The Problem of How to Understand Sin and Righteousness

Understanding original sin is a complicated issue. Should we fully accept Augustine's perspective? Or Luther's? Or how American evangelism has altered the original understanding of those perspectives?

The purpose of original sin is centrally to show us that we need God. Not to solely judge us on some personal level. Judgement is primarily intended to be a positive thing where God makes the world right. Psalm 82:3 declares that God will “judge the poor and the orphan.” The only coherent way to read this passage is to see Judgment as God’s bringing justice to the world, and making all things right.

I think Jesus often uses the term "righteous" as a rhetorical strawman to make a bigger point.

In Luke 5 Jesus is said to be eating with sinners and tax collectors when the Pharisees come to ridicule him for associating with such people. He responds that he has "not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” We know from other passages that Jesus obviously does not think the Pharisees are "righteous" in its most literal meaning, but is juxtaposing their self-righteous piety with people who are fully aware of their brokenness  It is not about who is good or bad in the individualistic modern sense, but God's grace which is over all of us.

Post-Liberal vs. Contextual Theology

A major problem in Modern Christian theology has been the tendency to emphasize methodologies like historical critique and the contextualization of scripture over and above understanding scripture as God’s word preserved by him throughout time as his canonical revelation through the church. Post-liberal theology wants to affirm that God was in control of the canonical process, and continues to speak to us to through his word in the here and now. Furthermore we should not be so arrogant to assume that God’s voice was muffled in Christian theology before the modern age. The theology of Irenaeus, Luther, and Augustine should be taken just as seriously as modern historical critical thinkers like N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg. At the end of the day, the revelation of Scripture speaking into our lives is God’s work not our own. The methodology of inter-textual canonical reading is used heavily by post-liberal theologians along with examining the patterns in past Christian theology to see how God was and is continuing to work in the Scripture. Post-liberal theologian David Yeago, as an example, likes to show how past theologians like Martin Luther would actually agree a lot with what folks like N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul have to say. In his commentary on Matthew Stanley Hauerwas gave himself rules that he would not fall into the historical critical trap of theorizing Matthew’s historical context. Instead his only exegetical reference would be scripture itself (how does a passage in Matthew relate to other passages in the Old and New Testament?) and how it applies to our current context today.    

While Contextual theologians like Sylvia Keesmaat, Brian Walsh, and Ellen Davis understand the danger of thinking historical critical lenses will allow us to more objectively understand scripture, examining our context as it potentially relates to the context or narrative of scripture is seen as important in understanding how God might be moving in our lives. When we see the human context of the scripture, we are able to relate to each in other in our joys and our suffering...

A Response To My Friend James Wilt

Dear James,

When I read your article A Fall From Grace I deeply resonated with the frustration and pain the Christian religion has caused you. I too have had a two year relationship ended because of Christian misperceptions of sexuality and marriage. I have also had close Christian friends attack me for dating outside of my faith. On a deeper level, this is a misunderstanding of the most fundamental Christian principle: Grace.

And James I think you are closer to this then I have ever seen you. Your realization of Christianity’s corrupted “anthropocentric belief system” is a profound one. You see Christianity is never meant to be centrally about us, but about God and what he does for us. The mantra of mature evolutionists that we stop seeing ourselves as “special” but should work towards cooperative and communal adaptation with nature is a strong one. It is also not as far away from the Christian tradition as you might think. The central tenet of Christianity is not meant to be about us fulfilling a "divine mission" but is most centrally about a shepherd who would sacrifice his life for one lost sheep. It is most centrally about a God who chooses an obstinate and ever failing nation and refuses to abandon them, in spite of their ignorance and betrayal. This is a God who suffers for us and therefore understands our suffering; all of us; humans, lions, and lambs.

The central goal of the human ideal is not our human fulfillment of it, but how it exposes our need for God, and his promise of loving reunion for all creation. Redemption is not a slow evolutionary process. It is and it isn't. We are all paradoxically found and lost. At home yet homeless. I am glad your new direction has humbled you, and I pray that if you feel the need for Christ’s unconditional grace in your life, you will see he never left you. I realize this may sound arrogant, but hopefully it is also comforting. In my own attempt to run away from Christ, this has always brought be back.

Your Friend,

Jesse

The Problem of Forgiveness, Righteousness, and Self-Loathing

We all fall short of God's ideal completely and absolutely. This reality has sometimes caused us to think that
if we let God know how bad we think we are, he will like us more. We forget that forgiveness is not conditioned by anything we do.  If it were conditional no one would make it. Our pride makes us loathe this reality. It is a great and humiliating gift. We so desperately want to contribute something to God's unconditional gift that we will even try to offer the pain of our self-accusation and self-rejection. The prodigal son was not saved because of his humiliation, but because of his Father's unconditional love. We want God to see how unworthy we feel, and the anxiety of our despair and guilt. We perform emotional works of self-punishment because we think this is what God is asking us to contribute. But God's grace is independent of anything we do, even our self-accusation and self-punishment. Forgiveness creates repentance, not the other way around. 

The Problem with Christian and Muslim "Fundamentalists"

Fundamentalists like Muslim Egyptian Sayyid Qutb and American Christians like John Hagee and Dyson Hague are trying to compete with modern rationalism’s search for objective reality by declaring their interpretation of scripture to be their own supposed objective realities of pure revelation.  

While the Quran and the Bible have always been seen as God’s Word and therefore true, by Muslims and Christianity respectively, understanding the interpretation of scripture as a complex weaving of lenses and methodologies has almost always existed to some degree. This traditional reality is often ignored by these fundamentalist. This is not to say that all methods of interpretation should or have been accepted as legitimate, but even within an Orthodox perspective both Islam and Christianity have made room for a variety of interpretations within the central tenets of their faith.

The categorical definition of “fundamentalist” being referred to in Christianity has specific roots in early 20^th century Protestant movement which sought to hold onto to the supposed “fundamentals” of the Christian faith against supposed liberal theology and secular reason based criticism support The categorical definition for Fundamentalist in Islam refers to the early 20^th century subsets of Islam which sought to emphasize Islamic law as something which should be forced onto a society, and exists outside of an interpretative framework. For these specific sects, it often means that God is revealing the truth of scripture to them in such a specific way that they refuse to allow any other theologians to reason with them, and usually damage the society along with the religion in which they dwell...  


 

Injustice In The Quran And The Bible

God allows humanity the freedom to sin or make mistakes even as he is patiently pushing us toward his ideal. God meets us where we are at. We will always be free to sin, and God will always try and work with the mistakes that we make. In 1 Samuel 8 God’s people demand that he give them a monarchy even as he warns them of the corruption and violence it will create. Even in the most obscene instances of our injustice God tries to make the world a little more just. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 God commands that if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her. From our perspective today this is seen as a horrific injustice. Yet in the historical context of the ancient scripture a woman’s virginity was her central possession, and it would be more of an injustice for her to lose it without the promise and protection of marriage.Despite how unjust we may make society, God is always looking for a way to bring justice, however limited that justice may be in order to allow us our freedom to sin.

Muslim theologian Amina Wadud is in agreement with many Christian theologians today that men and women were originally created equal based on her reading of the creation story in the Quran. Sura 4:1 declares men and woman to be created from the same divine substance and they are equal in the eyes of God. Yet just one verse later in Sura 4:2 the Quran states that man can marry up to “two, three or four” women who have no homes to protect them. The central condition of this is that the man must treat all of them fairly and justly, and if they cannot do so then they are called to marry “only one, to prevent you from doing injustice.” For Wadud God’s ideal marriage is about harmony “which is mutually built with love and mercy.” However, God is also patient with society’s “cruel heart” and “inability to submit to truth and justice.” The Quran is doing something similar to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in this instance. In the patriarchal context of a woman being primarily an economic resource, those who have no protection through marriage should be provided protection by the grace of God. The ideal is that men and women are equal, however God will once again allow us to operate out of our sinful context, even it means there will be some measure of injustice for the time being. From this perspective, Wadud declares that: 

 Evolution in society which is indicated in the Qur'an that explains why many Muslim countries have instituted further legal and social reforms with regard to women. These reforms operate outside the literal content of some Qur'anic passages and make modifications on the basis of greater Qur'anic intent with                       respect to such issues as repudiation, polygamy, inheritance, and the rules for witnessing, etc.[5]  

            For Wadud it only makes sense that countries trying to be faithful to the ideal of the Quran would continue to push toward a greater sense of gender equality. Most of what the Quran and the Bible depict is not the ideal, but it is alluding to a greater telos in God’s story of redemption. Slavery and the oppression of women are a reality throughout the Bible, yet we can see signs of God pointing toward a larger story of justice and love throughout the Biblical narrative in both the Old and New Testament. Yet both Scriptures point toward a creational beginning where there is peace, justice, and a proper social order. 

---

 William J. Webb, Slaves, women & homosexuals : exploring the hermeneutics of cultural analysis (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 2001) 14

 Phyllis Trible, God and the rhetoric of sexuality, (Fortress Press, Chicago, 1978) 15-22; Amina Wadud, Quran and woman: Rereading the sacred text from a woman's perspective. (New York, Oxford University Press.) 19-21; N.T. Wright Women’s service in the church: The Biblical Basis. (September 4 2004) http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

 Sura 30:21; Sura 4:128

 (Wadud 1999) 82

 (Wadud 1999) 82

Idolatry and Heavenly Escape

The Orthodox Christian lives in a strange tension. While the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ makes all things right and under his authoritative kingdom, the creation still longs for this final consummation.[1] The prolepsis within the Christian tradition has often made it difficult for the Church to know how to understand, share, and live out the Gospel. How do we declare that the world is being made new when all around us we see endless violence, sadness, and death? What does the fully sufficient and complete work of the Cross have to do with us living lives of peace and justice?