Image of Venus taken by Hinode’s Solar Optical Telescope. In this image, Venus is just beginning its journey across the face of the sun. Its atmosphere is visible as a thin, glowing border on the upper left of the planet. Credit: JAXA/NASA/Hinode
“The friend who can be silent with us in a moment of despair or confusion, who can stay with us in an hour of grief and bereavement, who can tolerate not knowing… not healing, not curing… that is a friend who cares.” Henri Nouwen
Thank you for your kind comments for my mom. She is in heart failure and will be in the hospital for a bit. I knew she was sick but didn’t know they would direct admit her. She is where she needs to be. The folks who work there have been so kind. It is tough getting old.
Deconstruction…This word is often used these days to signify that a well-known Christian individual has analyzed their religious paradigms and is no longer a believer. Think about the story of Joshua Harris. In fact, Harris may be the first person to attempt to monetize his deconstruction.
What do we mean by deconstruction?
I found the Merriam-Webster definition interesting since it uses what I would call Luther’s Small Catechism approach to understanding. When the students learn a commandment, it doesn’t end there. They are asked a question and must answer it. “What does this mean?” The explanation is in their catechism.
According to Merriam-Webster, deconstruction is defined as:
- a philosophical or critical method which asserts that meanings, metaphysical constructs, and hierarchical oppositions (as between key terms in a philosophical or literary work) are always rendered unstable by their dependence on ultimately arbitrary signifiers
- the analytic examination of something (such as a theory) often in order to reveal its inadequacy
What does this mean or “Did you know?”
Deconstruction doesn’t actually mean “demolition;” instead it means “breaking down” or analyzing something (especially the words in a work of fiction or nonfiction) to discover its true significance, which is supposedly almost never exactly what the author intended. A feminist may deconstruct an old novel to show how even an innocent-seeming story somehow depends on the oppression of women. A new western may deconstruct the myths of the old West and show lawmen as vicious and criminals as flawed but decent. Table manners, The Sound of Music, and cosmetics ads have all been the subjects of deconstructionist analysis. Of course, not everyone agrees with deconstructionist interpretations, and some people reject the whole idea of deconstruction, but most of us have run into it by now even if we didn’t realize it.
Deconstruction in construction
I live in a neighborhood in which homeowners are usually doing some significant work to their homes. One house was under construction for a couple of years. This process began with the destruction of much of the roof and deck area. The roof and the back of the house, kitchen, flooring, etc., were taken down to the studs. The roofline changed, there was a new room added on, the kitchen was totally redone, another garage was added, etc. The result of this work was beautiful (albeit very expensive.)
Would it be correct to say that the house was destroyed? Of course not. Was it the same after the work? In fact, the house was better or more beautiful.
I know you can see the direction that I am going in. Before I tell you my story of deconstruction, let’s look at some definitions to bring clarity to this discussion (there will be more posts on this topic.)
I am going to do my best in defining what follows. I am sure that some might disagree with what I choose for the definitions. However, if I shied away from this challenge, it would be difficult to differentiate between certain movements.
Progressive Christianity:
Got Questions proposed this definition
Progressive Christianity is a recent movement in Protestantism that focuses strongly on social justice and environmentalism and often includes a revisionist (or non-traditional) view of the Scriptures. Since the movement entails a number of different beliefs and views on various topics, it is difficult to label the whole movement decisively as “biblical” or “unbiblical.” Each claim and belief of any movement should be filtered through the Word of God, and whatever does not line up with Scripture should be rejected.
The Bible is replete with instructions to “visit orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27, NASB) and to protect the environment that God has entrusted to us (Genesis 1:28). Insofar as Progressive Christianity is a movement that seeks to emphasize and honor these principles, it certainly lines up with Scripture. However, there are some aspects of Progressive Christianity that contradict a biblical worldview. In general, members of this movement do not ascribe to the biblical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, and, again, in general, do not believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. Progressive Christianity also tends to emphasize what is known as “collective salvation” over the biblical concept of personal salvation. The Bible is clear that God redeems those individuals who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and rescues them from an eternity of being separated from Him in torment. Collective salvation, by contrast, emphasizes the restoration of whole cultures and societies to what progressive Christians believe is the correct socioeconomic structure, namely, Marxism. Marxism, in turn, is a theory of economics and politics developed by an atheist (Karl Marx) from unbiblical assumptions.
In this sense, then, the views of many progressive Christians do not fit with biblical principles. In the end, however, discretion is needed in evaluating a particular claim or belief in terms of Scripture; the whole spectrum of beliefs identified by the term “Progressive Christianity” is too broad to permit an unequivocal conclusion as to whether or not it can be labeled unbiblical. As with all uncertain issues, the Christian would do well to compare each claim of those in the Progressive Christianity movement with Scripture, asking God for the wisdom to discern truth from error. He has promised wisdom to all who seek it (James 1:5).
Update: TWW reader, Loren, believes this definition of progressive Christianity from Wikipedia is better.
“Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and: proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, and Lord; emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person; emphasizes God’s immanence not merely God’s transcendence; leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism; emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven later; emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell; emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal; stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship; takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful; and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive).[13]”
This sounds like the Progressive church I love and am a member of in Napa, CA.
Liberal Christianity
Believe it or not, liberal Christianity is distinct from progressive Christinaaity although they may overlap on some points. I found a tremendous amount of bias in all of the definitions I sought. I am going to try out this one from Wikipedia. I apologize, in advance, for not fully grasping the nuances.
Traditional Protestants believed scripture and revelation always confirmed human experience and reason. For liberal Protestants, there were two ultimate sources of religious authority: the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience. In other words, only an appeal to common human reason and experience could confirm the truth claims of Christianity.[19]
In general, liberal Christians are not concerned with the presence of biblical errors or contradictions.[12] Liberals abandoned or reinterpreted traditional doctrines in light of recent knowledge. For example, the traditional doctrine of original sin was rejected for being derived from Augustine of Hippo, whose views on the New Testament were believed to have been distorted by his involvement with Manichaeism. Christology was also reinterpreted. Liberals stressed Christ’s humanity, and his divinity became “an affirmation of Jesus exemplifying qualities which humanity as a whole could hope to emulate”.[8]
Liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus’ humane teachings as a standard for a world civilization freed from cultic traditions and traces of traditionally pagan types of belief in the supernatural.[20] As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings.[21] The debate over whether a belief in miracles was mere superstition or essential to accepting the divinity of Christ constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.[22][pages needed] Many liberals prefer to read Jesus’ miracles as metaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God.[23][better source needed] Not all theologians with liberal inclinations reject the possibility of miracles, but many reject the polemicism that denial or affirmation entails.[24]
Nineteenth-century liberalism had an optimism about the future in which humanity would continue to achieve greater progress.[8] This optimistic view of history was sometimes interpreted as building the kingdom of God in the world.[9]
Traditional Christianity or what some might call Conservative Christianity.
When I work with young students, I refer them to the Apostle’s Creed which sums up the core beliefs succinctly. History.com added the following:
Christians are monotheistic, i.e., they believe there’s only one God, and he created the heavens and the earth. This divine Godhead consists of three parts: the father (God himself), the son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
The essence of Christianity revolves around the life, death, and Christian beliefs on the resurrection of Jesus. Christians believe God sent his son Jesus, the messiah, to save the world. They believe Jesus was crucified on a cross to offer the forgiveness of sins and was resurrected three days after his death before ascending to heaven.
Christians contend that Jesus will return to earth again in what’s known as the Second Coming.
The Holy Bible includes important scriptures that outline Jesus’s teachings, the lives and teachings of major prophets and disciples, and offer instructions for how Christians should live.
Both Christians and Jews follow the Old Testament of the Bible, but Christians also embrace the New Testament.
The cross is a symbol of Christianity.
The most important Christian holidays are Christmas (which celebrates the birth of Jesus) and Easter (which commemorates the resurrection of Jesus).
My construction, deconstruction, and reconstruction
I have often told the story of my conversion during an episode of Star Trek. What is important to this discussion is that, at the time of my conversion, I had a profound experience that was best exemplified by my ability to understand the general gist of Scripture, something that I could not do prior to that experience. The change was instantaneous and I was aware that I had changed. I was fortunate to find great teaching and fellowship at Park Street Church in Boston, where I met my husband, also a believer. I did not meet a Young Earth enthusiast for many years.
The moment came in a church I loved (and still love) in Dallas. A theology professor was discussing the origins of Scripture and he said something that rattled me. He contended that the story of the woman caught in adultery was most likely not in the original manuscript: John 7:53-8:11. At this link, you will find mention of these verses not being in the earliest Bibles. Many of the contemporary study Bibles also make mention of this fact. It is not some liberal conspiracy! I asked myself “What else wasn’t in the earliest Bibles?”
I realized that I did not know how we got the faith transmitted through the ages and I embarked on a years-long journey, trying to understand what I did and did not know to be true. I studied the various faiths yet could not feel comfortable with their suppositions. I spent several years lurking at ExChristians.net trying to understand why they left the faith. This was a period of deconstruction during which I hadn’t left the faith but I was feeling uncomfortable. I read and read and listened.
I found myself more confused, albeit pretty well-read. I decided to try to understand the difficult parts of the Bible. I had been avoiding them. As I searched for answers, it suddenly dawned on me that there was one thing I had missed. Why not study the theologians and religious leaders who had confronted those questions yet still maintained their faith? There have been so many really bright people who have embraced the faith. I began to change, or better yet, I began to reconstruct. For example, I used to believe in premillennial dispensationalism but I found it made little sense to me. Now, I am an amillennialist (although you probably know that old saw-I may be a premillennialist since I believe that it will all pan out in the end.) It doesn’t matter when Jesus will return. It really matters if you believe that He will. It was time to give up the intermural fights of who is right, who is wrong, and who is going to hell for believing we are in the post-millennial age.
Amillennialists don’t believe in the Millennium as a specific period of 1000 years, and regard Biblical reference to it as symbolic.
They believe that the millennium began when Christ was born on earth and will end with the second coming. Amillennialists say that Christ is reigning now, both in heaven, and on the earth in the hearts of believers.
- I became able to differentiate between the state and the faith and became disturbed with the idea of Christian nationalism. I do believe that everyone should have a voice in our country but, even if we didn’t, my faith would not change. This was not always the case for me. I used to be one person who confused these issues.
- I became concerned about patriarchy and saw how women were sidelined in many churches.
- I still believed in the Apostle’s Creed, so I would be considered a traditional Christian. I have found a home in the conservative Lutheran church.
- I realized that some Christians call themselves Christians in order to cause harm or to exploit others. This would include pedophiles, domestic abusers, sexual abusers, narcissists, sociopaths, etc. I guess you could say that I became a bit more suspicious. Given that the Bible calls all of us sinners, we should be smart-trust but verify.
- I became more relaxed when I couldn’t answer a question about the faith. Instead, I asked myself. “Does the answer to this question affect my faith in any way?” Go back to my quandary about the story of the woman caught in adultery. It was probably not part of the original manuscript. Whether that story is in or out does not affect my faith one iota. It does not change my view of Jesus.
- I became more relaxed around people who believe differently than I do. I believe that God gave them free will and it is their choice to believe *X* even if I do not. God works in everyone’s life and I, not a Calvinist, believe that God calls to all and it is their choice to respond. I think back to my unusual conversion. If God called me during an episode of Star Trek (I know this sounds weird but it’s true), He can call to others no matter where they are.)
- The more I sought answers, the more confidant I became in what I know and don’t know.
- One thing I do know, abuse has no place in the church on any level.
- I see the evidence of sin in my own life and am grateful to belong to a church that forces me to confess weekly.
- I experience grace in a more profound way. I know I’m forgiven but sometimes it takes me a while to come around to this. I used to be extremely hard on myself. In fact, I believe the reason I, the daughter of Stan, have survived the slings and arrows of blogging is because of this fact. So, when difficult people call me names, I am able to say to myself “Go ahead. Try to upset me. I’m much harder on myself than you are.
- It’s alright to say I don’t know. I am still learning.
So where am I after deconstructing and reconstructing? I have stronger faith. I know what I believe far better than I did. I took things down to the studs and I emerged stronger than before. Unlike Joshua Harris, I found a stronger faith. Oh, I almost forgot. God is not done with Harris.
I tell you my story so that, as we look at deconstruction, you will see that sometimes the process makes you a stronger, reconstituted you.
I know that my walk is not the same for many. You may be in the middle of it now or you have walked away from the faith. You are welcome here to tell your story.
First! Glad you’re back, Dee. Any word on your mom?
1
Ted,
Thank you for asking. She will be in the hospital for a few days after which she will be cardioverted.
Prayers for her to have excellent results. Prayers also for you and the family as you encourage her,
Considering how much The Gospelly Coalition fears deconstruction, I would like to see a creative writer write a letter from Luther’s or Calvin’s parents to a friend about their son’s deconstruction. Without men like that going through deconstruction, there would have been no protestant reformation. They fear the very thing that created their movement.
“It is tough getting old.” (Dee)
Growing old ain’t for sissies.
I prayed for your mom.
I’m in the process of writing a memoir about my deconstruction/reconstruction. In fact, it’s going to be called “Cardioversion”. I’ll try to give the short version. I was raised as a conservative evangelical. I believed that God called me to be a family physician. In fact, I had a great life going and I practiced medicine in a wonderful group practice for ten years. I developed chronic migraine, though, and couldn’t continue to practice medicine. I had to quit the practice I loved 16 years ago. I was fortunate that our practice had a good disability insurance plan so our family is financially stable. I found that I did not have the religious tools to deal with losing my calling and dealing with a chronic illness. Evangelicals were great with acute illness – prayer chain and casseroles – but didn’t have a lot to offer for chronic illness. Over the last 16 years, I’ve examined just about every belief that I had. I’m still a Christian, but a much more liberal one, and a much more relaxed one. I still have chronic migraine and can’t work, but I’m in a much better place spiritually. John 16:33 In this life you will have trouble, but take heart, I have overcome the world.
“It doesn’t matter when Jesus will return. It really matters if you believe that He will.” (Dee)
Over the years, I’ve reduced my eschatology to “When Jesus comes, I go.”
From the description of liberal Christianity:
“Liberals abandoned or reinterpreted traditional doctrines in light of recent knowledge. For example, the traditional doctrine of original sin was rejected for being derived from Augustine of Hippo,”
What is interesting about this description is how it makes Eastern Orthodoxy liberal, when they are about as conservative as it gets in terms of changing NOTHING about their beliefs or practices. I find their rationale for rejecting original sin very compelling:
https://stgeorgegreenville.org/our-faith/catechism/the-ofall/original-sin
Proper deconstruction should involve examing what early Christians actually believed (based on primary sources) versus what we have been told they believed by people who don’t appear to know history.
Deconstruction in construction
“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: … a time to tear down and a time to build” (Ecclesiastes 3)
In matters of faith, sometimes a believer goes on a personal journey to unlearn what they learned … to unknow what they knew … in order to find Truth.
My head hurts. Besides Dee’s post here, I’ve been researching a potential candidate for my (former) church, where my wife is still deacon of missions. His sermon was good, but his current churches are affiliated with the SBC (in Vermont!).
To get up to speed (I’m still very much interested in First Baptist, and pray for it) I’ve just read, from links to the candidate’s churches, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000; the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy; the Nashville Statement on Human Sexuality; and the Dallas Statement on Social Justice, which I didn’t even know existed.
Head spinning. Many of their “We affirm…” and “We deny…” articles are really pretty good and boilerplate, except for the parts that inspired the Statements in the first place. These are very much in reaction to threats perceived against the church or the gospel, even though the Chicago Statement denies this:
“
Or in the Dallas Statement which denounces Critical Race Theory, without explaining what is meant by that. There seems to be a bit of “methinks thou dost protest too much” in these Statements.
As I said, head spinning. We’re going to junk out on some re-runs of sitcoms.
Ted,
Sounds like construction, deconstruction, and just plain ole’ destruction.
I appreciate this post, which draws important distinctions. However, the three categories don’t look separate to me. I can easily imagine someone being both a traditional Christian and a liberal or progressive one.
Presumably most Christians are monotheists, for example. TWW regulars won’t be confused, but some folks could come away thinking that liberal and progressive Christians reject monotheism.
Some of the most conservative/traditional Christian denominations reject the cross as a visible symbol, but crosses are much on display elsewhere.
I wish the words liberal and conservative were not imbued with political and social meaning. We probably don’t need more terms (heh), but the duplication makes discussion harder always—not just here.
From the post:
“I tell you my story so that, as we look at deconstruction, you will see that sometimes the process makes you a stronger, reconstituted you.
“I know that my walk is not the same for many. You may be in the middle of it now or you have walked away from the faith. You are welcome here to tell your story.”
Thanks for sharing, Dee. For the rest of us on the journey, you endow us with the gift of feeling normal. And NO PAYWALL, thank God!
My story has many steps, moving forward from construct (or faith formation) to deconstruct to reconstruct. A pilgrim is in process, every day of walking this Earth.
My personal fav con/decon/recon stories include:
– the apostle Paul
– Jeanne-Françoise de Chantal
– George Müller
– Leah Remini
– Steven Hassan
– dear friend and prayer warrior, Mariam.
– Watchman Nee
– and now, your story, Dee
– as well as what we know from Todd.
I wish we could come up with a different word for “inerrancy.”
A former pastor, when talking about inerrancy, would put so many qualifiers on it (in the original manuscripts, in the original language, in the proper historical and cultural context, etc., which I all happen to agree with) that I wondered, what does the word even mean, then?
Speaking of inerrancy, the story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac had always sat strangely with me, that the God who everywhere else in the Bible rejects the sacrifice of children would tell Abraham to sacrifice his son. Then, a few months ago, I happened to be reading the book “How the Irish Saved Civilization.” And in one little aside, the author mentioned that human sacrifice was present and accepted as normal in Ireland pre-St. Patrick (and in many other ancient societies), and that God’s offering of a ram to Abraham to sacrifice in place of Isaac was God’s rejection of human sacrifice (my paraphrase).
And this was a complete paradigm shift for me. Instead of seeing a story of a heartless God testing his chosen one, now I saw a story of a counter-cultural God who again showed his care for humanity and the vulnerable, even in the story of the near sacrifice of Isaac.
This isn’t the only time I’ve had a paradigm shift like this with scripture, only the most recent. And I guess this is why I’m so hesitant to openly ascribe to “inerrancy” anymore. Because scripture may be, but human interpretation of it is not.
And yes, this is another shameless plug from a history student for people to read their history!
Thx for sharing. Good plug.
Major paradigm shift for me in taking a class on “What is church?” Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12, Ephesians 4 – all 18 gifts of the HS are GIVEN FREE to members of the church for the benefit of the Church through the church members but empowered by God Himself via His Holy Spirit. Not empowered by $$$.
For church, everything to do with money is optional. Everything to do with the Holy Spirit is essential: the fruit of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, the power of the Spirit, the presence of God’s Spirit. Core. Bare bones essential.
If a person cannot afford to be in a dues paying church or cannot afford the church paywall, they can still be active in the Church. Maybe that was Jesus Himself. Jesus and his people couldn’t afford “church”: buildings, salaries, accoutrement – so they just did without. The stuff wasn’t necessary.
How hard should we work to close every church building in America?
Should we try to get pastors listed as disorderly persons, the way fortune tellers were under old blue laws?
What message would these efforts send to aspiring Christians?
Would anybody wonder why church was good enough for our generations but not for them?
Maybe these changes would cause the Holy Spirit to move in new and great ways. The only example of closed churches I have personally experienced was in the Soviet Union, where for many decades about the only people who dared enter the remaining open churches were small numbers of retired women. I don’t think the comparison is apt.
People seem to really want there to be 2 teams in the game at any one time. Just look at our sports. More than 2 teams in the game at a time makes things very messy.
One time a decade or so ago I was asking an associate pastor at a church we were thinking of joining about their position on inerrancy. He pulled out the Chicago statement. When I asked him to explain it all of his explanation and reasoning was circular. He didn’t see it.
Oh, well.
The items below on the BFM 2000 changes are from the following link:
http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/hotissues/dildayfm2000.htm
““Soul competency” is the view that individual Christians may go directly to God through Christ without any other mediator. “The priesthood of the believer” is the view that through Christ each believer is a priest – both clergy and laity – responsible to God for interpreting and following the Bible and for interceding on behalf others. Both E.Y. Mullins and Herschel Hobbs called soul competency Baptists’ most distinctive doctrine.
“But seminary President Al Mohler, a major voice, if not the primary composer, on the revision committee, has recently raised concerns about the historic Baptist convictions called “soul competency” and “priesthood of the believer” – especially as they were espoused by previous president of Southern Seminary, E.Y. Mullins.
“In his Founder’s Day address at the seminary, March 30, 2000, Mohler said that Mullin’s emphasis on soul competency has “infected” the SBC with an “autonomous individualism” that undermines Biblical authority to this day. He blames Mullins for steering the SBC off course by making personal Christian experience more important than Biblical authority. He warned that soul competency “serves as an acid dissolving religious authority, congregationalism, confessionalism, and mutual theological accountability” (Southern Seminary Magazine, June, 2000).
“An even stronger denunciation of these two doctrines appeared in the Winter, 1999 issue of the seminary’s theological journal by Sean Michael Lucas, associate director of the Southern seminary’s Center for the Study of the SBC:
“For over 70 years, Southern Baptists have harvested the shallow discipleship and vapid theology that resulted from sowing Mullins’ theological seeds of experience. It is time to return to the founders of the SBC trained in the hardy doctrinal tradition of the Princeton theology.
“Following this line of thought, BFM2000 originally deleted the following references to these doctrines in BFM63:
Baptists emphasize the soul’s competency before God, freedom of religion, and the priesthood of the believer. However, this emphasis should not be interpreted to mean that there is an absence of certain definite doctrines that Baptists believe, cherish, and with which they have been and are now closely identified.
“After growing criticism of this deletion, the following reinsertion was made less than an hour before the report was brought to the convention for approval:
We honor the principles of soul competency and the priesthood of believers, affirming together both our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God.
“While this change was welcomed by critics, it was soon discovered that the reinserted wording had been subtly changed. The singular form in BFM63, “priesthood of the believer” had been changed to “priesthood of believers.” Here again, the revisors expressed their mistrust of personal, individual experience, focusing instead on accountability to an approved belief system. This in essence rejects the historical Baptist emphasis of the priesthood of each individual believer (singular), replacing it with a more Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of believers (plural).
“Al Mohler defended the reinterpretation, “It is dangerous to say the priesthood of the believer. It is not just that we stand alone; it is that we stand together – and we stand together under the authority of God’s word.” Other defenders of the plural form say the singular form is “a kind of private interpretation which, while adhering to an ambiguously crafted “criterion” of Jesus Christ, eviscerates the Biblical doctrines…” (Biblical Recorder, July 29, 2000, p.3). But one Baptist editor countered:
“While I am content to stand before God under the authority of Scripture, I can do so whether I’m alone or in a crowd of all 15.8 million Southern Baptists. While I appreciate the committee’s efforts to at least partially restore a pair of key Baptist doctrines, I am confident it is not dangerous to be a lone priest/believer in the presence of Almighty God through the power of his Holy Spirit” (Baptist Standard, July 17, 2000).
“The end result of these omissions, reinsertions, and changes seems to many to indicate a lack of appreciation for – even a rejection of two very important Baptist ideals.“
Dee, I think you could have found a better description of Progressive Christianity. The one you used was flagrantly biased towards a traditional viewpoint. Tying it to Marxism was a bit much!
Wikipedia had this description from Roger Woolsey:
“Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and: proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, and Lord; emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person; emphasizes God’s immanence not merely God’s transcendence; leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism; emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven later; emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell; emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal; stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship; takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding; emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs); embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas; does not consider homosexuality to be sinful; and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive).[13]”
This sounds like the Progressive church I love and am a member of in Napa, CA.
It took a lot of deconstruction from a long Annabaptist heritage, growing up in a conservative Baptist church, rejecting it all but finding my way back in my 40’s in a charismatic church, then Calvary Chapel, where I became disillusioned again. Found a different way to believe in a Progressive Christian church that did not require checking my brain at the door.
Deconstruction in its original form “holds that it is impossible achieve fixed or absolute meaning” and “Derrida argued that language was ultimately arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious.” The outcome is that “Anything that is written will convey meanings which its author did not intend and could not have intended. Secondly, the author cannot adequately put into words what he or she means in the first place”. (Alister E McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, p64).
Friend,
On a similar theme, towards the end of 2019, a self-anointed prophet in my FB friends published a book calling for the immediate closure of all churches because the Holy Spirit had told him to do so. He and a few others then held a meeting in a remote glen to pray for this to happen. A few weeks later, Covid-19 appeared and there was a complete lockdown in the UK and the closure of all churches. This was taken to be a sign that they had been vindicated and that the Lord’s return was imminent. Two years later, the churches have re-opened with smaller congregations and the prophets are out in the wilderness.
Postmodernism and false prophets have similar aims – the discrediting and destruction of God’s Church. But thankfully, Psalm 2 and John 17:17 the record straight.
It’s like for me a ‘constant’ thing, this examination of faith as lived out in this world where so much is mystery and there is so very much sadness and suffering.
I ‘get it’ that need to take another look at what we have been told and to evaluate our own situation and to pray and to examine our OWN consciences . . . that I get, as a prelude to making MORAL decisions, especially when those decisions involve the welfare of other people within my circle of responsibility and care, so ‘wow’, do I ‘get’ this post, DEE.
There’s a saying by the American author Walt Whitman that has resonated with some of my own journey so far, this:
““re-examine all you have been told in school or church or in any book, and dismiss whatever insults your own soul”
Dee, it’s that part ‘DISMISS WHATEVER INSULTS YOUR OWN SOUL’ that resonated with me. Why? I think because it corresponds with what I understand about our moral consciences . . . that our God-given moral conscience leads us to do what is ‘good’ and to avoid what is ‘evil’ . . . that those ‘pings’ of conscience we feel are guidance from our Creator, not something we are ‘told’ we must do or feel by other humans that has no ‘meaning’ for our own souls.
The search for ‘meaning’ takes a big role in forming a mature faith, not only for what is meaningful to ourselves,
but ALSO, to be sensitive to what has meaning for others in their own journey through life, so that at times, we can help ‘bear one another’s burdens’ and therefore fulfill the Royal Law of Christ.
Dee, I’m glad your mom is getting the help she needs and my prayers for your family will continue. Thank you for all you do to help protect innocents from abuse. God Bless!
GMFS!
Point 1 of 2: "inerrancy" as a reactionI’m very much in agreement with Ted’s observation that a lot of the Chicago-ist stuff is, absolutely, a reaction against a perceived secular liberal bogeyman. (Ted – I know those weren’t your exact words, so apologies if I’ve not quite represented you; but I think we’re barking up the same hymn sheet here.)
There are at least two problems with this.
One is the expanding hadith of caveats and rules about what exactly inerrancy does and does not mean, and exactly which fragments of scripture text are “literal” and which are “metaphorical”, which you have to have in order to resolve the many contradictions that are immediately evident in the text of scripture. Or, more accurately, in order to solve the many problems that “inerrancy” immediately creates.
Another problem is the unnecessary fear, strife, judgement and division it creates in the Church, because of the fact that emdy who doesn’t subscribe to exactly the definition of “inerrancy” that you do is a heretic and blasphemer who has rejected the bible (or “cast aside the scriptures” has I have been described as doing on this very blog, by someone who may think he’s funny but isn’t). That problem really is baked into the idea of inerrancy, because it leaves so little room for God to break in. The slightest question or doubt pushes you straight down a vertical slippery slope straight into the satanic jaws of satan.
Inerrancy may have been designed with the idea of protecting the Church against “error”, but it has actually imprisoned Her. Part of Her, anyway. And actually, many of us who are deconstructing are actually that part of the Church breaking free from the controlling and abusive – and false – husband in pursuit of the Bridegroom. Or, at an individual level, we’re walking out on the abusive – and false – stepdad in search of our heavenly Father. For want of a better way to put it.
The ‘deconstruction’ term of art is not new – it is prophetic. The New Testament does not confuse faith and belief – they are different words in the Greek – not do scientists and prophets. The words are not actually synonymous. Faith is well described by your opening Nouwen citation, and you hear the echoes of its peal in TS Eliot, St John of the Cross (‘The Cloud of Unknowing’ is his treatise on achieving escape velocity from theology), Julian of Norwich, and pointedly Isaiah – read chapter 58!
Every time Christ was presented with an accepted theological premise, he simply turned pathetic belifs inside out and stod them on his head – such as noting there is no salvation in politics: ‘”Show me a coin. Whose head is on it?”
Mere beliefs are usually built into a curtain wall to keep you trapped inside it, and faith outside – this is why the dudebro calvinistas (to site just one example) are constantly handing you more bricks for the wall. Deconstruction means taking some of the bricks out of that wall and letting the light of faith find its way in, or to provide a path for the adventurous to let themselves out. Giving up beliefs that have proven to be nonsense or meaningless is not to give up faith. You can clothe the naked in the Name of Christ without a moment of regard for what the charlatans tell you is true belief. Because they are only talking about belief.
But what about that passage in Matthew where Jesus says, “Go, therefore, and teach systematic theology to all the nations…”?
This optimistic view of history was sometimes interpreted as building the kingdom of God in the world.[9]
Sounds very 21 st century to me!
I am actually laughing out loud.
“And I saw the river over which every soul must pass
to reach the kingdom of heaven
and the name of that river was suffering:
and I saw a boat which carries souls across the river
and the name of that boat was love.”
(St. John of the Cross)
John of the Cross was devoted to ‘the simplicity that is in Christ’, something missing in much of the ‘new’ neo-con teachings that seek control over others
Praying for your Mom. I find it very confusing all the different categories churches fall in to. Is there any resources that explain it better? I even found this article confusing. I do know comp leads to abuse. I have experienced it. Are there any resources that show what the different categories lead to?
Joshua Harris has created a safe space much the same way that I and others assert our agnosticism so that we can believe as much as we like in peace.
Nick Bulbeck,
Love this comment.
Your whole comment here is brilliant. However, we must not forget, if I recall correctly, that Jesus said he will separate the sheep and the goats based on doctrinal purity…
I believe we are of one mind here, Ken! (Not for the first time, either!)
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I agree!!!
I agree. I am looking forward to your point 2 of 2. And if history repeats, your point 3 of 2 will be even better.
Wild Honey,
First, Dee, praying for your mother and for you and your husband as they serve and minister to her mother. Thank you for your labor of love and time here.
Wild Honey, There is another recent interpretation of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. J. Richard Middleton just published Abraham’s Silence, The Binding of Isaac, the Suffering of Job, and How to Talk Back to God, where he interprets Abraham’s silence as being the improper response to God. He contrasts Abraham’s silent response with Job’s strong laments, Moses’ arguments with God, and even Jesus’ cry of lament from the cross. Middleton asserts that God was NOT pleased with Abraham’s offering.
This makes more sense to me. After all, when God told Abraham that Sodom was going to be destroyed, Abraham interceded with God for the life of his nephew Lot and any other righteous people living there. Why didn’t Abraham intercede for his own son, Isaac?
Lament is an honored way of interacting and relating to God. Middleton points out that 1/3 of the Psalms is lament while praise is only 1/4 of the Psalms. It is when we cry out to God for help that He responds.
Middleton has some posts at his blog on this topic. I think this is worth serious thinking about. This appears to be a case of deconstruction that results in reconstruction.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I really thought it was all about doctrinal purity!!! Especially when you can be a a$$ and win an argument about done some secondary point!!!
The Chattering Class where talk (in any form: books, conferences, etc.) is cheap.
Cheap religion. Except some are willing to pay for the drivel and some drivelers make big bucks from their blathering. Cheap, not cheap.
True, serious religion, writes James, addresses the needs of the through-no-fault-of-their-own impoverished.
Someone, somewhere, someday will progressively and successfully deconstruct all of man’s feeble religious systems all the way back to the first century church in order to reconstruct doing Church as it was meant to be … and in the process will restore the authority and influence of Jesus.
I don’t think I even know how to write a comment which could possibly cover my history of conversion, deconstruction & reconstruction, except as maybe as spiral which I go through on a regular basis in terms of looking at what I believe or don’t, chasing that through & trying to stand on the results & relate more & more deeply to Jesus as I do that.
I hold now to what I would probably term ‘classic’ Christian beliefs, moving probably from evangelical views like Francis Schaeffer to something more akin to what CS Lewis believed, & what I see as being far more in line with earlier historic Christian beliefs, & to what has been ‘believed upon everywhere & in all times’, in terms of the essentials, with liberty about non-essentials. I worship in an Anglican Church now & may move up the liturgical candle heading East over time. We’ll see. The Vicar & Curate in my church are somewhere on a liberal to traditional scale, & the congregation hold a spectrum of beliefs, which all agree on the creeds.
I’m always asking some question, always reading & researching something, I just have a busy brain, a tough life & a propensity towards painful honesty. I tried to walk away from faith several times, but found things I could not disprove or let go of, & so had to turn & find the place where I could take a stand.
Nice to see everyone, I’ve been quiet for quite a while as I struggle with a relapse in my chronic health condition & with insecure housing. But, thus far, God has been with me in this new circumstance & I’m trying to trust him for the rest of it.
Darn, you nailed it. I hope you don’t mind my using this in a future post, with proper accreditation.
A friend from the past is now an executive pastor in Vermont-SBC type thing. I was shocked to discover that the church loves stuff by Piper, Mahaney,9Marks. There is a coalition up there that is disturbing to me, to say the least. I haven’t spoken to him in years and have been trying to figure out how to say something.
We are enjoying Foundation (Isaac Asimov’s seminal work) on Apple + I also enjoyed the Squid Games from Korea.
Please use it, but no need to credit me. It seems like it should be obvious to all that the reformation would have been impossible without deconstruction. But so would Christianity. The Bible is full of examples of deconstruction: Moses, Job, David, Gideon, Paul, all of the apostles, just to name a few.
I am hoping a creative wartburger will try their hand at writing about Luther’s deconstruction from his parents’ perspective
Friend,
Excellent comment. I put those explanations up simply to have something to differentiate in the posts I’m writing. For example, I liked Rachel Held Evans (God rest her soul.) But, she and I differed in certain traditional beliefs. Even she identified with the progressive movement.
It is hard to put people in categories. It was even hard for me to put myself in a category. Some people would say my rejection of Calvinism means I am not a traditional Christian.
Ava Aaronson,
Thanks for your list. I have enjoyed learning from Leah Remini. I might like to add Henri Nouwen to your list.
GAFS!
Point 2 of 2: Exvangelical joy...There’s a very old joke, that most regular Wartburgers are probably familiar with, about someone arriving in heaven to see a small section surrounded by a high wall, for the benefit of the christians inside it who thought that they were the only people there. But actually, that’s true of the Church here and now.
A lot of the talk about faith deconstruction, and especially the talk that disparages the idea, comes from within evangelical™ or reformed™ circles. I think that’s because a lot of us who’ve deconstructed our faith came from those circles and it looks, from inside them, like we’ve left. But actually, for many of us, we’ve just climbed over the wall and started roaming the vastly greater and richer landscape of God’s dominion.
Lesley and I have been nones for some years; but recently, we felt a need to strive harder in our own strength to earn God’s love and favour through good works. (Sadly, when I posted those exact words in a local church FaceTube group page, only one person realised I was joking. I’ve started marking my posts with #AutisticHumour just so that I don’t cause them to stumble.)
Anyway, we started gate-crashing the local Episcopal church’s communion service, because we wanted specifically to go somewhere where the Bread and Wine, rather than the sermon, was central. We’ve been loving it! We’re also digging into a ton of written stuff that we’d never really thought about before, from the Roman and Easter Northodox traditions (#AutisticHumour). It will come as no surprise to emdy who already knows something about them that we’ve found incredibly deep wells of life and meaning there. They were digging theological gold from the scribshers for centuries before the Ref-o-mation (#AutisticHumour), and didn’t stop then either.
Although it would be unfair to say that there’s been no ref-o-matic theological gold – there has – I think the reformers might have realised that the then Pope, Leox *, wasn’t actually telling them to live on a diet of worms. Be which as it may, Lesley and I have abandoned fundagelicalism and have begun discovering actual historic Christianity. And it’s much richer and deeper than we ever imagined.
* Leox was a bit of an eccentric, though, by all accounts; apparently he rode around on an official Papal Bull, which I assume was a kind of medieval Popemobile. Also he spelt his name rather pretentiously in my view, with a capital trailing X.
Without the power of the almighty dollar? Is it possible to do church like the NT?
30 shekels, the only budget sum noted in the NT, did nothing to build the church, but was paid to destroy Jesus, the founder, and end the church before it began.
Loved your whole comment. I prefer the words effective and infallible in accomplishing its purposes.
There is another problem I have with this. ( I sure hope I don’t get into trouble here.) I struggle with the statement “Inerrant in the original.”
Does that mean the copies we have now are not inerrant?
Why bother with the original anyway since we don’t have it?
If inerrancy was so important, why didn’t God preserve the original?
As you can see, I’m still asking questions.
Thank you for a good laugh. I’m thinking about going down to Scottsdale and protesting outside Driscoll’s church with Deana and Todd.
Even some of their writing are circular. I try mightily to understand and I still don’t. But I know God loves me and I am saved, Chicago Statement or not.
Love the Foundation series!
When there’s a new, new thing with a paywall … buy this (my) book, go to this (my) conference, question it.
The Holy Spirit is our guide and he has no paywall and charges no fees.
Luther’s reformation was no moneymaker for him.
The constant “reformations” since … the marketing of deconstruction and reconstruction? Buyer beware of moneymakers in the Temple. They are no Jesus-pleasers, they are pocketbook-pleasers. Their own pocketbooks.
Loren Haas,
Thank you, Loren. I was waiting for someone to give me a better explanation. I am going to add your definition of progressive Christianity to the post.
Nick Bulbeck,
We have similar tastes. I’m waiting for the Dune series.
Loren Haas,
I added your description to the post. I am so grateful. This stuff is hard.
Just like the Communists separated the sheep and liquidated the goats based on Purity of Ideology?
Point 3 of 2: the first two deconstructions of Christian faithThe women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the deid? He is not here; he has risen!”
—-
One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
“What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel…”
They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burrning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
—
‘Nuff said, TBH.
Lowlandseer,
Thank you for Derrida’s quote. Would you say that this person is outside traditional Christianity? How would you classify their interesting faith? I was particularly taken by the meeting in the glen. Does God listen a bit more closely in glens? 🙂
Great thought here.
Laughing so hard I scared the pugs.
Larry-Moe-Curly logic:
REVEREND Larry cites REVEREND Moe.
REVEREND Moe cites REVEREND Curly.
REVEREND Curly cites REVEREND Larry.
Except only the REVERENDs are going “NYUK! NYUK! NYUK!”
Though the best example of circular proof came from several churches during the Lent and Easter seasons when Last Temptation of Christ movie was The Big Thing:
“The Bible is True Because The Bible Says So!” – Almost word-for-word. From Pulpit after Pulpit.
I appreciated reading the post. I did a bit of deconstructing myself I guess. Raised in RC the Lord saved me. Confessed my sin and trusted in the finished work of Jesus Christ and His righteousness alone before God’s Throne of Judgement when I get there. I trust in no more of my good works. Though I agree whole heartedly with Luther “Salvation is by faith alone, but that faith is never alone”.
I spent so much time trying to earn something before God that when God finally opened my eyes to see there wasn’t anything I could do to put away my sins, that I didn’t need to earn anything. God had a plan from the “foundation of the world” to redeem sinners from their sin. That was to me Good News! Though not on par in anyway like Luther, I had tried earning my salvation. I was a bust. There is no comfort there. I will not go back. “Here I stand”.
Now with love in my heart, though I know to what extent it is inadequate for such a great and merciful, all loving creator God, I just want to honor Him. Bring glory to His name. “I want to know Him and the power of His resurrection”. “If you love me you will keep my commandments”. Shouldn’t I spend time reading His word, believing it (after all he is God) and trying to obey? If He were not merciful to reveal Himself, would I ever know who He was and what He is like? I don’t see how a finite creature such as I am has a chance of knowing Him unless He tells me about Himself. If it is simple and you want to call me a bumpkin (or anything else) for just believing the Bible, so be it. I will be in good company with many saints throughout the ages. I have been a Christian for some 36 years. I love it! I find that many people, Christian in fact, disappoint and even disturb me. I find God to be totally faithful. By God’s grace, I will stick with Him.
Thank you for your good wishes for my Mom. She is pretty sick and is hard for her to endure the cure. She has made her wishes known regarding intrusive medical intervention but thankfully is not at that point at this moment.
I may try to find some categories that will be more helpful. I’m confused as well. I plan to take about deconstruction today and will link to some articles.
“Questions lead to Thinking.
Thinking leads to Doubt.
Doubt leads to Heresy.
Heresy must be stamped out.
Blessed is the mind too small for Doubt.”
— Warhammer 40K (which invented the words “Grimdark” and “Crapsack”)
Could you expand on this a bit?
Ken A,
Your comment was absolutely beautiful. Thank you.
I am now off to the hospital. I will write more on deconstruction this afternoon if things are stable. Thank you all for caring to pray for a very old lady who is beginning to understand that her days are slowly coming to a close. It is particularly hard for her because she does not profess faith and has little to hold onto during this time.
Meanwhile some pastors in the US interpreted the closures in a completely different way… “forsake not the gathering,” etc.
dee,
Continuing to pray for your mother and all who love and care for her.
Deconstruction of church bathroom reveals treasure:
Plumber discovers money, checks in wall of Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church years after $600K burglary
The 500 envelopes full of cash and checks were found behind a loose t0ilet as workers moved insulation out of the wall.
I won’t post the link, but this story is on Houston’s Channel 2 website, and the tale is rippling through cyberspace.
Glad to pray. As it’s December, perhaps the Christmas story from Luke 2 and the “good tidings of great joy which will be to all people” can be of comfort.
Revelation 22:17 (cf. Isaiah 55:1)
“The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” Let the one who hears say, “Come!” And let the one who is thirsty come, and the one who desires the water of life drink freely.”
Somebody was really cleaning up!
Ken F, you are totally depraved!
Good morning fellow sods?
When we started trusting in the power of the almighty dollar to do church, we lost divine power to do it right.
To the lame beggar, Peter said “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” (Acts 3:6)
The modern church can say we’ve got plenty of silver and gold, but can’t say “Rise up and walk!” The average church doesn’t have enough spiritual power to blow the dust off a peanut.
If you want to keep your SBC retirement annuity, you have to sell you soul and float with the latest wave of theology … whether you agree with it or not. Traditional (non-Calvinist) Southern Baptist pastors who got on the NeoCal wagon have no spiritual spine.
d4v1d,
There is another, important meaning to the word belief, which is a quality directed at a body of conveyed communicating. Increasingly churches abolished Holy Spirit belief from around 1954 by my count. I find “faith” more specific, and based on a basis of belief; but those are my usages anyway.
For many people, semper reformanda may be a slogan more than a genuine heart attitude.
—
Michael Heiser’s work on Hebrew demonology may be of interest. IIRC, he thinks that the ancient Hebrews were not absolute monotheists, but rather “henotheists”. YHWH was the highest of the gods (‘the Most High God’), but that there were other, less powerful (and presumably created) beings that qualified as ‘gods’.
Amusingly, I think I’ve read that David Bentley Hart has written that the Genesis 1 creation account sees humanity as the work of what essential was a ‘committee’ of these lesser deities, ‘let us make man in our image’, under the supervision of YHWH, the highest of them all.
The past may be a very different place, in which people think very differently than we do. Deconstruction, ideally, would seek to discover the differences and work out their implications for us.
I’ve heard that some rabbis believed Abraham failed the test God set before him and he should have argued with God about sacrificing Isaac instead of acquiescing. It’s not like he hadn’t argued with God before (about finding righteous men in Sodom). Christians, however, do not have a tradition of arguing with the Almighty.
Well, somebody here has to be, so it might as well be me…
My apologies to the pugs. It’s possible that I was not fully accurate when I quoted that passage…
Yes. I think an easily missed point in that passage is how incredibly easy it is to tell the difference between sheep and goats. Whatever that judgment will involve, it appears the choice will be intuitively obvious to all.
If there are checks in that mess, the police can pinpoint the exact date the offering was taken. I’d be curious to learn if this occurred before the $600K robbery in 2014 or after. If after, I’d be asking what Lakewood’s offering handling procedure is.
I work for a financial institution and we have so many checks and balances around money movement, including having to run some transactions by the US Treasury Department’s “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” list. (It’s a BAD day at work if that scanning has issues.) We have sophisticated software that looks for matches and drop-kicks odd money movements into queues for human inspection. All because it’s Other People’s Money AND The Government Doesn’t Want It Going For Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking, Terrorism and the rest.
I’m NOT suggesting that churches need to go to this extent, but there are practices which can be put into place to make sure 500 envelopes of cash and checks aren’t missed. It’s not the church’s money, it’s God’s money and should be treated with care.
I appear to be in the same place as you. I am not RC or EO, but I also cannot really call myself protestant anymore. I don’t think the titles none or done apply to me, so I don’t know where I fit. In the meantime, I am continuing to dig in those ancient fields because the treasures are so valuable and plentiful.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
You can include me in that. Maybe we can create a new denomination 😉
No they don’t.
The fear of death and hell is more than enough to put the kabash on any and all dissent.
i.e. God holds the Biggest Whip.
Omnipotent but NOT Benevolent.
Does anyone else realize this makes Satan the biggest hero of all time because he dares to stand up to that Cosmic Monster?
“The difference between a religion and a cult is a religion teaches you to love life while a cult teaches you to fear death.”
— Rabbit Boteach
When all you have is an End Times Prophecy hammer, everything looks like a Fulfillment nail.
Saw that play out over and over again in the Seventies and Early Eighties.
As good as your points 1 through n always are, your n+1 of n points are always the best.
Comrade Trotsky’s Doctrine of Continuous Revolution?
“Deconstructing” (demolishing) the existing order to build a new one or Destruction for it’s own sake? IRL, Shiva is not always followed by Brahma.
Interestingly, the EO “prayer of the heart” is a very old plea for mercy: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
Catherine Martin,
Fellow woman FP here, I’d read the heck outta that memoir!
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Council got delayed by the men with their hands on the levers in the RCC (not the popes at that time) then when it happened (after expressions of disbelief had been engineered circa 1959, and produced bemusing waffle it was pronounced to be a triumph and large scale disappearance of faith and morals ensued. I am NOT joining in liturgical quarrels about which my observations are detailed and nuanced.
Please all pray about my laptop as I am being hampered from posting. I have contributions on the subjects you are raising and I’m not ignoring you.
My experience has been that God isn’t the least bit threatened or worried about our questions. In fact, He invites us to “taste and see” that He is good! “Deconstruction” is an excellent way to discover not only WHAT you believe, but WHY you believe it, as well. It can have the positive effect of strengthening the foundation upon which our faith is built, and a sense of getting back to the ‘fundamentals’.
In a time when evangelicalism is seemingly continuing to deteriorate, we’d better examine our faith–very carefully indeed. Paul commended the Bereans for doing just that. There’s no reason for us to do any differently.
This!
So many insightful comments on this equally insightful post. I believe my experience with what is now called deconstruction begin with something I read in the Oswald Chambers devotional “My Utmost For His Highest” about 40 or so years ago.
“Re-state to yourself what you believe, then do away with as much of it as possible, and get back to the bedrock of the Cross of Christ.”
In my experience, what many refer to as deconstruction was more like sanctification to me, not a one-time event, but something that continues as I go through life. The minute I notice myself thinking – This Is It! I Know All The Things! – I remind myself that I do not.
They fear . . . so. many. things. Not having “the correct” interpretation being the main fear.
Jesus gets left on the doorstep.
101st!
Well, obviously. I’m admiring My handiwork there.
Best regards,
God
I was struck, years ago, by a quote from author Clive Barker that when Jesus defeated satan on the cross, the wrong guy won. I’m not sure what Barker specifically meant by that, but there’s no doubt that some proportion of people who have rejected Christianity, have done so because they’ve been taught that God is a monster.
“First Church of the Misfit and Malcontent”?
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I’m in.
We could even formally endorse Nickism (though I’m not precious about the name).
The Nickene Creed sounds familiar, but I can’t quite place it…
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Lesley and I are reading “The Lost Art of Scribsher: rescuing the sacred texts” by Karen Armstrong and “Things Hidden: scribsher as spirituality” by Richard Rohr. Well, Lesley’s just finished the former and I’ve just finished the latter, and we’ve swapped. Rohr is a Franciscan (apologies if you already knew that) and one thing that was interesting about his book was to read more about the Roman Church’s perspective on Mary, but from an Actual Roman Church Person. Cannae believe I’ve never really done that before.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
“…the reformation would have been impossible without deconstruction. But so would Christianity. The Bible is full of examples of deconstruction: Moses, Job, David, Gideon, Paul, all of the apostles, just to name a few.
I am hoping a creative wartburger will try their hand at writing about Luther’s deconstruction from his parents’ perspective”
+++++++++++++++++++++
i dunno, this may not even be worth saying, but i feel like joining the conversation.
i think the definition of becoming an adult is deconstruction.
we all deconstruct our childhood years and upbringing.
we deconstruct the beliefs, priorities, values, methods from those who influenced as we grew up.
We reject the bad, and the take the good and pare it down further and reshape what’s left.
thus the generation gap happens, and chances are our influencers are muttering things like, “well, my way was best. No school like the old school.”
(and i’ll try to remember this as my kids are getting closer to the launch pad.)
Friend,
That demonstrates a profound understanding of Nickism…
Also… why have I never thought of that? 🙂
It’s never stopped me!
Loren Haas,
A lot of churches don’t in practical terms “require” beliefs of members / attenders and almost all churches have some people who believe those things. Some of the stricter churches consider their authorities and signed-up or loosely attached members progressive. I think a decisive characteristic is “muscular”. The nice version of muscular are too polite to browbeat us but subtly yet heavily indirectly imply that we ought to be browbeating ourselves, because they don’t believe Holy Spirit helps us bear one another’s burden. This features in every denomination now (through books and muzak being hyped). (Managed a trouble free paragraph.)
NC Now,
Oh you mean when mischief making gets salami sliced under different auspices and there aren’t any channels (other than for the mischief makers) except the very overt authority that is actually innocent and without influence and is the sole party that gets to look bad, apart from individuals unhappy with all this. Yes, that’s what team working is in one of the churches I was at, endorsed at the very highest levels.
I supported (in an almost inactive way) a pincer movement for 28 years.
I think you have hit on the heart of the “deconstruction” that is in God’s mind for all of us.
“If anyone wants to follow in My footsteps he must give up all right to himself, take up his cross and follow Me. For the man who wants to save his life will lose it; but the man who loses his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:24-25)
Bridget,
“Not having “the correct” interpretation being the main fear.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
chuckling, here — the “right” interpretation changes so often.
as soon as a TGC-er needs to sooth a fragile ego, wants attention, or seeks to boost readership and increase traffic to their blog, they declare the new-and-improved “right” interpretation.
A month or so ago it was “it is a sin for women to talk to women in the floating world of disembodied souls on the internet”.
wonder what it is now.
watching self-serving professional christians dream up the new “right” interpretation (laced with pretentious language) in order to build their brand and protect their brand…
it’s just so entertaining
Lowlandseer,
Purely for general knowledge / curiosity, what is the book title please? Do they mesh with people I knew round about then I wonder. And what is it really about.
JDV,
With his lies Mohler is putting down every single Christian of every denomination worldwide, accusing us of the very self-non-forgiving “blasphemy against Holy Spirit” he and not we are committing.
My ex used to joke about starting a church called something similar that had pulpits at both ends & swivel chairs so the congregation could hear opposing views as well as the party line.
So far, the nearest thing I’ve maybe come to with what I believe is ‘paleo-orthodoxy’, the best known proponent of which was Thomas Oden. Maybe we could call our movement Odenism (if it didn’t sound so much like onanism)…
Institutions may never be able to do that, but individuals can. Deconstructing an individual is a whole lot easier than deconstructing an institution.
In watching my grandson play with a construction toy, he found it necessary to remove some things when starting a new project in order to begin again, otherwise the old building blocks got in the way of the new. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)
That’s the point. It can be a new and different “right” interpretation as required to keep everyone in their seat. Keeping it a moving target just adds to the fear they can impose. This keeps people frozen with fear not daring to think or do anything different.
Please don’t give them any ideas. There is already way too much spiritual onanism acting like it is the real thing. I’m tempted to write more, but I don’t want to make the pugs sick.
Today it’s about women needing accountability:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/women-need-accountability-too/
Because by definition, no bishop of Nickism is infallible
dee,
Dee, you are graceful as always.
I really appreciate that you are open minded to different viewpoints. This is setting a good example for Wartburgers to consider. It is also reflected in the predominantly respectful comments on your blog.
Last year at this time we watched my father-in-law rapidly decline with heart and other issues. This is so difficult. Take care of yourself as we pray for you and your mother.
I hope I can do that when I grow up? How does one known when they have actually grown up?
I’ve got a few books of hers on my shelf of books I hope to read one day. I’ve read some of Rohr’s books and listened to him in various podcasts. He has a very interesting, if not a bit trippy, perspective. On the topic of Mary, he said RC theology relating to Mary is a mess, but the psychology is outstanding. I don’t think I could become a Rohr fan, but I’ve been blessed by some of his thoughts and perspectives.
Their whole system is based on fear – it cannot exist without it. It seems like the Bible has something to say about the relationship between fear and love. Is it “perfect fear casts out love?”
That appears to be the New Calvinist version of that verse based on their over-the-top control of the pew … manipulation, intimidation and domination are not characteristics of love. Talking about deconstructing, that stuff sure needs to be removed from the church!
That really sounds almost like Mohler believes that, instead of each Christian standing before the bema seat of judgement and being judged individually, the entire SBC Collective (Borg???) will be judged as a singular entity……..
When Jesus asked the apostles to follow Him, didn’t the apostles “deconstruct”?
I came to faith (on the untrustworthy side of 30) and then entered a construction phase that has some strong similarities to your deconstruction phase. As part of it I thought long about inerrancy, and even had a couple communications with one of the people involved in the Chicago statement, and read a few books he sent me. It took me a while after reading this post and thread to reactivate a small portion of my thoughts from that period.
To understand where I’m writing from, I’ve ended up concluding that the doctrine of inerrancy is errant. I think it erred in assuming a too limited view of God. There was too much of an “this is the only way God could have acted, therefore this is the way he did act” underlying assumption.
The Christian (and Jewish) God is a historical God that interacts with and uses history. There is no need to assume that all this interaction is on a wham-bam one and done approach. Certain events are that way – Jesus came only once, the Re(e)d Sea parted at most once, all the other major miracles, et cetera. The drafters of the doctrine of inerrancy assumed that God had to have used a wham-bam one and done method for creating the “real” version of the scriptures.
But look at how he formed the Israelite people. There was nothing wham-bam about it. The formation starts with Abraham being called out of his father’s house, runs through the generations of the patriarchs, goes down to Egypt, increases in suffering there, departs through the Exodus, gradually conquers a chunk of land, eventually decides they need a king, has a united kingship, breaks into the Northern Kingdom and Judea, has leadership taken into exile, has some come back from exile, and so on. Then outside the coverage of scripture, the process of Hellenization and Roman conquest before the New Testament opens. Centuries of process, of incremental steps, of circling toward the goal.
Why couldn’t God have used that same sort of process to form the scripture he wanted us to have? The authors of inerrancy assumed he couldn’t. But I concluded that assumption is indefensible. So I jettisoned it.
So I’ve adopted a faith position that God did form the scripture he wanted us to have. That he did so via a process involving original authors, redactors, readers, and selectors to form those scriptures. From this position all concern about the originals drops away.
Yes.
(Your comments have frequently shown me we have a similar background, and I feel the same way you do about things. When I see your name, I know you will be clear, consistent, and wise in your posts.)
I heard Brad Jersak say two things about inerrency that had a big impact on me. One is, God let his children tell the story. The other is, the Bible is inerrant in leading people to Jesus. Another is Jesus, not the Bible, is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Here is a short sample of his thoughts on this that I find helpful:
https://www.ptm.org/qr-with-brad-jersak-if-the-bible-isnt-inerrant-can-we-trust-what-the-gospels-say-about-jesus
This view only goes back to Byron and Shelley.
Interesting post.
Sometimes when you deconstruct, what you reconstruct can be significantly different.
You miss aspects of the previous construct but realize that you can never see it the same way again.
The problem is the original can remain like a shadow, sort of like when you paint over something, you can still see it’s outline.
kindred spirits
Some Gnostics believed the god of the old testament was not the real God. I think the term was demiurge.
It’s been wrestled with since before Byron & Shelley.
The reply links don’t seem to be working right now, but if I could do a group response to Wild Honey, JDV, and grberry (I haven’t read all the comments; been busy emailing a lawyer all day about my mother’s trust, which is becoming a saga–although it’s more enjoyable than reading through the Chicago, Nashville and Dallas Statements).
Wild Honey commented on inerrancy. In the Chicago Statement, they anticipated your doubt (and no doubt found it disturbing, as Darth Vader would say). Article X:
So there! And in Article XVIII, about interpreting scripture:
This relies on a “clear meaning,” or a “plain meaning” of scripture, and I agree up to a point that “scripture is to interpret scripture.” That is, scripture should agree with the weight of all other scripture, and that one example might be to study an entire chapter, or book of a bible to understand what one verse means. Memorizing one verse too often removes the context, which should be the entire chapter, book, or bible.
But still, this calls upon human interpreters. The “clear meaning is not always clear. When two elders, say, disagree on a”clear meaning,” does that make inerrancy moot?
JDV, what you’ve said about Al Mohler and his denial of “soul competency” and the priesthood of the believer (or of believers) is just plain scary. A healthy commitment to the inspiration and authority of the bible is supposed to help keep the church from going off the rails. It implies, however, if sola scriptura is taken too far, that the Roman Catholics have it wrong, that church tradition is not authoritative; and that the pentecostals have it wrong, that spiritual experience is not reliable or authoritative; and that the intellectuals have it wrong, that reason (lean not unto thine own understanding) is not reliable.
And yet, somebody in the church still has to interpret scripture, or to administer authority somehow. That appears to come back to tradition, spiritual experience (we always have to pray first) and the brains that God gave us (reason, after all). Mohler saying that soul competency “serves as an acid dissolving religious authority, congregationalism, confessionalism, and mutual theological accountability” gives too much authority to the local church, which may be no different after all than giving authority to Roman Catholic tradition or hierarchy. Is he even listening to himself?
I’ll shut up. Learning about revocable trust law is easier. Inerrancy goes ’round and ’round.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Boy Ken, you are really on a roll with this OP….
It is pretty sobering when your sarcastic “bible verses”, while amusing, are actually quite accurate about how many “preacher boys” actually preach!!
Jack,
Richard Swinburne believes in a demiurge in place of our God and believes that there is different philosophy for the disabled.
Texts, like everything in Creation, have meanings (lots of them). Fundamentalists and their pretended opponents alike, are in identical agreement that Scripture has no meaning(s): for them the word is the thing.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
“How does one known when they have actually grown up?”
+++++++++++++=
i’ve equated being an adult with personal responsibility. as in not blaming anyone or anything else, and not passing off to others to manage and decide for me.
the buck stops with me.
it’s my job to decide when i need help, but the buck stops me and the responsibility is mine not my helper(s).
my decisions are mine to make with due diligence, and i own the consequences, good and bad.
my problems are mine, and it’s my job to solve them.
my faith is mine to decide it’s substance and how to exercise it.
my spirituality is mine to develop.
my frustrations are mine, as are the circumstances to change to mitigate them.
my philosophy of life is mine to determine and mine to implement.
it’s my responsibility to fund all my days.
…stuff like that.
(not that i’ve arrived at these things necessarily)
So… how does that interpretation fit with Genesis 22:16-18?
Just an observation. It took Abraham and company a couple days to travel to the site of the sacrifice. While Genesis doesn’t specifically record a conversation or prayer of desperation from Abraham during that timeframe, neither does it specifically say “he was silent.” We simply don’t know definitively.
As a parent who experienced both infertility and early pregnancy loss before the birth of my firstborn, and then took said firstborn to the ER when she was three days old with these words from the advice nurse ringing in my ears, “If she stops breathing on your way there, pull the car over and call 911,” I would be more than a little surprised if there no requests to God to spare his son. Particularly given that, as you said, Abraham has already shown a proclivity for bargaining with God.
I am going to borrow this, if you don’t mind
dee,
Continued prayers for you both.
elastigirl,
in essence, i’ve observed that my religion encourages people to water down their personal responsibility.
people pass off their personal responsibility on to God, the bible, pastors, and church, and then likewise blame them when they don’t like the results.
my own deconstruction has had this as a big focus. but oh, there’s so much more.
This may come out sounding blasphemous, but so be it.
In response to your observation, then they are the poorer for it!
While I’m not advocating for disrespect, I think there are enough stories of people negotiating with God in the Bible that I think there SHOULD be more of this in churches. I don’t have the exact references in front of me, but Abraham persuaded God in the matter of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses persuaded God not to destroy the Israelites at some point during their desert wanderings, and Ezekiel told God that he wasn’t going to eat dung after God explicitly ordered him to (and God let him get away with it).
Granted, there are also stories where God doesn’t respond well to being questioned (like the Israelites not responding well to the report of the spies Moses sent out). I think this is one of those things like the father of the demon-possessed boy who told Jesus, “I believe; help my unbelief!” There should be a tension between the two, of trusting God but also having room to express doubts/desires/etc. IMO. I mean, even Jesus prayed that God would “take this cup.” While God didn’t take the cup, neither was Jesus punished for the prayer.
If the church had more of a tradition of (productive) arguing with the Almighty, then maybe parishioners would be more comfortable with (productive) arguing with their pastors. Which would keep the narcissistic ones out and the good ones sharp, I would hope.
I may borrow this, too.
Ken F (aka Tweed),
I need to stop reading the TGC articles you link to right before bed. They always raise my blood pressure and make it harder to sleep.
This reminds me of something I read years ago in reference to the ending of Mark, which is speculated (with good evidence) was not in the original manuscript. Basically, the author pointed out that, if we really believe in an all-powerful God, then if God REALLY didn’t want those extra few verses to be there in the version of Mark we have today, then surely he would have found a way to prevent it.
Wild Honey,
“While I’m not advocating for disrespect, I think there are enough stories of people negotiating with God in the Bible that I think there SHOULD be more of this in churches.”
++++++++++++++
well, if not, then why pray?
many things are A, and not B, and we pray for A, against the resistance to A. (or vice versa)
but also many things are A or B. They could go either way. If I have a preference for B, then I’ll pray for B. I believe God respects my prerogative and preferences and can be persuaded to agree with me, and God’s faith joins with my faith to tip the scales towards B.
in short, i believe we work together, God and each of us. We are co-laborers with God. We negotiate at times, and then proceed. God’s hand joining with our hand. God’s voice joining with our voice.
Deconstruction – I first read about this in “The Post-Evangelical” by UK Christian author Dave Tomlinson. After it aroused controversy in the British evangelical establishment in the 1990s and half-forgotten by the next decade, the post-evangelical spirit flew across the Atlantic where an American edition was published. How much Tomlinson’s book contributed towards where we are now is a very good question!
I’ve always thought that Derrida was in the atheist camp but I’ve read recently that both Christians and atheists have claimed him “as their own”.
My FB friend was mainstream charismatic but seems to have shifted to a more radical position. The meeting in “a remote glen after battling through a winter storm” was their highly descriptive take on a two hour car journey to a former prisoner of war camp, situated a couple of miles from a Perthshire town (although to be fair, the photos they posted did give the impression they were in the middle of nowhere).
But glens and moors have a special place in the consciousness of the Reformed. In the “Killing Times” of the 1600s, the Covenanters held Conventicles or field meetings in remote areas so they could worship God according to Presbyterian principles without fear of punishment by the authorities. And to this day, memorial conventicles are held on the moors and hillsides and I miss standing on such a windswept hillside singing Psalms with my dad who died last year.
John Smith,
There is another explanation. In Sermon 14 on Hebrews 11:17-18 by Robert Bruce (preached between 1590-1592) he says “I pointed out to you the nature and seeming harshness of the command, so that you would understand more clearly the greatness of his obedience…….Abraham is instructed to take Isaac on a three or four day journey to the land of Moriah and to one particular hill there. So the grief in his heart, and the anguish in his soul, must increase to intensify the trial. For as he constantly looked at his son on the journey, as they ate and drank together and as he embraced him before they lay down to sleep each night, his heart must have bled for his beloved. Thus this delay during these days of journeying could only have increased the sorrow of the father’s heart.
This was the Lord’s will. He deliberately planned this delay that the world might see that Abraham’s action was not undertaken rashly; he did not all of a sudden embark upon this enterprise which seemed so obviously to be directly against God’s law and explicit commandments. His servant was not acting unadvisedly or upon some hasty impulse; rather he was acting upon a steadfast resolution, without which he could have been deflected from his intention over those three or four days’ delay. No process of time could alter his intention. Therefore God used this delay to enable the world to see that what he did arose from an unshakeable tenacity, even if the result was an intensifying of his grief.”
(Preaching Without Fear or Favour: Previously Unpublished Sermons on Hebrews 11 by Robert Bruce, Christian Focus Publications)
I probably engaged too much. This topic hits very close to home for me for a number of reasons. And those verses I twisted are not new twists that I just now thought of. It’s odd being accused of departing from Christianity by investigating ancient Christianity.
Yes. A single example: I think that there is a lot (it’s not universal, thankfully, but IMO too widespread; a good indicator is ‘does the person tune in to TBN?’) of ‘magical thinking’ in present day popular-level ‘practical theology of prayer.’ It’s assumed in these circles that the spectacular aspects of the biblical narratives are normative for the present time. The Father always heard Jesus and granted his requests (Jn 11:41-2, cf. Jn 9:30-3), Jesus promised the apostles that the Father would hear them and grant their requests when they prayed ‘in my name’. It’s assumed that these (and a few other) texts imply that we can do the same in consistent, predictable ways.
‘Extraordinary mode’ prayer is reckoned to be normative in our time, and people are grieved when it doesn’t work.
Scripture also exhibits an ‘ordinary mode’ of prayer, which I think we should consider to be more normative for our time. A little remarked detail in Nehemiah 1 is that the dicey request to the king to assist in N’s plan to rebuild the defenses of Jerusalem came only after a months-long period of fasting and prayer. What N got for his prayers was not ‘a miracle’, but ‘a plan’ (and a plan that was costly in terms of the sacrifices N would have to make in order to implement it).
To echo an earlier point you made, yes, we are responsible to deal with the problems that concern us. Perhaps a way in which our prayers are efficacious is that they may be able (or God may work through them) to change us, and that may help to involve us in the pursuit of wise solutions to the problems that hold our attention.
Oh, I know. I’m just always tickled when I hear the idea broached as though Clive Barker had a brilliant epiphany.
Never heard of this man. I don’t think he has much to do with what is currently happening in the US. What is happening with “Dones” here has to do with the state of the Evangelical Church in the US.
Michael,
I think the concept of Satan as a hero has gained traction in recent years.
There’s been movies and books exploring the idea.
I watched a documentary called “hail Satan” which chronicles some of this road to legitimacy and documents schisms inherent in all religion.
You could read the Bible many different ways. I once asked a non denominational pastor about how the “put to death” passages in Leviticus & Deuteronomy square with the gospels.
The answer I got was that because people were incapable of following the law, God sacrificed Jesus. Jesus took the punishment that we should have received for not following the old testament edicts (!).
In that interpretation, God tortured and killed his own son – whose mission seemed to be one of forgiveness, healing and kindness – so that we don’t have to fulfill the missives regarding so called “moral crimes” (including our own disobedient children).
Or God punished himself since Jesus is also God – another disturbing interpretation.
Guy got points for at least providing some insight, most Christians avoid the subject completely.
I don’t think this is “good theology” but does highlight how different interpretations can arise.
However this interpretation means that we can also enjoy the “surf and turf” at Red lobster…
> Doesn’t Necessarily Mean the Destruction of Faith
I think that some forms of ‘faith’ merit destruction; specifically forms that bend God and religious teachings and practices into the service of individuals’ lusts or ambitions. The “word of faith” movement is a relatively extreme example, but I think other examples could be multiplied.
“some forms of ‘faith’ merit destruction; specifically forms that bend God and religious teachings and practices into the service of individuals’ lusts or ambitions.”
++++++++++
ah.
like sarah davis’ RZIM2.0 — “Lighten”, where accountability is framed as cancel culture which is then framed as a sin so they can move on & capitalize on end-of-the-year charitable giving from gullible christian giving units.
i think i’ll ride the wrecking ball on this one.
And if inerrancy was so important why wasn’t that somehow included as an important doctrine in the Bible?
The phrase mentioned in the “Progressive Christianity” definition of your article by “Got Questions” really “got” me:
“. . . biblical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.” Really? Oh, and where in the Bible is that spelled out for us? Hmmmm?
It is only a man made construct inferring that – not necessarily without noble, thoughtful, or logical intent mind you. However, that doesn’t make it “Biblical”.
I HATE it when self-proclaimed gatekeepers of the faith go about calling things “Biblical” when they aren’t. It causes me to just switch them off completely – even though they may have something good to say somewhere, it is not worth spending the time wading through all the land mines of error or misinformation to understand what they have to say. Life is too short for that.
What an amazing movie! I saw it twice, once on a small screen with not the best sound in the back. I took my family to the IMAX version a week later and sat 1/3 of the way back and with GREAT sound. What a difference that made!
A masterful rendition of a very complex book.
Afterburne,
“when self-proclaimed gatekeepers of the faith go about calling things “Biblical””
+++++++++++++++
“. . . biblical doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.” — guess that’s like the wet water of the pacific ocean.
everything is at once biblical (therefore i’m right) and unbiblical (therefore he’s wrong), depending on who you talk to.
it’s the stupidest thing… all of it
Max,
Max is my hero!
Because once the Revolution succeeds and THEY are the ones on top, the Revolutionaries suddenly don’t want anything to change. Ever.
(At least until the NEXT coup.)
“Baratheon, Lannister, Targereyn – every Great House wants to stop The Wheel forever with themselves on top.” — Tyroin Lannister, Game of Thrones
Another reason why Christians need an infusion of Judaism.
Jews have a long tradition of arguing with God (and each other) dating back to when Abraham haggled God down over Ten Righteous Men in Sodom.
Rabbi Boteach’s blog once wrote that this was the major difference in attitude between Judaism and the two other Abrahamic faiths. Christians and Muslims obey, Jews go back-and-forth with God about it. Feisty and spirited.
Nick Bulbeck,
Nick, I had two deconstructions. The first was in my college years, from Roman Catholic into Evangelicalism. There I stayed for +30 years, until the theology and anthropology of Evangelicalism pretty much completely unraveled, especially as regards suffering (the doctor with migraines in the comments above makes the point). That was my second deconstruction.
I spent 10 years in “the Evangelical wilderness”, trying to find a home. I never wanted to be anything but a Christian, but it became increasingly obvious to me that what made sense to me as an Ev. was completely outweighed by what didn’t make sense. In that time, the ethos and prayer services of the Northumbria Community meant a lot to me.
I finally found a home, in Easter Northodoxy. (You may not know how wonderfully your autistic humor in that points to Easter – Pascha, as we say – as the center of everything!) I see people like Armstrong and Rohr filling a need for those who need to begin to see Christianity in a different way, but please don’t stop there. My own voyage essentially began by going back before the Reformation, but way back, to the time when the Church was One – there wasn’t a “Roman Catholic Church” or an “Eastern Orthodox Church”, but simply “Christianity”. There are so many wonderful ancient Christian writers from the Eastern tradition (Irenaeus, the Apostolic Fathers, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa), and some great contemporary ones, too: Lossky, Schmemann, Yannaras, Fr John Behr (do check out the videos of his talks on YouTube). Fr Stephen Freeman writes the best Orthodox blog in English, bar none. Look him up, too.
Dee’s testimony about growing up Russian Orthodoxy is, for me, very sad. It often happens that in ethnic-centered parishes, the brilliance of the Orthodox understanding of things gets hidden by the desire to hold on to ethnic distinctives, for whatever reason, or is simply assumed without explanation. The Gospel is, in fact, there, in blazing glory and depth that Dee somehow didn’t get to experience, and in my book that was a grave sin committed against her. What I found was a theology and a way of life that are worthy not only of the God Christians claim is good, but also of the dignity of the human being (in the words of an Orthodox priest who was raised in the Assembly of God denomination in the American South).
If you want to talk to a flesh-and-blood person, there is an Orthodox monastery on the Isle of Mull, consisting of both monks and nuns. Fr Seraphim Aldea there is very kind and insightful.
Blessings to you & Lesley, and Happy Christmas.
Dana
Believer,
Hero I can live with … just don’t call me an icon 🙂
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Which is why I’d rather listen to Shmuley Boteach than David Jeremiah any day.
Exactly.
I’m a long time Dune fan.
I’ve read all of Herbert the elder’s books and the ones done by his son and writing partner Kevin J. Anderson.
I gotta’ say though, I think that the latest movie iteration misses the boat when it comes to the fabled Ornithopters.
They resemble dragon flies, not the wing-beat flight of birds.
Denis Villeneuve (film maker) would have been truer to Herbert’s writings by studying and modeling say the wing beat flight of ravens and going from there for design and construction.
“You don’t think your way into a new kind of living. You live your way into a new kind of thinking.” — Henri Nouwen
Yes, thx for adding Nouwen to the list.
1. Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
2. Love the Bible as His book.
from what I can see, men came up with the word ‘inerrancy’ to mean that THEIR man-made interpretations of sacred Scripture were ‘inerrant’, so I do believe that the term is ‘self-serving’ for people of the likes of them what introduced the term and made their followers ‘accept’ it on the leader’s terms.
It seems also to me that ‘Holy’ is not a word that is comfortably used among modern fundamentalist who are pridefully sold on their own wisdom . . . maybe because they can’t ‘control’ the idea of the Holy Spirit, God in the Third Person, going ‘where He wills’. (?)
I remember the ‘excuse’ in the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message, that centering on Jesus Christ as the ‘lens’ through which the sacred Scriptures were to be interpreted simply was WRONG because it allowed people to depart from the modern fundamentalist-evangelical ‘conservative’ mantra, and indeed the critics were right . . . . those who saw Our Lord as the lens through which sacred Scripture was to be interpreted were open to the more ancient insights from the days of the Church Fathers,
and that threatened ‘control’ on the part of the fundamentalists, yes.
If the Holy Spirit can ‘go where He wills’, then fundamentalism will not be able to stop Him with a ‘doctrine’ like ‘inerrantism’, no. The Holy Spirit speaks to the soul of a human being, to his/her spirit, in ways too deep for words, and an encounter between such a person and the sacred Word can change a life in that moment, accomplishing what God intended when the Word was inspired.
If ‘inerrantists’ tried to stop ‘the holy’ and bend the Word to their ‘reasoning’, they failed. The Word stands on its own. Any human encounter with the Word lies always in the realm of the Kingdom of God, not in councils of modern fundamentalism’s ‘leaders’, no. some thoughts
Good thoughts.
The Word of God with God’s Holy Spirit communicating to the hearts of men is out of a leader’s control.
This is probably troublesome to control freak leaders and their approvaholic followers. Move over Mohler and minions, ‘cuz God’s Holy Spirit is coming through.
“Evolving from single-celled yellow organisms at the dawn of time, Minions live to serve, but find themselves working for a continual series of unsuccessful masters, from T. Rex to Napoleon. Without a master to grovel for, the Minions fall into a deep depression.”
God’s children are meant to be more than minions.
To which Mohler and minions respond with Scripture: “We have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:2).
Lowlandseer,
Thank you for the quote from Robert Bruce. So many of the sermons of the long ago preachers were so eloquent.
I reviewed my original note to Wild Honey. My statement, “God was NOT pleased with Abraham” is simply wrong as it stands. I wrote hastily and sloppily. I apologize.
Let’s try again. Abraham’s faith in God is genuine and rewarded by God. However, Abraham’s understanding of the nature and character of God falls short. Abraham seems to understand God in a similar way as other perceived gods in the near east at that time.
We might say that one reason God may have tested Abraham is to deconstruct Abraham’s concept of God and reconstruct a better one.
The problem here is Abraham’s silence and lack of any engagement with God. In contrast, when told that Sodom and Gomorrah were to be destroyed, Abraham engaged with God in an attempt to protect Lot and any other righteous people living there. For some reason (not stated) Abraham did not engage with God on behalf of his own son Isaac. As Bruce eloquently describes, Abraham proceeds silently, without question, and tenaciously with this sacrifice of his son.
Is this silent unquestioning obedience what God really wanted? or was God inviting Abraham to question Him, to engage and discuss what this was really about? Why did God want to take Isaac’s life? What does this say about God’s character?
In the end, the angel of the Lord interrupts Abraham before killing Isaac. God honors Abraham’s faith for obeying. But is God honoring only Abraham’s obedience in the sacrifice of Isaac? or is God also honoring Abraham’s faith for obeying the angel of the Lord instructions to Stop! Abraham could have carried out the killing of Isaac, thinking the angel of the Lord was someone trying to divert from his obedience to the original demand and interrupt his sacrifice. So is part of the faith that God is honoring here the faith to obey the angel of the Lord’s instruction to stop the killing?
There are other issues buried in the whole narrative. Sarah is nowhere to be seen. In fact, it appears based on chapter 23 that Sarah is no longer even living with Abraham after this event. She is living near Hebron when she dies. Abraham was living in Beersheba and has to travel to attend to her burial.
We find Isaac living in the Negev (chapter 24). He has moved away from his father and mother. Why is he not closer? Has there been a rift between Abraham and Isaac? There is no record of Isaac returning from Moriah with Abraham. Only the servants and Abraham are said to return to Beersheba. There is no record that Isaac and Abraham ever saw each other again alive.
Unlike Isaac and Jacob with their sons, Abraham never passes the blessing to Isaac. In contrast, Isaac was deeply concerned to pass the blessing to Esau. Was Isaac so concerned about passing the blessing to his son because his own father did not bless him?
So the narrative seems to suggest there was a deep family rift between Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac. This test of Abraham does seem to have directly or indirectly caused the family to fracture.
Abraham had a special noteworthy and honorable faith in God. But as the apostle Paul said about the Jews in his day, Abraham’s understanding of God appears to be lacking. In particular, at the beginning of the test, Abraham does not seem to understand God as compassionate and merciful, and desiring a conversational relationship.
Clearly God was pleased with Abraham’s faith, even though that faith was flawed in understanding. I find this comforting because I know my own faith is deeply flawed. I also find it comforting that Abraham, who had no bible to lean on or learn from, had faith in God without any of the revelation, writings, history, and understanding that we have today. This means that God calls people even without knowledge of the bible or of the work of Christ, and that people can respond to that call.
To sum up this long thought in context with deconstruction – this is just one example where it seems to me that the bible is all about God constantly deconstructing ideas and thoughts and worship toward Him, and reconstructing new, more hopeful, more peaceful, more loving relationships with Him and each other.
This too long, but hopefully clarifies my thinking of this.
Nah, God has never been confused about His divine plan. It is men who chart wrong courses and are left deconstructing and reconstructing to try to get back to the heart of God. How many times have we seen the “One True Church” come up short … the latest being New Calvinism? How many times have we seen ministers and ministries reinvent themselves to stay afloat in Christendom? In the meantime, God holds steady waiting for us to find our way back to Him.
First, Max, thank you for your many comments here, which have often helped me with my own thinking.
Of course you are right about God’s plan versus men’s attempt to create the “One True Church”. Having a more Wesleyan perspective now I believe the Holy Spirit actively draws all people to Jesus. And that means we have to be drawn away from unhelpful and harmful ideas and views. I spent 20 or more years strongly influenced by Calvinistic thought. It has been a long difficult process moving away from that and is not finished either. Calvinistic thinking can make one feel safe and secure – even smug. It is hard to move away from something that feels “safe” and “secure”.
Thanks and God bless.
John
Amen, it’s tough for all of us to move away from the comfortable. However, sometimes religious things must be taken away from our lives in order to establish what is true and righteousness. While this process requires ‘us’ to change, God changes not (Malachi 3:6).
As I’ve deconstructed/reconstructed my personal Christian journey, I’ve always found it comforting to know:
“God is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews 12:7-8)
“His Word is settled in Heaven forever” (Psalm 119:89)
“The plans of the Lord stand firm forever” (Psalm 33:11)
“He is not a man that He should change His mind” (1 Samuel 15:29)
It’s as if certain religious systems are attempting to get God to change His mind! New Calvinism is the most recent futile attempt to do that. The whole of Scripture simply does not support the tenets of their belief and practice.
Pleased to hear that you have escaped from the fowler’s snare! May God continue to reveal Himself to you.
John Smith,
“Clearly God was pleased with Abraham’s faith, even though that faith was flawed in understanding. I find this comforting because I know my own faith is deeply flawed.”
+++++++++++
i wonder — what is a deeply flawed faith? faith for what? faith in what?
it strikes me that a fractional understanding of faith in God is the only possibility for humans on the human plane. why should we beat ourselves up over this?
seems to me ‘faith’ is simply making God one’s partner, and doing the tasks and endeavors of life in combined ability and strength. Companionship and advice may take more time to develop — after all, God is invisible.
We do not know for sure what went on betwixt God and Abraham regarding Isaac.
One speculation is just as good as another, so here’s mine:
Human sacrifice IS JUST PLAIN WRONG, and Abraham knew it in his deepest soul.
It was from his deepest soul that Abraham told God to go eff himself.
God then mused in his own soul:
Now I know that this guy’s my man!
My sentiment too.
Bridget,
It’s extremely similar. Your SBC is in the same position as our C of E and there is likewise a political angle to it because the C of E is government run (strange appointments, diversion of parish funds, dictatorial governance overriding better bishops). Deflecting from Holy Spirit and the eschatology of providential perseverance (by subtly twisting Bible dating just as one method) in order to curry political favour translates as dominionism, bossiness, and designer outlet consumerism.
Because humans (and their surrounding Cosmos) are FINITE.
(Finite doesn’t necessarily mean small from out POV, just that it has an upper limit.)
Samuel Conner,
God ensures that solutions will come looking for us (as does Nature, frequently) – demanding ones, usually – but will we be open to noticing and receiving them?
You rightly ask the key questions. I can only answer for myself here.
For me, for most of my years, my faith was in the doctrines that were drilled into my head and soul. Faith in a literal and inerrant bible. Faith in 6 days creation and earth-filled flood. Pretrib, Premillenial, Rapture, Heaven and Hell, etc.
All of that stuff is easy to put faith in because it can be written down and memorized. it’s neat and clean and orderly and packaged up. There are Bible verses to memorize and quote to support the package.
I have shifted the focus of my faith to a person. Specifically, God, and even more specifically to Jesus. Having faith in a person is hard, however. We can never, ever know everything about any other person. I am surprised by my wife, my children, my co-workers all the time despite living and working with them for all these now decades.
And just as you said, God is invisible. How can we know him – an invisible person? I’ve concluded Jesus. Jesus is the true image of God. The Word of God is Jesus, not the bible. Jesus said “Follow me”. Jesus’ expectations exceed my abilities and usually my desires. But Jesus extends his hand to help in time of low faith – as with Peter sinking into the waves.
For me, a key saying of Jesus is this, “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” So this is God’s true nature and His true appeal to me in particular, and to all humanity in general.
So I agree with you that our faith can only be a fraction of the fullness of reality. The apostle Paul is very clear about that. “For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away…. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, but the greatest of these is love.”
I write these words in this context: Three months ago our 17 year old grandson was killed in a car accident. The driver was intoxicated and just last week charged with aggravated vehicular homicide. My grieving son said to me, “Dad, I can’t fix this. There is nothing I can do. Nothing.” No amount of faith in biblical literalness or inerrancy or complementarianism or egalitarianism or the most correct and pure doctrines can help here. Only a very basic, raw, primal trust that somehow someway sometime, God through Jesus and the Spirit will redeem and “fix” this situation at some unknowable point in the unknowable future. I cannot prove my faith in a person to anyone. I don’t know enough to debate it. I just lean on Jesus’ invitation to come to Him and rest in Him. His invitation is the only basis I know of for faith, hope and love. That’s really all I can say.
I apologize because I haven’t and can’t answer your very important questions, and even worse, talked about myself. I can only suggest looking at and to Jesus, even though it’s like looking into a foggy mirror.
In my opinion, and I emphasize opinion, Abraham is guilty of child abuse in this event. Now having said that, I read scripture within a human evolutionary framework. Abraham does not have my advantages of knowing any scripture at all or knowing about the life of Jesus. His culture and understanding of God and justice is surely very different from mine. He lacks the revelation that we have, so perhaps he is due some forgiveness.
Still…. This is the standard. Jesus welcomed and hugged children around him. He cured children’s illnesses and raised one or two from the dead. He scolded the disciples when they tried to keep mom’s and children from Him. And of course, Jesus died on the cross carrying our sins.
So considering Abraham, I know of no place in Genesis where Abraham demonstrates any love to Isaac. True it is that God says to Abraham, “the son you love”, but I’m not sure what kind of love Abraham has. In contrast, Abraham is very upset when Sarah wants him to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Abraham has expressed more concern about his nephew Lot and son Ishmael. The sacrifice of Isaac does not seem to upset Abraham very much. Is it possible Abraham preferred that Ishmael receive the Blessing? He never passes the blessing to Isaac.
Also, an option for Abraham was to offer up himself as a sacrifice for Isaac. As Jesus offered himself for God’s children. But Abraham did not seem to think of that. He is willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice for himself.
So, again my current tentative opinion – subject to change on further evidence and thot – is that this is a learning experience for Abraham about God. However, I think he partly flubs it in that he doesn’t even discuss this with God, mishandles the whole event with Isaac, and leaves his family in disarray.
Several times major land loss (in the Sunda Sea, Black sea, around India, Dogger Bank, even Fositeland – cognate with the name Poseidon – near Helgoland) (and typically sea comes up a lot then recedes a little) made people look for other space and to intensify usage; thus there were successive Falls as between hunters and growers, also as weapons improved.
Bible pieces especially Genesis never give us the punch line. Abraham falling for the conventional son sacrifice gambit (prevalent till after his time) like the Pharisees fall back on their cruelty “to be on the safe side”, somehow masks some quality God could work with after all. Thank you for your expose.
I am beyond sorry to hear this. What a tragic thing to have happened to him, & to you all. May God bring you the peace you seek.
Dee
I found myself more confused, albeit pretty well-read. I decided to try to understand the difficult parts of the Bible. I had been avoiding them. As I searched for answers, it suddenly dawned on me that there was one thing I had missed. Why not study the theologians and religious leaders who had confronted those questions yet still maintained their faith? There have been so many really bright people who have embraced the faith. I began to change, or better yet, I began to reconstruct.
To read the critics of deconstruction charitably, I think their problem isn’t with mere deconstruction but with the failures of the loudest advocates of deconstruction to recognize this statement right here. More often than not, it seems that the loudest “deconstructors” don’t even make this very rational conclusion that you do in this quote, namely, that there are smart people who have wrestled with the same questions and maybe, just maybe, we should consider what they have said before we throw everything away. In my experience, the “exvangelical” movement is filled with people who didn’t really look to what the brighter lights in Christianity have said before they chucked their faith commitment. There really is a whole Christian world outside of American fundamentalist evangelicalism, and I never understand why people don’t see that.
Some folks seem to favor looking in, and never beyond, their own mirror.
John Smith on Mon Dec 06, 2021 at 10:48 PM
oh, John – i’m so sorry. When peace can’t be found, I pray it comes to you.
thank you for the honest reply. yes, having faith in a person is harder than having faith in a formula (this verse + that verse = this doctrine, a ticket to heaven)
Ava Aaronson,
They were taught like that – instant knowledge – and have bought into the same assumption as their claimed nemeses and can’t throw that away.
The same reason why North Korean “Objects” never see there’s a world outside the Paradise of the DPRK. Because Comrade Dear Leader and all His media tell them everything outside Dear Leader’s Paradise is infinitely worse.
Like Narcissus starving to death, unable to stop admiring his reflection in the water?
(A Bronze Age version of the Holy Grail of Social Media developers, “The Adult Diaper App”.)