what I, and theologians like Peter Leithart, call (American) Civil Religion.

American Civil Religion

(A)CR is the thought that some aspect of America, whether that be its institutions, its people, its actions, or so on, is sacred. Sacred- set apart, holy, the Other, unapproachable, worthy of our complete devotion, unimpeachable, in the right, rare, and real. For a large part of America (A)CR is the constant, although perhaps unconscious, schema of how we approach the rest of the world. It guides what we identify as (an American, an Oregonian, a Portlander), what we value (the military, voting, freedom of speech), and what we do (work hard, play hard, enjoy life, fulfill our dreams).

The President (If we like him) – the Anointed One.
The President (If we don’t like him) – the Antichrist.
The flag – the Cross.
The Military – our refuge.
Holidays like July 4th – Holy days. 
Taxes – our tithe.
The Pursuit of Happiness – our Eucharist.

You get the picture.

Replacement Religion

I am worried about the threat of (A)CR because it replaces something. It replaces Christianity. And it does so in a very subtle way. (A)CR is able to replace Christianity because it has the outward appearance and inward cohesion of many part of what it means to be Christian. Jesus is big in (A)CR. But as soon as Jesus starts to disagree with (A)CR, then (A)CR stops talking about Jesus and starts talking about some enigmatic “God”.

“God” bless America.

Jesus Doesn’t Run People Over

Let’s take the above picture as an example. I don’t know who owns the above vehicle, but there is a good chance that if they are an American they would call themselves a Christian. Just statistically speaking that would probably be true. Now, can you ever see Jesus saying the above sentiment about the troops? I don’t think anyone but the most extreme would say “Yes.”

I got the above picture off of Facebook, where 64,000+ had liked it, and 2,400 had shared it. I saw this picture because a pastor friend of mine had liked it.

I get the issue behind it. Americans, for the most part, are proud of their troops. It’s a big value of (A)CR to appreciate those who have served in our place. I’ve even seen those soldiers compared to the role of Jesus. Giving up their lives for others.

But, honestly, can you see Jesus saying the above? Can you see Jesus supporting America’s troops in Afghanistan? Did he have a side their? Was Jesus supporting our troops or the administration that dropped an A-Bomb on the Japanese during WWII?

I am pushing buttons here on purpose, not to say that all war is wrong, or that when a state defends its sovereignty or punishes evil it is wrong, but to say that there are elements of (A)CR that can never jive with Jesus. He is going to judge elements of every culture and religion, including (A)CR.

God has not blessed America. Or if he has he has not done so to the detriment of the rest of the world. America is not always right. We’re not gonna be saved (or fail) this electoral season if one or another man ascends the metaphorical throne and becomes President. Our enemies are not America’s enemies.

The Ebb and Flow of Empire 

I’m reminded of the first part of the book of Daniel at this point. King Neb. has a dream and asks Daniel to interpret it. The dream is of a statue with a gold head, chest and arms of silver, belly and thigh of bronze, legs of iron, and feet of a clay and iron mix. A stone cut without human hands comes and cuts down the statue, destroying it completely. The stone then becomes a great mountain filling the whole earth. Daniel relates that the status is a picture of human kingdoms; the stone of the kingdom of God. Empires, like Babylon, Rome, the USSR, and *gulp* America, will rise and fall. In the end they will come of nothing. God will judge them, and create his own kingdom.

Daniel has a another dream later in the book. Four great beasts (representing human empires) come out of the sea. Up until the end all of these empire-beasts fight against the Ancient of Days, the Most High. A last one comes up, he’s different than the rest, in that he destroys the whole earth, but in many ways he is still the same, he fights, he loses, he’s destroyed. But Daniel mentions something in his interpretation that is incredible to me. There’s a group of people that last. The Saints, protected by the Son of Man on the side of the Ancient of Days, they inherit the final kingdom.

They don’t make it for themselves because they managed to create peace in the Middle East. They don’t buy it with the budgetary surplus they figured out. They don’t fight or work hard enough for it.

They suffer, remain faithful to the Most High, and get handed it.

Tagged , , , , , ,
Sep 25 2012
Leave a comment
Bible, Jesus, John Lussier, Love, Ministry, Relationships, Theology

Never Alone on Valentine’s: Singleness, Marriage and the Church (#7)

Since the beginning of August we have been going through a series about singleness, marriage, family and the Church. The first post was an introduction to the whole thing. The second was my own story and the stories of friends who have had some struggles with how the Church talks about singleness/marriage/family. The third looked at the modern family, and the fourth and fifth looked at the Church as family. Finally, my last post asked if we might be viewing all of the above incorrectly, if we got our American individualism and consumerism mixed up with what it means to be a family or the Church.

The entire series has been about showing two things:

  1. The Church has wrongly viewed itself as a voluntary association whose ultimate allegiance is at times to the nuclear family, headed by a married couple.
  2. Our ultimate allegiance is to God, in Christ, through the fellowship of the Church, by the Spirit of God.

The first point is the problem. The second is the solution. The first point about where I think the Church is at. The second point is about where I think we have to go. One major way that I see the first point expressed is how the modern Church has addressed singleness. Because marriage is so absolutely essential to much of the Church today, singleness is not taught on, is not encouraged, and is even sometimes denigrated. Think about the last time you heard singleness preached on, or mentioned in a sermon. I doubt it was given more than a few minutes of attention. I once heard a pastor at a seminar on relationships laugh at the thought of any of the people in attendance choosing singleness as a life-long goal.

Singleness

This denigration of singles by the wider church culture, examined in the light of Scripture, is wrong and hurtful. We know Jesus was single, and many scholars believe Paul was as well. Christ reinforces that celibacy is a choice that can be made for the good of the community (Matthew 19:12), and Paul speaks to the reality that in a world that is persecuting the church, those who want to serve it best should remain unmarried, in order to avoid “trouble” (1 Cor. 7:28).

The Scriptures place extended singleness as a very high-calling in the Church. They do so because of an understanding of the church as the most important social, and only salvific, institution on earth. When someone asserts their singleness in relationship with and for the church they express their freedom from anxiety about sex, marriage, procreation, etc. and their freedom for the church, to serve and love as a free member. For the committed single (whether that be a life-long commitment or for only a certain amount of time time), the Church and Christ alone are sufficient, and alone served. To often church culture has talked about the anxiety of singleness, seeing it as a period of stress, instead of seeing it as an incredibly useful time in a person’s life.

Marriage

That said, as we uphold the value of singleness we should not denigrate the marriage. It too provides opportunities for faithfulness, growth, service, and expansive love. But in order for these opportunities to grow we have to change how we view marriage. The purpose of marriage cannot be entirely about those who are married. Instead, we have to see marriage as for those involved, for the Church, and for the wider community.

I am not married, so I am not going to go on extensively about marriage, but I will ask that those of you who are married think about your own marriage in view of what I have been saying about the Trinity, and about the Church. If we are bound up into the life of God through Christ, by the Spirit, as the Church in the world, then we take our marriage with us into that life. It has a purpose in that life which goes beyond itself. The actions of marriage then should reflect those of the Church, in a miniaturized form. I don’t think I am off in saying that the opportunities in marriage are the same opportunities of singles and the same of those of the Church: to extend the Gospel through the entirety of our lives. Yes, how that is expressed will be different between singleness and marriage (and even between different singles or different married couples!) but the impetus is the same.

Singleness and marriage can both be opportunities for resisting or listening to God’s will. What is important is faithful obedience. The family of God is composed of those who have repented and put their lot in together under Christ, trusting in His leadership, and following His command of love.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Sep 11 2012
2 Comments
John Lussier, Love, Relationships, Theology

Never Alone on Valentine’s: Singleness, Marriage, and the Church (#6)

Over the last month+ we’ve been going through a series of posts on the Church, singleness, marriage, and the family. The first in the series was a brief overview of it all. In the second I shared my story of being alone on Valentine’s day, as well as the stories of some friends. Next I looked at the modern nuclear family and consumerism, asking if we haven’t joined those two a little too tightly. Then we moved from the family to the Church, which I think is the most important institution on earth. In my last post, I talked about the three-in-one-ness of God, and how that forms the identity, purpose, and actions of the Church-family.

This whole time time we have been focusing on two central points:

  1. The Church has wrongly viewed itself as a voluntary association whose ultimate allegiance is at times to the nuclear family, headed by a married couple.
  2. Our ultimate allegiance is to God, in Christ, through the fellowship of the Church, by the Spirit of God.

Get ready for a ridiculous run-on sentence: When we see that the Church is a covenant-community, created in the outpouring love of God’s community (the Trinity), and bound to one another in adoption, through the Spirit, in Christ, to the Father, we start to see some deficiency in how the Church views marriage and the family, as well as how that changes our understanding of Church.

Once we understand that the Church is joined to God’s family as the bride of Christ, how we understand kinship and marriage has to change. One diminishes in importance, and the other grows exponentially. (I am reminded again today of Jesus words about his mother and siblings: “…whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”) When we get the full story about our participation in God’s life as the body of Christ, how we view the Church is going to transform. If Christ is our head, we don’t come together for our own needs or desires, but for him.

Contrasting Vision

This understanding of the Church as a covenant-community, created by the Triune God, stands in stark contrast to certain conceptions of the Church I have seen in the US.

As theologian C. Normas Kraus notes, for many in America a denominational (us vs. them, what is important is what makes us different) or consumeristic (this is for me, what is important is what holes this group fills for me) understanding of the Church is what people first go towards.

These understandings of the Church follow from John Locke’s concept of the ‘social contract’. They both see “the church as a voluntary society formed by contractual arrangements between individuals who share commitments and goals. The contract is voluntary, legal, and functions to preserve the freedom of equality of individuals,” while at the same time fulfilling the self-perceived desires of the individual. Their both centered around the individual’s thoughts on the group. In contrast, Kraus says, the early church “…organized its life on the principle of commonality and the conviction that the individual self can find realization and fulfillment only in the shared experience of the reconciled community.”

In many ways the modern concept of marriage is a reflection of the Lockean ‘social constract’ and thus reinforces antithetical values to the church. Increasing isolation and consumerism in society has made the romantic marriage  an idealized goal for much of society. Lacking significant relationships with others marriage is increasingly seen as the ‘last great hope’ by singles. Relational fulfillment, for many moderns, only happens in the shared experience of marriage. Marriage is then a voluntary society [of two] formed by contractual arrangements between individuals who share commitments and goals. The contract, again, is voluntary, legal, and functions to preserve the freedom of equality of the individuals, while at the same time giving some relief to their relational needs. The American Evangelical church reinforces this hope, when it misjudges its basis for existence, and sees itself as a place to create, sustain, and prosper families/married couples, instead of seeing itself as the family of God.

Humanity is meant to find ultimate significance in others, but not in marriage. It is only in Christ, as His body the Church, that we are brought into the family of God, participation in God’s community, and find ultimate significance. Marriage doesn’t fill the hole. It has a different purpose. But before we discuss that, our next post will be on a sure sign of the Church’s approach to marriage and the family: how it treats singleness.

Tagged , , , , ,
Aug 29 2012
2 Comments
Jesus, John Lussier, Love, Ministry, Relationships, Theology

Never Alone on Valentine’s: Singleness, Marriage, and the Church (#5)

Slowly goes the buffalo.

I (John) am currently writing a series of posts on the Church, singleness, marriage, and the family. Over the last month or so we’ve had a brief overview of the whole thing, shared stories, examined the nuclear family and consumerism, and last time we discusse the most important institution on earth (the Church) and Christ’s mediation of all things (including marriage and the family).

The entire time we have been focusing on two central points:

  1. The Church has wrongly viewed itself as a voluntary association whose ultimate allegiance is at times to the nuclear family, headed by a married couple.
  2. Our ultimate allegiance is to God, in Christ, through the fellowship of the Church, by the Spirit of God.

As you may remember, my last post was a turn from discussing the first point, to looking at the second.We discussed Bonhoeffer’s theology of mediation and how it relates to the family. When Christ calls a man (or woman!) to discipleship he (or she!) is asked to see their world through a new avenue, Christ and his kingdom reign. When we do so, things like family, marriage, singleness change. They change in understanding (what is a family according to Jesus) as well as importance (is marriage the end all of life, in God’s kingdom?). Christ now mediates our reality,  and everything is disturbed because of that. Suddenly, as we live in Christ, we participate with God and his community: the Trinity and its Bride, the Church.

The Triune-Family

I think the Trinity is abolutely central to Christian Theology. In some ways it is a mysterious doctrine, yet it reveals so much about the existence of God, the world, and the Church. Only from the outward creation of the Trinity does the Church come to be. We find our identity in that creative love, and are formed as family. In that understamding of the the Church as the family of God, we understand our purpose and responsibility in the world…

Existence - It is out of the work of Trinity, the True Community of Persons, that the Church, a true community of persons in relationship to Christ,  comes to exist. Theologians Paul Louis Metzger and Brad Harper put it well, “the church is the creation and covenantal companion of the God who exists as Father, Son, and Spirit.” The Church came to existence on the day of Pentecost as the apostles of Jesus Christ, received his presence through the Holy Spirit, establishing their communion with God the Father at his call. It is out of the communion of the Triune God, that the community of the Church finds its identity, purpose, and activity in the world.

Identity – The Church’s is a community birthed from the “creative expression” of “inner-Trinitarian love and spreading goodness through the Word and the Spirit.” While the individual believer must come to faith in God and receive the Spirit, the church is the covenant community of salvation through Christ, the temple of the Spirit, and brothers and sisters in Christ under God the Father. It is only here that we have true identity, a name, as a people. We cannot find that name in human kinship, but only in the Church.

Purpose – The communal being of the church-family informs its purpose: created by the Triune and comissional love of God, the Church fulfills its purpose as it participates in this love. Living in the world and “bearing witness to God’s kingdom in its midst”, through missional love in cooperation with the Son and Spirit, the Church is “a new humanity and community…” living for itself and the world. The family of God expresses itself as it loves with the Son and Spirit at the front of us. When worldly realities restrict us from these purposes, we are forgetting our true identity as a family.

Activity – The activities of the church-community flow from its purpose of participation with God’s missional love. These activities follow the activities of the Church’s Triune God. Where the Son and Spirit go, we, the Church, go. Being a missional Church of love then “entail[s] being a missional people bearing God’s personal name, in whose communal midst this personal God dwells…participating in Christ’s incarnate presence as his body and bride in the community at large…being the temple of the Holy Spirit, welcoming others into our fellowship as a sanctuary for saints and a hospital for sinners.” The activity we involve ourselves in then cannot be selfish, oriented around our own desires, but must folow the Son and Spirit out into the world. It pushes past bounds of marriage or family (not breaking them, but expanding them in healthy ways), focusing us outward to the world that God is already working in.

The Church is then not a place where families come to worship God together, but a family that worships God by going where he goes! As we love one another as brothers and sisters, and as we expand that love outward to those outside the family, we act in our true identity as the Bride of Christ. In the next post we will contrast this understanding of the Church as the basis of our true identity, with those conceptions of church and marriage that rely on social contract and desire-fulfillment.

Tagged , , , ,
Aug 15 2012
3 Comments
Bible, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Jesus, John Lussier, Ministry, Relationships, Theology

Never Alone on Valentine’s: Singleness, Marriage, and the Church (#4)

We are currently working through a series at Hope in Exile that examines the modern American Evangelical views on singleness, marriage, and the family. The first post of the series was a brief overview, and can be viewed here.

The second post was on  my own story, and the story of others who have been “alone on Valentine’s”. Those stories revealed that certain views the church holds can be alienating to singles, and might overemphasize marriage. You can read that second post here.

The third part of this series examined the idea behind the nuclear family, and especially asked if consumerism, as opposed to unity in Christ, might be the major factor behind this overemphasis. You can view that post here.

The series has two major conclusions:

  1. The Church has wrongly viewed itself as a voluntary association whose ultimate allegiance is at times to the nuclear family, headed by a married couple.
  2. Our ultimate allegiance is to God, in Christ, through the fellowship of the Church, by the Spirit of God.

This post marks my turn from the problem (overemphasizing marriage) to the solution (a right understanding of our Triune God and His people the Church). Marriage is an incredible witness to the Gospel, but it is not the goal of human life. It can be part of life, but must be held in the light of God’s desire for His own people as His Bride. As we will see this decenters understandings of marriage and the family that we might assume correct.

The Most Important Institution on Earth

The modern American Evangelical churches’ hearty embrace of the modern conception of family is inadequate in light of a Triune understanding of the inbreaking of God’s kingdom in history. “The family is not God’s most important institution on earth,” says theologian Rodney Clapp. He is willing to do so because of his reading of the story of Israel and Christ. This story centrally concerns the obedience of faithful individuals-in-community and their reliance on God. While marriage is an important part of this story and can be an expression of faith, it is not the central element of Israel’s creation and calling. Instead, we should see the Exodus event as constituting Israel’s creation. When we reflect on the Exodus event we recognize that non-Hebrews left with the people they had enslaved (Exodus 12:38).

God formed a people for Himself in the Exodus and along with the Church they are the most important institution on earth.
Outside of blood/kin relationships, a slave people and some of their masters move out of Egypt, covenanting with God for their survival in the world. Marriage and the family were not a central element of this covenant; the covenant could be kept by anyone through obedience. The story of Christ continues this formation of God’s people. He forms his group of disciples not around familial lines, but obedience to God’s word. Jesus de-centers the concept of family. For Christ, family is not about biological or social association (think about what he says about being “sons of Abraham”), but in those who have encounter him as individuals and join his community through repentance and baptism, declaring commitment to Him and His community. Let’s now examine that encounter between Christ and the individual.

Christ Mediates Marriage (and Everything Else)

I love Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I recently told a friend that when I get to heaven, after probably a “century” or two of just staring at Jesus, I am gonna go talk to Dietrich about life.

In his book “Discipleship”, Dietrich Bonhoeffer describes the encounter between Christ and the individual believer. When Christ calls a person, he asks that their natural ties to reality be broken so that He would be the mediator (the intervening person, interpreting reality) or them: “He wants to be the medium; everything should be seen only through him. He stands not only between me and God, he also stands between me and the world, between me and other people and things.” Discussing Luke 14:26, Bonhoeffer goes on to say, that if the immediate demands of marriage or family keeps the individual from having Christ as their mediator, between them and the world, then those demands must be hated.

Individuals, with their reality mediated through Christ, are then called into the community of God; they “enter discipleship alone, but no one remains alone in discipleship. Those who dare to become single individuals … are given the gift of church-community” says Bonhoeffer. The individual who is willing to give up their family-community receives back the church-community. Bonhoeffer’s words excellently describe the individual’s encounter with the Kingdom reign of Christ, but need further explication as to how the church is constituted as the new family of the Triune God, which I will get to in my next post.

Tagged , , , ,
Aug 09 2012
7 Comments
John Lussier, Love, Ministry, Relationships, Theology

Never Alone on Valentine’s: Singleness, Marriage, and the Church (#3)

My current series at Hope in Exile focuses on modern American Evangelical views on singleness, marriage, and the family. You can view the first post in this series here and the second here.

The first part of the series gave an overview for our subject. My conclusion for the posts has two parts:

#1 The Church has wrongly viewed itself as a voluntary association whose ultimate allegiance is at times to the nuclear family, headed by a married couple.

Not all Evangelicals view the Church or marriage in this way, but as we saw last week in the stories offered, many do. 

#2 Our ultimate allegiance is to God, in Christ, through the fellowship of the Church, by the Spirit of God.

Understanding this, how we understandsingleness, marriage, and the Church, completely changes. We will get to this second conclusion in in later posts. For now we will take a look at the first of my conclusions, that many Evangelicals have a faulty view of marriage and thereby the family.

The Nuclear Family?

Over the last several decades the total number of nuclear families in America has diminished sharply. A household headed by a married couple with at least one child under eighteen now represents only 20.2% of American households. In 1970 that number was 40.3%. Currently 48.5% of households are headed by  a married couple. We, as part of the Church, can no longer assume that the nuclear family or married couple comprises the majority of what it means to be a family in America.

Nor could we in the past. What American Evangelicals consider the nuclear family, a married male and female parenting at least one child, is a recent invention that did not exist before the 20th century. It is is a product of the processes of industrialization, privatization, and commodification: Before the technological shifts of the last century, work and home were largely the same place. The house was a place where husband and wife worked together, children helped, and extended kin and ‘strangers’ were more likely to be around. The house was not the private abode of a few, but the place for many. (For more on this check out the work of Rosemary Radford Ruether.)

Marriage, Affection, and Consumerism

What Evangelicals call the family, at minimum a married couple, is only a slim representation of the historical expressions of the family unit, and one which mirrors the broader current of society: consumerism.

Before the 20th century a central concern of marriage was production. Marriages were formed in order to enable productive work and to increase family resources which would sustain its own members and serve society. Without work to keep the family together, affection/desire (the central element of the consumeristic worldview) became the ‘glue’ of family, as well as the sustaining factor of much of society.

Americans and much of the world have shifted into the mindset of being consumers: autonomous, isolated, self-interested, individuals that seek happiness through choice. Marriages, like many Churches today, are established not on mutual dependence to one another, or for a common purpose outside of one another, but out of desire: “I will be your friend or your spouse–or attend your church–because you amuse me or enhance my mental health. But if you fail to meet my needs… I am probably wisest to seek another friend or spouse [or church].” The Church must resist this privatization and commoditization of marriage and the family, by embracing the idea of the church as the ‘first family’. (For more on marriage, the family, and consumerism, check out Rodney Clapp’s book “Families at the Crossroads“.)

Be on the lookout for my next post in this series,  where I consider marriage and the family as an institution, and ask how the Scripture’s present their role in life.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Aug 03 2012
6 Comments
John Lussier, Ministry, Theology

Never Alone on Valentine’s: Singleness, Marriage, and the Church (#2)

I am currently going through a series on modern Evangelicalism’s view of singleness, marriage, and the family. You can view the first post in this series here.

Last time I gave a brief overview of the series. My conclusion is that the Church has wrongly viewed itself as a voluntary association whose ultimate allegiance is at times to the nuclear family, headed by a married couple. I say “at times” because there are other times when family is not the ultimate, but instead is replaced by the State, the Market, or pure individuality.

Instead I propose that our ultimate allegiance is to God, in Christ, through the fellowship of the Church, by the Spirit of God. All that we are, all of our purpose, all that we do, must orient around Christ. When this happens our view on singleness, marriage, and the family, drastically changes. Continuing the series today, I look at a few stories on how the Church views family, and how this makes a difference.

My Story

Valentine’s day, 2010:  It was a Sunday and I was at church.

Had it been earlier in my life I would have avoided the service that day out of immaturity. Church and holidays never seemed to go well in my mind. Usually there is some kind of mix of Christian and secular values that leave me feeling… discouraged.

That Valentine’s day wasn’t too different from what I expected: the service was entirely about marriage. As a single person — one who had not gone on a date in over six years — it was incredibly alienating. The service had a special musical number between a husband-wife duet, and two testimonies from couples about the joy of matrimony. The end was the worst though: the statistics my pastor and his wife gave as a sermon on marriage. (This was the only time I had ever seen the pastor’s wife share in one of his sermons.) They reported on how a certain percentage of married people reported themselves as happy, while a lower percentage of singles reported being happy; how marriage can more than double a couples’ lifetime earnings; how marriage is a health benefit for those in it. I felt sick at the end of the service. Here I was single, and feeling awful because I seemingly couldn’t be happy, would be poor, and might have less years to live because I was an unmarried person.

Other Stories

That is my own personal story on the church’s presentation of marriage and family. Think about these other stories:

-In 2005 mega-churches across the US decided to not hold worship services because Christmas fell on a Sunday that year. They reasoned that this closure would allow families to celebrate at home.  I wasn’t alone that Christmas, but I can imagine how other singles felt about not having a place to go for Christmas worship and fellowship.

-Friends of mine attended a church where an entire three entire months were given to a sermon series on “Superheroes”. Who were the superheroes that would be discuss Ed? Husbands and wives, responsible parents, and wholesome kids. My single friends had zero ways to relate to this series. They were unmarried, away from their families, and living with adult roommates. They had no capes in their closets.

- I’ve known several pastors who have been resistant to scheduling events outside of those Sunday or Wednesday because, “people have date nights, family-time, sports meets, etc. and the church can’t trespass on that time”.

The above stories and examples reveal something about the Church and American Evangelicals: what is expected is a lot of reliable, married, family life (because that is supposedly what we as people primarily need and should be doing), and “going to church” once or twice a week for a couples hours. And if certain people can’t relate to the above priorities then…???

As we will see in the next couple posts, part of the problem here is that this idealistic family is no longer a reality for a majority of Americans. Another is our definition of family and the Church, that places kinship above fellowship. Look for those posts soon.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Aug 02 2012
8 Comments
John Lussier, Love, Ministry, Theology

Never Alone on Valentine’s: Singleness, Marriage, and the Church (#1)

Over the next two weeks I will be posting a series of posts that examines the Church’s understanding of family and marriage, especially from the context of American Evangelicalism.

I wrote much of it for a class on Ecclesiology (theological study of the Christian Church), but know it is appropriate to share on Hope in Exile. While it is rather long, I promise if you press on you will find something of value. Our theology changes everything, including marriage and the family. Here’s the whole take-away for the series: the Church has wrongly viewed itself as a voluntary association whose ultimate allegiance is at times to the nuclear family, headed by a married couple.

The Church is not a voluntary association of people. It is not a club that comes together freely and out of matters of preference or affinity. Instead the Church is the people of God, called from the world, to live in it for Christ.  Our ultimate allegiance, the thing we cling to for life, liberty, happiness, etc. is Christ. Not the government, not money, not even our family and that most intimate relationship: marriage. Nothing of this world is our God or can save us; none of this stuff can keep us happy, safe, well-off… you get the idea.

Yet a look at the American Evangelical church reveals a view of marriage that is troubling. There singleness is not a realistic option, and marriage is almost absolutely necessary to have many of life’s goods. Even more troubling, marriage has become an assumed part of being an adult in the church. The Evangelical church has embraced marriage as its key social unit for gathering, and thus has unintentionallyexcluded  the single person and non-nuclear families from its gathering.

A Trinitarian-Kingdom framework provides a necessary critique of the church’s overemphasis of the married couple. When we understand God as Triune community seeking out the other, and in that seeking establishing the Kingdom, we recognize that the married, and those with immediate family-ties, have no privilege above others. Jesus seeks to create a community of disciples outside the normal marks of kinship, and  includes all — even those on the margins. In doing so he makes a critique of the cultures at the time of His incarnation, and those today that place a heavy emphasis on marriage and family-bonds. This critique shows that singleness has a special place in God’s community and that the local church is the ultimate social unit, the concrete representation of the kingdom, and to be a welcoming community.

Why this series? I write it as a single person who has been hurt by the Church’s almost unbroken insistence on marriage. I have felt exclusion from the church-community because I am an unmarried individual. At the same time, I write as a person who is thankful for the love, care, and example of fidelity that married persons in my life have shown me.

Over the next two weeks, join me in this series on singleness, marriage, and the Church. In the next post I will telling my own story about Valentines day, and stories from others about family and the church.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
May 30 2012
1 Comment
Gender, John Lussier, Justice, Theology, World Religions

Gender, Justice, and the “Great” Traditions Part #3

In March I posted the first in a series on Gender, Justice, and the “Great” Traditions.  My point has been to expose thoughts about gender, especially as regards women, in the great traditions of the world. A couple weeks ago I posted again with some excerpts from Aristotle and Plato, and some thoughts on those. This week I go from “Western” philosophy to more eastern religious thoughts.

Some Eastern Traditions and Women

Denigrating thoughts about women (and corresponding praises of men) are not confined to Greek philosophy, but exist in some form throughout every great tradition, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Gnosticism. Note that these are not complete analyses of how these traditions speak of women, but snippets. They do not, at all, represent the systematic view of women from Islam, Buddhism, etc. but are important examples of a way of thinking.

Islam

There is a saying in Islam that a women is like a crooked rib, she is beautiful and from man but to try to straighten her out would break her. Various interpreters have debated the meaning of this text, whether it presents women as inferior in nature, or simply different than men on purpose. Other comments from the Quran reinforce a view of women as below or less than men. While women are to be given their due, men are a “degree above them” in terms of responsibility and authority, says the Quran. When witnesses are required 2 men are sufficient, or if they cannot be found, 1 man and 2 women, “so that if one women errs, the other can remind her…” Another section, talking about the household, notes that men are in charge, and only when they are gone is the women to lead and guard her husband’s wealth.

Buddhism

There are a plethora of authoritative voices within Buddhism. A major line of thought within the grouping says that a woman must be reborn as a man to attain Buddha. That status will never come without a fundamental change in gender. Continuing, the ordination of female nuns in Buddhism was allowed for in its earliest form, but with 8 restrictions on these ordinands, including the instruction that male monks are always superior to female nuns and must be treated as such. They must be bowed to (even if the nun has been such for a very long time, and the monk has only been so for a day) and must never be insulted or reviled. There is a one way alley of respect, from the female to the male, that Buddhism does not allow to be reversed.

Hinduism

Several variants of Hinduism see a woman’s role as remaining chaste and pure within the household. “Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.” Women must be kept in dependence of males. Elsewhere in Hinduism there is discusses as to whether a woman should or should not study the Vedas (a collection of some of the oldest Hindu texts). Another Hindu work states that “The mind of a woman does not tolerate discipline, her intellect has little weight.”

Gnosticism

While Gnosticism is no longer a worldwide religion, some elements of its belief system still pervade much of modern religion beliefs. Shortly after the time of Jesus, a Gnostic writer says, that “…every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” This gender transformation is necessary because of the the Gnostic account of the fall. The feminine, Sophia (Wisdom) sought to emanate or cross a barrier for herself, in doing so started the creation of the physical world, and now must be brought back into the immaterial God through the male “Son of God” because of her error.

Where to from here?

When I look at the above, I am greatly discouraged. Women, for a very long time, have been considered ‘crooked’, less than, dishonest, forgetful, not worthy of respect, error-prone, undisciplined… I don’t need to go on. I present the above, not to repeat ill of women, to point these ‘hurtful texts’ out. If we are in anyway going to treat women (and men!) with the justice that they deserve, it has to be in a way that takes account of the above statements, refutes, and replace them with constructive realities about gender.

The built up historical noise-level as regards the unworthiness of women is very very high. We need to be aware of it, so we can start to filter it out. In the next post I take a look at one last “Great” tradition, our own Christianity, to ask how it has pictured women. While I do not believe the witness of the Holy Spirit in Scripture repeats the above, I do know that people have attempted to make it sound like that, and it is time to confess, repent, and worship, through constructive theology, a God who loves both male and female equally.

[If you found the above or other material from Hope in Exile helpful, please feel free to share it with others using the buttons below.]

Tagged , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 571 other followers

%d bloggers like this: