Category Archives: Christ and Culture

Scriptural Teaching as it relates to economic, political, social, or moral issues raised in US culture.

Trinity and the Family Analogy

27 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Adam and Eve, Christ and Culture, Expecting Parents, Gender Issues, Homosexuality, Human Experience and Theology, Pregnancy and Theology, Trinity, Trinity and Pregnancy

≈ Comments Off on Trinity and the Family Analogy

The Trinity is a rational doctrine, which can be understood by selecting facets of one aspect of a creature, another facet from creation, and yet another from somewhere else in this world. Then, the necessary step to make it “rationally conceivable” is joining these disparate features from within creation and seeing them together. I am not advocating that the Trinity can be divested of its mystery, but I am contesting the notion that the doctrine of the Trinity is absurdity or inherently contradictory.

With this said, Genesis 1:27 – 28 and Genesis 2:24 point out that God’s self-chosen analogy for Himself is the human family. We first find that both “male and female” constitute the “Image of God” (Imago Dei). These two, who constitute God’s image, are to “become one flesh,” which is an activity representative of the “Image of God.” Yes, sex is representative of God although sadly bastardized into a solely unclean thing in our culture.

Man and woman produce offspring: this child is the active union of the mother and father. Moreover, children exhibit characteristics of his/her parents whether or not he/she has ever met his/her parents. Nurture is not the source, therefore, of a child’s likeness to his/her parents; nature is. Striking indeed is that a woman and a child share the same space while the woman is pregnant with the child. The father, of course, is manifest in the child as well since his very being (genetics) comprises this child together with the wife. So what do we have? We have one person, the child, who is of the same nature as the parents (genetics/biologically), one person (child) sharing the same space as another person (mother), and, lastly, the mother and child are distinct persons.

Thus, in the very being of the child, the father and mother are present, both biologically and in character traits — although it will take many years to see this clearly. A pregnant woman might be the best analogy for the Trinity, requiring the least amount of adaption.

The Trinity is three distinct Persons who completely share the same “divine space,” and who are one in nature; a pregnant woman represents two distinct persons who share the same space (not completely though), and who are one in nature with even the third person (father) represented.

Conclusion: God self-chosen analogy gives the best representation found in a singular place, and that analogy is male and female involved in the procreational process, i.e., sex.

Dr. Scalise

Establishing Libertarian Governance with Christian Trinitarianism

30 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Government, Libertarianism, Trinity

≈ Comments Off on Establishing Libertarian Governance with Christian Trinitarianism

Tags

, ,

Given the formative role Christianity has had on Western civilization, we should ask the question of how much a Christian view of God played in the ideals that characterize Western governments. I intend to stay clear of philosophical libertarianism and theological austerity, instead focusing my attention on what the Trinity offers us as a theological foundation for government. I have developed a robust, complex, and what I consider to be a faithful view of the Trinity elsewhere: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OGSAX2W if anyone wants more data. The Trinity is a difficult idea, but it is rationally intelligible: God is one nature, Three Persons. Simply, one divine nature (what) expressed in Three distinct Persons mutually related (how). I will not unpack this now, but feel free to ask in the comments. The key to what I want to say in this post is that God is truly distinct Persons who are in communal loving relationships. Where love is, so also is freedom. Because all Three Persons are one in nature, there is no inequality among them. Because all Three Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, are equal in nature, so must their relationships be loving and free. This is not to say that there cannot be genuine obedience in such love and freedom, but it is to say that such obedience is not forced in the Trinity. Probably the best text for making this point is John 10:17 – 18, where Jesus says that “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” We see a clear order to the Persons of the Trinity, that is, the Father gives the “charge,” but clearly the Father doesn’t force the charge on the Son: ” . . . because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me.” This part of the verse doesn’t demand that we remove Jesus’ obedience or the Father’s commanding to protect freedom. Instead, we have to modify our understanding of obedience and commanding to match this heavenly reality; the Father’s commanding is not domineering, and the Son’s obedience is not fearfully or forcefully compelled. This is what we would expect love to do in situations where there is a commander and the commanded. The one who commands is no longer a tyrant, but lovingly, that is, non-coercisely, commands. The one commanded acts from love, affection, and trust, not from the instinct to survive or being forced. Love, then, is on both sides of this heavenly exchange because the Father commands without force or fear and the Son obeys without being compelled or intimidated into obeisance. What does this offer human governance? Can we set up libertarian policies in government that uphold the individual’s and community’s ability to say yes or no while similarly establishing policies that engender trust and lead to trustworthiness between government and the public? Such policies, informed from the points made about the Trinity above, could be structured to incentivize the public’s willing adoption and practice of them. These laws would offer some positive effects — fiscal, communal, moral, familial, et al. — but would leave it to individuals and communities to decide if they wanted to “trust” such policies. Such policies require certain embedded cultural values in order to entrust the public with responsible freedom and the public to entrust the government with certain powers to responsibly guide the nation. The current situation in the US, where little confidence in government competency is increasingly common, says that mutual trust is a distant cry. When there are two equal partners in a governing-governed relationship, it seems the test of leadership which reflects God the Trinity best is one that makes intentional room for freedom, not limitation to it. I have more to say on this, but this must suffice for now, drawing a summary principle in close: when both partners of a governing-governed relationship are sufficiently trustworthy or “mature,” there should be no force — other than that persuasiveness that is neither frightful or domineering — because such force is suggestive of distrust. A similar principle is that trust enables freedom; distrust is hostile to it.  I want to be clear in close, the Father isn’t “governing” the Son of God like the human government situation; indeed, it hardly seems accurate to use the word “government” at all among the Persons of the Trinity. I see Them as in covenantally relationships, lovingly related, intimately communal, and distinctly living in the tasks proper to them: the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Dr. Scalise

Why Matthew Vines’ Video on “God and the Gay Christian” is Applaudable but ultimately Unconvincing

27 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Christ and Culture, Christian Ministry, Difficult Questions, Gay marriage, Homosexuality, Homosexuals

≈ Comments Off on Why Matthew Vines’ Video on “God and the Gay Christian” is Applaudable but ultimately Unconvincing

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Matthew Vines’ video aims to persuade a revisitation to the biblical texts that deal with homosexuality. This, to my mind, is laudable precisely because it points us back to the biblical text itself. There are other ways Vines could argue to make his point; indeed, many postmodern theologians and interpreters of the Bible are content to make the community they represent the authoritative touchstone for judging the biblical text itself. They ask what ways the current situation today acts as a check on the Bible to bring its undesirable aspects into view and, then, to extract them so that what is left is God’s unpolluted message. Probably the best known example of this comes from the feminist theologians, who claim that the Bible upholds patriarchalism, and, by extension, male hegemony. These feminist theologians have offered a helpful renewal of interest on how the Bible presents women. I am persuaded by a number of their points, particularly on the interpretation of the woman at the well (John 4), who is often treated as little more than a immoral confuse woman, who Jesus enlightens and fixes. A close look at this text shows that such an interpretation likely owes more to male bias than to the logic of the text: Jn. 4:12 shows the woman is following Jesus’ discussion, discerning how powerful Jesus’ claim is about living water by comparing Him with Jacob, the namesake of Israel. Verse 15 shows the woman’s acceptance of Jesus’ claim and her openness to receiving it after only a few difficult to understand statements by Jesus. Then, she goes on to tell Jesus that He is a Prophet (v. 19), and a number of sophisticated religious issues in her culture (v. 20). After Jesus unpacks what she has stated, she gives a basic but correct statement about theology, that is, that the Messiah is coming to reveal all things (v. 25). All this to say that the woman at the well is a far more complex character than simply a immoral confused woman. Certainly, she was living immorally, but she is religiously and culturally astute, as seen from her comments. Now, why do I spend time on this point. I do so because some of these “alternative interpretative communities” offer valuable insight, so we ought to carefully consider their points before we “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Vines’ work with the biblical text in an attempt to reconcile the homosexual lifestyle with God’s word shows genuine humility. It would be much easier for him to just dismiss those parts of the Bible as outright wrong, judged so by the contemporary situation. Ultimately, though, his discussion is unconvincing. There are a number of ways to show how it is unpersuasive, but I want to offer a novel way of putting an old point, indeed it is the point Jesus Himself makes when dealing with a question about male-female relationship and what the husbands were doing to their wives (Matt. 19:1 – 9). Vines’ presentation — and let me offer the segment from 2:55 – 3:05 as an example — shifts the focus from the “what of love” to the “manner of love.” The three words he uses, “faithfulness, commitment, love,” from what I can tell, all focus on the manner in which we are to related.  Few, I suppose, would object to this definition of a “good manner of relating.” This, however, is only part of the issue because it has long been known, especially since St. Augustine’s point in Enchiridion, that goodness and love have both ontological aspects and modal aspects (Augustine comments on Gen. 1:31). Ontological refers to the “nature of things” and modal refers to the “manner of things.” Vines’ focus on the “manner of good relating” is praiseworthy, but goodness and love cannot be reduced to just the manner, dismissing the “nature of things.” The Genesis text Jesus cites, Gen. 2:24, is richly focused on the “nature of things” as is Genesis 1:31: Jesus states, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” Love, as I’ve pinned to my twitter account, is always as much about form (manner) as about content (what). What God made was male and female; what man and woman became was one flesh. God’s declaration that all was “very good” in Gen. 1:31, including what God has fashioned in Adam and Eve, is an overarching statement that is as much ontological (nature of things) as modal (manner of things). Arguing that homosexual relations are good based on the manner of relating misses the issue of what. Vines’ idea of a good or loving relationship is on the mark, but the manner of relating argument cannot answer the what of relation issue. Both what a relationship is and how it is to transpire cannot be reduced into one or the other without a severe diminution of what it means to be human in relationships. It is, to my mind, somewhat shocking that Vines doesn’t consider the creation account as relevant to the question he was seeking to answer. For a good debate on the matter, see 

Dr. Scalise

Why do biblical Persons contradict biblical Qualifications: Deborah in Judges 4 in Light of 1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1

24 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Apologetics, Biblical Interpretation, Christ and Culture, Church Leadership, Difficult Questions, Difficult Texts

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Introduction

Why are there specific qualifications for Elders and Deacons (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1) yet most of the men and women God used to lead His People OT and in the early church didn’t meet many of these standards? My first mentor asked the question above, and I confess, it is a doozy. I think that the contradiction may be nigh near impossible to deal with if we approach it through an inductive approach. We cannot simply find all the verses in the Bible that speak to the matter, and then tally up what the result is. If we did this, we would see that the “man after God’s own heart,” King David, had multiple wives and even concubines, but the qualifications listed in 1 Tim. and Titus clearly state that leaders of the people of God should have only one wife. I want to eliminate a few options right at the front for dealing with the text. I do not want to revise the biblical text by picking and chooses some verses while eliminating others or debate the dating of books: we can call this the revisionist option. Like Kevin Vanhoozer and Bernard Childs, I think we ought to work with a full canon of Scripture rather than thinking our methods can lead us to the “truth behind the text,” as though the truth isn’t in the text of the Bible. I think that the old dispensational explanation that God works differently during different ages hits on an important truth, but I do not want to package it the way a dispensationalist would. It is too simple to considerably explain the complexity of the biblical text. Let’s look at what 1 Tim 3:2–4 states: “Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive . . . .” I don’t think we can just say, “Well, the church is a different organization at a different time than the theocracy of Israel and so they have different rules for different communities and times.” In what follows, I want to use Judges 4 (Deborah:female leadership) as a test case that contradicts 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 (male leadership) so as to illustrate one way to handle this. I am going to avoid what I call the “dominating other biblical texts into silence approach” often used that is undergirded with the logic that the last word on the matter is what stands for us today (1 Tim. and Titus are both near the end of the Bible). After this — and this is the main body of the discussion — I offer some philosophical answers to the problem along with observations about the entirety of the Bible. I believe I could answer the question with only this last section, but I want to give lots to think about in order to push both our understanding of the Bible and how to apply it today.

Vanhoozer’s Linguistic-Canonical Approach to the Bible

Kevin Vanhoozer’s development in Evangelical Futures, which is his own summarization of The Drama of Doctrine, offers what he terms the “canonical-linguistic approach.” I want to explain it before I use it for this issue because it is a thematic approach to the Bible, tracing certain ideas across its pages to observe where the text “points” or “directs.” The Bible acts as a kind of mentor, and we are its apprentices. It is not enough to just know what the Bible says; we need to observe the method by which the Bible addresses an issue in its various contexts. As we bring all of these observations together, we have a collection of both what the Bible says and how the Bible handles certain issues in specific contexts. The crux of Vanhoozer’s approach is that the whole canon, that is, the whole Bible, must be consulted so that we can become an “apprentice” to its wisdom, not merely parrots of verses (Evangelical Futures, 80 – 82). While it remains that using the canonical-linguistic approach requires knowing all or many of the verses dealing with a difficult biblical question about living the Christian life, about theology, or other practical day-to-day issues, it seeks to form a summarization of this content for the purpose of living rightly. We need to know what the Bible says, how it goes about saying it, and how to bring not just the “what” to bear, but the “how” as well, in our situations. In short, the Bible’s wisdom on a matter must be performed by us. Some may assume this suspect, but it is only following what we think the Apostle Matthew did in his Gospel when he said that Jesus will “be called a Nazarene.” St. Matthew introduces this as spoken by the Prophets, as though it is coming from the OT, but no text like this exists in the OT. Many scholars think that St. Matthew is summarizing the OT teaching, so that what St. Matthews says is the collective wisdom and teaching on this coming Messiah although no Prophet specifically states what Matthew says.

Judges 4 in the Light of 1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1

We all know the story of Deborah, the woman Judge and Prophetess who led Israel to victory over Sisera and Jabin (Judges 4). Barak, in my opinion, is not to be credited with the victory because he risked being disobedient to God by refusing to obey Him by going to battle unless Deborah would go with Him (4:6, 8). A Judge, it is to be remembered, was a civil and legal leader of the nation of Israel, so Deborah acts as a kind of “governor” over the diverse tribes of Israel. Further, as a Prophetess in the role of Judge, she no doubt had powerful influence over the spiritual climate of Israel, greater than many of the mega church pastors’ influence combined today. It is not a misnomer, then, to call her both a spiritual and civl leader. I’ve heard a number of persons claim that the narrative about Deborah teaches the principle that God will use a woman rather than a man when strong men cannot be found to lead. I am not sure how such an understanding is possible because the text makes no bones about Deborah’s status as a Prophetess and Judge: “Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord for help, for he had 900 chariots of iron and he oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.  Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam . . . .” (Esv). The text is not about God “raising a woman up” because Barak wouldn’t rise to the occasion or any other “strong men” for that matter. Rather, the text, in typical Hebrew narrative just presents Deborah as the Judge and Prophetess — the “Now Deborah . . .” is introduced with the Hebrew term for continuing a narrative, waw ו. There is no indication either from the Hebrew text or the English that Deborah’s role is unusual or that she is appointed because of some dire situation. Instead, what we find is a woman in power who deals decisively with the problem: “She sent and summoned Barak . . . .” Barak is not cast as the leader in this text. Deborah is clearly the one with the authority to summon him and, with her spiritual authority, she delivers the word of the Lord to Barak for how to handle this oppressive situation: “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. 7 And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?”” Deborah orchestrates both Barak’s involvement and how to go about the battle. Barak promptly refuses to listen unless Deborah comes along: “Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.”” There is no indication from this text that Deborah is at odds with God; indeed, Deborah was so intimate with God that she knew what God had told Barak. Now, what are we to do with this glaring contradiction to 1 Tim. and Titus. At this point, I could launch into a long, although no doubt profitable, discussion of cultural norms and cultural change. I will say a bit on this shortly in the final section, but let’s apply Vanhoozer’s linguistic-canonical approach to the present tension between Judges 4 and 1 Tim. 3/Titus 1. If we inductively tallied up the texts, we would be left with a major contradiction: God says only men are to lead in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, but God shows that a woman can lead both as a spiritual and civic leader in Judges 4. If we looked at the rest of Judges, we would observe that the rest of the leaders/Judges were men. From this we would conclude that woman leadership is not contrary to God either in principle or in fact. Woman leadership, however, looking at the “method” or “models of leadership” offered in Judges, suggests that it is irregular. Judges 4 does not teach that woman can only lead when strong men are lacking; this is not what the text conveys. From this point, we need to look all across the Bible, at all models of leadership, to see what else we can conclude about leadership: I don’t have space to do this: it would be a book. We would surely find many “men only” models: kings of Israel, Priests of Israel, Jesus’ inner 12 disciples, some church leaders. Although I’ve listed Jesus’ inner 12, it is not to be missed that women were also part of Jesus’ discipleship group that traveled around with him (Mt. 27:55, Mk 15:41, Lk. 23:49, esp. Lk. 24:22, Acts 1:14). Also, in Romans, St. Paul mentions two women in his farewell remarks in chapter 16: Phoebe (v. 1) the deaconess and Junias the apostle (v. 7). There are other women we could mention as well. This suffices to “point-out” in a linguistic canonical approach that the canon of Scripture, in its fulness, is not opposed to woman leadership in principle or in fact. What I want to avoid at this point is opting for a universalizing or totalitarian use of one Scripture or set of Scriptures to silence the others. Cast in the light of the linguistic-canonical approach, 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 are eminently consistent with the majority of male-model-leadership found across the pages of Scripture. If I had more time, I would want to look at the cultural situations of the locations where Timothy and Titus were Pastors. The linguistic-canonical approach will not allow us to leave it at that because we are interested in the entirety of the biblical witness and how that “directs” us to live-out that wisdom, not in silencing the rest of the biblical witness or reinterpreting it in the image or model of 1 Tim. and Titus. Some will find this “iffy.” I would point out that there are many texts with women in prominent roles just above, and more could be added to that. I find silencing many texts in Scripture’s teaching on a matter more “iffy” than finding a way to let it all stand. Male-leadership, therefore, is the general guideline for church leadership, but woman leadership is not excluded in principle (de jure) or in fact (de facto). In 1 Tim and Titus there may have been cultural issues that had created women in that town who were domineering — more than one commentator has claimed this in Timothy’s situation. I hope all of this has gone to show that looking across the whole canon of the Bible leads to the conclusion that certain imperatives in a text or two cannot dominant the rest of the biblical witness into silence in cases where they disagree, even if it is the “last word” God spoke on a matter. The entire biblical text must direct our thinking and consequent living on a matter. Thus, 1 Tim. and Titus no doubt apply directly to those churches, but St. Paul, the same author of 1 Tim. and Titus, can also call Phoebe a deaconess of the Church of Cenchreae, and Romans is dated not long before 1 Tim. and Titus.

Philosophical Answers and Observations on the Whole Bible

Why does God deal with specific situations sometimes differently? It seems because situations always differ, and sometimes call for more specific direction than in other places. For instance, why was it enough that Abraham just “trust” God and keep the few commands God gave to him whereas the Israelites at Sinai were delivered 613 commands? Was did Noah only get a few commands? God’s commands can also be inconsistent across the whole of Scripture because God sometimes condescends to meet humanity where they are (as Jesus taught, Mt. 19:8), while other times His commands are utterly high (Deut. 6:1 – 10) and consistent with His nature. Moreover, after the fall, God is interested in refashioning man into useful vessels for God’s purposes (Jer. 18:5 – 11) according to man’s cooperation with God; echoing John Hick, God is interested in “soul-making.” Thus, some commands come sooner or later in God’s economy of guiding man back towards Christ and, through Him and in the Spirit, to heaven. This thought follows the narrative flow of Genesis 6 – 12:1 – 3 because man falls (Gen. 3), and they are heavily influenced into evil so much so that God kills all but Noah and his family. From this point, God’s task of reclaiming humanity from the Devil is ongoing, particularly and powerfully advanced in Gen. 12:1 – 3 with the call and promise to Abraham (see NT Wright’s Climax of the Covenant). God’s role in developing both the biblical narrative and Israel as a people is transformative across the pages of history. God doesn’t only deliver a rote set of laws to be woodenly followed but never advanced as Deuteronomy makes clear: Deut. 17:8 – 11. This text already assumes the the Laws God gave would not be enough to handle every situation, but gives the leaders power to direct them. Moreover, Deut. 29:1 already makes mention of the coming new “covenant,” the one “besides the covenant God man with them at Horeb.” This leads into my final point, that God’s revelation across time is a “spiral” leading to a telos, or certain end and goal. It is not a cycle. God’s directives can show greater or lesser consistency with earlier or later commands because Scripture is ever unpacking and elaborating, not just restating what has already been said. As a spiral, we expect God to set up certain administrative policies for how He governs His people that we will see again and again, but that also advance (this is actually what typology, what the Catholics call allegory, is all about). In 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1, we are on part of the spiral that coincides with God’s former preference for male leadership, but this does not demand that we universalize it so that just that part of the spiral becomes the whole spiral. In fact, Scripture would caution us against such a “silencing” of other parts of the biblical text. Dr. Scalise

Giving, Covetousness, and Christmas

10 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in and Bitterness, Christ and Culture, Christmas

≈ Comments Off on Giving, Covetousness, and Christmas

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

This blog was first a written response to a comment:

My initial thought is that covetousness isn’t just about “expecting” a gift or “looking forward” to that time of gift-giving, or merely about the mere act of wanting.  Although the 10th commandment can be summarized into “You shall not covet,” this is only the beginning of the commandment.  Covetousness, as laid out in Exodus 20, is about seeing something belonging to your neighbor, wanting it, and desiring something, which we have no grounds to want—like wanting someone’s wife or house: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor.”

Thus the matter isn’t about the act of “desiring” but, rather, about what the object of that desire is. For instance, I can want and desire God’s comfort in a hard time and this is no sin.  But if I want and desire my something I have no right to, like my neighbor’s house, I now covet.  There is a certain order to the world and desiring things that militates against that order is something we have no right to desire. I can want God’s glory, Christ’s kingdom coming, a wife, a degree, and so forth.  These desires are all desires we have a right to, that is, are permitted in the way God’s ordered and designed the cosmos.  So, desire is only a tool; it is the object of that desire that turns it into covetousness or a proper want.  We can want many things but we cannot forget God’s command, “You shall not covet [whatever],” and so we are always wondering, “Is this “want” something God sanctioned and approved or not?”

Now for the Christmas example, I would point out that a gift—and this is a philosophical analysis of it mixed with a pointer from Romans 4:4—for it to remain a gift cannot be obligatory. If the gift-giving becomes obligatory, then it is no longer a pure act of giving but is now becoming more akin to <em>paying something I owe</em>. And if it becomes something I owe, then it is no longer me giving a gift, but paying a obligation. I would point out a huge piece of evidence for what I am saying, namely, this is why Christmas time is thought of by so many as not a jolly time but a tedious time, because they feel the obligations imposed on them by the expectations of their family and friends. I do not think the desiring of gifts from friends and family qualifies as covetousness because God is not opposed to gift giving or the hoping and wanting of gifts from those we love.  It seems the opposite: God is the first giver and so the inspirer of all gift giving—the historic doctrine of donum bonum (= Latin for “good gift”) speaks of creation as that first good gift.

And if you choose not to give gifts I think those who hoped for them—not expecting them to the point of thinking they were owed the gifts—could be genuinely disappointed. Where I think evil would enter would be if that disappointment transformed into a reason for disassociation, bitterness, or resentment.  I think these point to an attitude that believes they are owed gifts rather than rejoicing in the one who gives the gift.  On a Christian view, which I take here, the greatest gift is Christ (and Spirit and God) but God was not compelled by anyone to give Him, how could He be?  He was not obligated or made to give Him, He was not expected to save us by giving Him, He just did it freely—I can’t see how God could ever even be put in a position where He owed someone something He did not first initiate and willingly offer. Say God said that He was going to give spiritual gifts but then didn’t give any! This, of course, is absurd because God always keeps His word but for argument’s sake, let’s continue. Would we be disappointed? Yes, we would because there was an expected set up by the <em>Giver</em>.  But say God said he wasn’t giving any spiritual gifts and so we received none—or merely didn’t say anything at all about giving any gifts.  Would we be disappointed? No, we wouldn’t because we were not set up by the Giver to expect gifts.

What is the problem, then, with Christmas? Christmas is troublesome because it is a tradition of giving gifts, among other things.  And a tradition is the collective practice and wisdom of ancestors passed on to later generations. And so you are expected to give gifts, not of your own will and initiative, but by the will and initiative of those ancestors. And if the ancestors, who started this tradition, say you should give gifts, then you best listen, submit, and do as they say.  Or, at least, this is how the conventional wisdom goes.

If this analysis is right, we now have come to the threshold where gift giving could become obligation.  It depends on where we stand in relation to this tradition. If I think it is good and I like it, then I’ll say, “What the ancestors say counts for me as well,” and I’ll gladly and freely give gifts.  Why? Because I’ve accepted the ancestors’ wisdom and practice for myself and so it counts as my practice and wisdom as well.  Thus, I’ve heard what the ancestors have said, considered it, and accepted it as my own practice, not by being forced but by my own careful deliberation over the matter and so it is not done out of obligation.  But, if I consider what this tradition says, those ancestors’ practice, and decide it is not for me, then ought I just submit?  I could but the result will be “giving” out of obligation, not out of my free desire and goodwill towards that tradition, towards those ancestors.  Why? Because this “giving” is done to satisfy expectations placed upon me, not because of my affirmation of the practice itself, not because I’ve adopted it for myself but only that I submit to it, perhaps, for the sake of others’ beliefs, social harmony, and so forth.

When we fulfill those expectations place upon us by others, we might also be achieving some “good” as well.  If we do it because we want to be a cause of social harmony, this is no doubt a good.  Thus we are “paying a price” for social harmony.  Or perhaps, although we don’t agree with the tradition ourselves, we want to show reverence to our elders in our family, we still go along with it.  This is also a good.  So there seems to be a competition of goods, between the good of truly giving versus the good of paying the price for some other good thing—like showing reverence to elders or social in family harmony.

And it is at this point that we see how “giving” becomes “paying.”  It is paying the price of those expectations, social harmony, or reverence.  Now paying the price for some  good is laudable but not as laudable as the example Jesus set.  He “paid the price” of our redemption but He did so willingly and thus was freely giving Himself.  In the same way, if we take the tradition on as our own practice, the price we pay is no longer considered “paying a price” but “freely giving.”  I am not merely compelled by the good I can accomplish through following the tradition (like social harmony) but I am convinced that the tradition itself is “good” and “right” for me, so that the giving I do is for the goodness of the giving itself and not because of eternal pressers.  Notice that this attitude  allows no place for bitterness or resentment to set in whereas “paying the price” for the goods I can accomplish through going along with the tradition does not protect against these.  It is easy to see why we speak of some people in these situations as just “going through the motions.”  They do it for goods accomplished by it, like meeting loved ones’ expectations, social harmony, or to show reverence, but are dispassionate and so disinterested about the value of the tradition itself.  And soon, if we are not careful, going through the motions will give place to its cousins, bitterness and resentment.

And it is in view of these cousins, when they take hold on us, that it can be suggested that rejecting Christmas altogether may indeed be a greater good than resentfully going through the motions.  The personal question we all must face, therefore, is, “Is giving going to change me into a more whole and beautiful person or is “paying the price” going to do that?” The answer is giving.  But if this is the answer, then we all must make a choice in view of Christmas, either to affirm the tradition and become a genuine giver (the greater good) or to simply “pay the price” of the expectations place upon me (fulfilling the “lesser” good but also a danger by giving place to bitterness/resentment).  Of course, we could just refuse the entire Christmas tradition and then those who want to follow that tradition in our families face a similar choice between good and evil:  “Will I respect the choice of my family member who refuses the tradition of Christmas (a good of not forcing myself on them), like how Jesus refused to follow religious traditions, or will I enforce my tradition upon them through my expectations (the lesser good or even an evil)?”

Finally, notice that whether we give willingly or pay the price, sacrifice is entailed in both.  But willingly giving is sacrifice done joyfully whereas paying the price is sacrifice only done pragmatically.  Christ endured the cross because of the joy in front of Him (Heb. 12:1 – 2).

B. T. Scalise

Entitlement V

26 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and Economic, Christ and the Politico-Economic, Economics, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement V

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Selfishness is concern for self to the detriment of others.  Not all entitlements spring from selfishness.  With this said, my comments that follow zone in on those that do spring from selfishness.  To receive entitlements is really to take from others.  Note that I said “take” and not “receive.” There is no “giving” in this type of system. Entitlement states, “I deserve so someone take it from others and give it to me.”  Robin Hood is the hero of the poor: take from the rich, give to the poor.  The question for the poor is what attitude should I have?

This is a heart matter for a strong and tough person, a trusting and committed person.  These poor must to strong and tough because they are often exploited and they know it; they are also trusting and committed because they entrust themselves to the Lord Jesus and remain committed in that trust.  For these poor to refuse the entitled attitude of “I deserve it” they can look to the OT example of negative rights, as I noted in my earlier post on entitlements: what they might say, then, following this OT example, would be, “those rich will not (are not entitled) to oppress us.”  This brings in another set of people (the rich) and only seeks to remove the oppression done to the poor but does not seek to take things from the rich. Simply, the rich will not take from the poor and the poor will not take from the rich.

The OT clarifies, “You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your neighbor by righteousness” (Lev. 19:15; translation mine from the Hebrew, italics mine).  Look at how close Jesus repeats this Levitical principle but in different words: “Do not judge according to appearance but with righteous judgment you must judge” (Jn. 7:24).  Notice all the negatives (nor, not, neither) and how Leviticus and Jesus disavow judging people according to their socio-economic status.  Instead, both Yahweh (in Leviticus) and Jesus (in John) juxtapose their disagreement with this judging according to appearance (poor or rich or simply how someone looks) with how to judge properly, that is according to righteousness.  Of course, we must know what “righteousness” is to know how to judge.  It is clear from Scripture that righteousness, tsideqah in Hebrew, points to the teaching of the Law, the Torah, and also to Jesus’ complements to it.  And here, to avoid controversy, let’s assume that “righteousness” focuses on the moral elements in the Law and in Jesus’ teaching.  

But, if we look at people’s conformity to Jesus’ teaching and God’s law as the standard by which we judge, we do not simply see someone’s socio-economic status and conclude that they are entitled or disentitled.  We neither see the rich and say, just because they are rich, that they should give their wealth away (disentitled to their wealth) nor do we see the poor and say, just because they are poor, you should be entitled to more wealth.  And remember to be entitled (to other people’s stuff) implies taking from someone else, which then implies some measure of force.  

What is particularly dangerous about entitlement is that those who have this entitlement attitude understand themselves as holding the moral high ground.  But not having stuff and thinking you should have it and wanting someone to take it implies immorality, both in the force necessary to make this occur and in the envy that undergirds it. Simply “not having” does not produce moral currency (to put them on the high moral ground) that sets someone above “those that have.”  Look what comes together in this thinking: “I deserve, someone take it and give it to me, and having the moral high ground justifies coercion, force, or even violence.”  Following the example of our Lord Jesus, it is obvious that having the moral high ground does not put one in a position to take or engender an attitude of taking but, rather, to give and engendering an attitude of giving.  Jesus holds the absolute highest moral high ground there is.  Yet He deprives Himself of that lofty purity to come to earth to give Himself, making others pure: “He became poor so that we might become rich.”  

B. T. Scalise

The Church’s Rushed Openness in the Way of Intimacy

22 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christian Ministry, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on The Church’s Rushed Openness in the Way of Intimacy

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pastors, Christian Leaders, Professors,

We must stop rushing openness and intimacy in the church.  Human relationships go through a natural process during which we reveal ourselves more and more to those we know.  God does this too.  He did it over centuries and millenia during the writing of the Scriptures; God was slowing revealing Himself incrementally.  Jesus, too, revealed Himself to His disciples slowly over three years.  Why, then, do we promise people openness and transparency as an almost immediate expectation if people will visit our church? Why do we push those in our churches to feel as though they should be the warmest and most open people when visitors meet them? Or like the first night of the small group, each one in the group is expected to share their life story. We promise those who are visiting our churches that they will be greeted in warmth, in openness, and in love, to paraphrase one recent church advertisement I heard. I like these and think these sound wonderful, at least in theory.  But relationships don’t work like this and if we consider how Yahweh and Jesus incrementally revealed themselves in their relationships to those closest to them we will find that we are not mimicking either Jesus or Yahweh by rushing openness.  A large aspect of relating is gradual revealing and it is by this revealing that we cultivate intimacy.  But why is it that it feels so artificial when there is no gradual revealing but just a rushed open box? That rushed openness we expect out of our people creates the artificiality.  Friendship is childlike, it just happens organically and certain persons gravitate more towards some than others, but this “natural gravitation” does not prevent the general cultivation of love towards those who are not naturally attracted to one another.  Instead there is a particular love to those we reveal ourselves to and a general love in the Spirit for those who worship the Lord Jesus: we are one with them even if I don’t know them personally.

So this is the irony, in the church’s hasty desire to cultivate intimacy and openness among its members, the church is undermining the very foundation of that priceless intimacy: that is, a gradual process of persons coming to know one another through gradual revealing to one another.

Our churches should have authentic persons.  Forcing openness too quickly creates artificiality.  We must be true to Christ and true to one another.  God revealed Himself to us gradually and we are knowing Him more and more gradually through time as we relate to Him.  Rushing openness in those we oversee is intuitively unnatural, unlike how God revealed Himself, and stands in the way of intimacy.  Let us put on Christ and follow in His example, knowing we have come to know Him but that we incrementally know Him more, and so reveal ourselves as others reveal themselves to us, naturally, discerningly, and in its own time, not forced, not out of season.

B. T. Scalise

Multiple level Return on our Investment . . . for Christ?

20 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and Economic

≈ Comments Off on Multiple level Return on our Investment . . . for Christ?

Tags

, , , ,

My wife posed a wonderful phrase tonight, “With God, we get multiple return on our investments.” This brought to mind the parable of the talents: it comes across striking (Matt. 25:14 ff.): why call the man who failed to invest his money wicked? Would you call someone who only saved the money loaned them—but did not invest it—wicked? Jesus spent significant time speaking on the dangers of money but the parable of the talents instructs how to handle money properly.  A talent was worth many years’ wages, on an average level job’s income.  In Acts 20:35, Luke cites Paul, who quoting Jesus says, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” So Jesus, in Matthew, tells us not to give the money entrusted to us by the Lord but to invest it so that we can multiply it.  But in Acts, Jesus tells us to give, and that giving would include money, because this giving is better than receiving.  But isn’t investing our money, so that we get a return, receiving? When we also recall that Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, says, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal (Matt. 6:19 – 20),” we are further perplexed.

Is there a way to harmonize these teachings; there is. Some of the most voracious givers are those who steward their money well—mainly because they have the money to give because of their sound governing of it.  To have something to give as a regular way of life is to practice the wisdom of the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14 ff.).  And a way of life marked by regular giving enjoys the blessing of Acts 20:35 as part of every day life. And what is part of this blessing? No doubt it is the joy we receive meeting needs but not to be overlooked, which Paul makes clear elsewhere (Phil. 4:17), is that giving is one way we store up treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:19 – 20). Further, this very giving is not only giving to others but also, when done with a proper posture towards, giving to God (Matt. 25:40).

When we live for the kingdom of Christ, we get multiple return on our investment: we get fiscal return by wise investing (Matt. 25:14 ff.), that fiscal return enables a giving way of life so incurring that psychological and spiritual blessing of joy by meeting needs (Acts. 20:35), that same action of giving, when not done for the purposes of being seen and recognized and done for the glory of the Father, purchases for us treasure in heaven (Matt. 6:19 – 20), and we gladly then give to God (Matt. 25:40).  Is it not obvious why mis-stewarding money is considered wicked?

B. T. Scalise

Entitlement IV

09 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and the Politico-Economic, Exegesis and Interpretation

≈ 1 Comment

Returning to the point that Paul was unwilling to command ‘giving’ let’s do a bit more unpacking: “. . . see that you excel in this act of grace also.  I say this not as a command . . .” (2 Cor. 8:7-8)  He then goes on to note that Christ became poor so that Christians can become rich and implies we ought to mimic this (2 Cor. 8: 9 – 10).  That he does not command this is no surprise since only several verses later St. Paul states, “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7).  If Paul commanded it, the giving would be under compulsion; if Paul commanded it, it would no longer be gracious giving but obligatory paying–it would be difficult to call obligatory paying an “act of grace”  (2 Cor. 8:6).  The point is that we should give because we want to–not because we have to–and we must recognize that mimicking Christ requires such “willing giving.”  Everyone who names themselves a disciple cannot say, “But what if I don’t want to?”  Certainly we may feel like this from time to time but, in such cases, we pray, give thanks, and renew our view to our Master, the Christ, Jesus our Lord.  Notice, Paul’s logic: “for God loves a cheerful giver.”  And if God loves this and we love Him then we are inclined and desire to please Him (as our loving Father), approve cheerful giving (as God does), and enjoy seeing other do the same (just as God does and loves seeing us do).  It follows, then, that fellow Christians who are able to provide are not entitled to ignore the needs of fellow Christians.  But needful fellow Christians cannot covet and demand, only receive.  Those rich Christians are not entitled to give begrudgingly or out of compulsion, only freely and cheerfully “for the Lord loves a cheerful giver.”   Accordingly, those Christians who have not cannot compel those Christians who have to give–or else giving would no longer be giving (Rom. 4:4).  All of these Christians, whether Christians who have or those who have not, places them solely before the throne of the Lord Jesus: how should I act, as a Christian, as I relate to the Lord? This is the first and most important question inasmuch as the Greatest command has preeminence (Love the Lord with all mind, soul, strength).

Entitlement III

30 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and the Politico-Economic

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement III

Tags

, ,

Seeing this connection to covetousness–namely, fighting for the wants (not needs) of those supposedly “oppressed” by means of redistribution, even if in the name of Christ–ought to send us reeling since St. Paul aptly states, “covetousness is idolatry” (Col 3:5).  To break the 10th commandment is to likewise break the 1st and 2nd of the 10 commandments, the two which prohibit idolatry.  But this needs balanced. The coveting which can occur from the one who has not (the poor) is prohibited: a negative entitlement, that is, you are not entitled to covet.  So too, then, those who fight for the “right” of the wants of the so-called oppressed have the negative right, yes even responsibility, not to covet so as to redistribute to make everyone “equal.” The rich are not entitled to oppress the poor: to do so is to despise your Maker (Prov. 14:31).  Paul was unwilling to command ‘giving’ even as an apostle: “. . . see that you excel in this act of grace also.  I say this not as a command . . .” (2 Cor. 8:7-8).  I have no doubt that giving must be part of the way of life of any Christian; how could it not be in view of the immeasurable gift God has given both in creating whatsoever but even more so by giving His Son, the divine Logos (Wisdom and reason) of God.  In Him, each level of rationality has its meaning, fulfills its function, and sustains the ordered universe.  The question is to whom to give and how much.  It is no small matter that Agur in Proverbs 30:8 – 9 asks to be given just as much as he needs so that he will not ultimately deny the Lord.  On this logic, giving too much to some might result in a spiritual crisis of denying Yahweh, His Spirit, and Christ.