Our Identity

Who are we as a nation? The recent 2010 election will redefine us in part, but doesn't necessarily solve the question. Does the action of Washington DC define us through legislative actions, or are we more precisely defined by the events recorded in newspapers and reporting services across this vast land? The question of identity is frequently responded to by a series of questions that we ponder from time to time.

Romans 8 is a segment of the Bible that focuses on identity. How should believers in Jesus as Messiah view themselves? It is sufficient to say that Paul does not consider the race card an appropriate means of identity! He processes through the chapter with statement after statement: not in the flesh but in the spirit, not slaves but children, not merely children but heirs. These descriptions of identity ultimately lead to several questions at the end of the chapter and perhaps further clarification in chapters 9-11. But what is interesting about these questions is how Paul wants us to regard them.

Paul introduces the questions with a question, "what shall we say?" and proceeds to ask specific questions and give somewhat loosely related answers. However, the thrill of understanding Romans is when one recognizes that this is not the first time that Paul has asked this question. On several occasions Paul has asked the "what shall we say?" question and followed it up with one or more questions. In 3.3-4, and 3.5-6 he begins his rhetoric. This is followed in 6 and 7 with a series of 4 repetitions, 6.1, 6.15, 7.7 and 7.13. Thus on six prior occasions the auditor has heard Paul ask a question and known his reply, me genoito.

Now Paul asks, one more time, "what shall we say?" and the anticipated answer is me genoito! But Paul himself does not provide the elicited response. He proceeds to ask several questions about our identity. The kind of questions we ponder with no real answers, culminating with "who could separate us from the love of Christ?"

Understanding our identity leads us to live in certain ways and discuss issues with a certain background. On the basis of Romans, "who can separate us from the love of Christ?" when we are in the spirit, children of God and jointheirs with Christ?

the Irresistable revolution (or some such title)

My son has been reading Shayne Claiborne and bouncing ideas off of me and his own facebook cronies. What I find interesting is that the challenge of Claiborne and many of his ilk are not directed toward the biblical text, but toward how individuals have appropriated the biblical text in their lives and proclaim their practice as the "christian" way.

For the historically minded (that includes recent and Old Testament history), one is not surprised at the critique Claiborne provides. The fault is not his. Throughout ancient and recent history voices (should I call them prophetic?) have uttered the same challenge to their generation's appropriation of the biblical text (even before it was 'biblical').

But what Claiborne (at least from my son's account of him to me) and others fail to deal with is that the issue is not the biblical text, or even the salvation stance of those they criticize. The critical issue is an exploration of the interpretation of the biblical text. Until we begin to examine how we (I, you, others who do so) interpret the text and have a transparent conversation, there will be little change.

Unfortunately, the ones criticized by Claiborne don't pause to think about the how or why of interpretation. They are not challenged by the leaders of their congregations to think, but rather to act; as if acting correctly makes one correct.

Start considering that we are part of a long history of humanity who has attempted to interpret the message of God and that we are far more prone to get it wrong than to get it right. Then we might assume we have something to learn rather than act as if we have it all together.

Oversimplification of the Bible

I have had several conversations this past week that have revolved (that's a Greek Perfect... an action completed in the past that still impacts the present) around the same topic: the oversimplification of God and/or the Bible. It is common for a child who is learning a new, complex concept to want to get it in a simple terms and ideas initially. It is even common for adults, who learned a concept at an early age, but have not pursued further knowledge in that area to maintain a simplistic discussion. For example, my son took Anatomy and Physiology. He speaks of various specific muscles and muscle groups when I refer to my calf or shoulder muscles hurting.

What is unusual is that someone who would claim to be a follower of Jesus would be content maintaining a simplified view of God or of the Bible. Although not wrong, such a perspective is deficient. The biggest problem is it leads to the attitude that since I understand God or the Bible in a simplistic way, that I understand God or the Bible completely. Although I might be able to discuss the makeup of an atom as possessing a nucleus and protons and/or electrons, that doesn't mean that I understand subatomic physics.

If God is the God who created this world we live in, and has been seeking humans for fellowship ever since, then is it possible that this God is more complex than our human mind can fathom?

Just a random thought this morning.

The Shack

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of taking my son back to Manhattan. With two other drivers available, I spent my time in the back seat reading The Shack by Wm. Paul Young. Those who know me well will know that I do not read "pop" religious literature on a frequent basis. However, since my wife is reading the book with some ladies at church and I had just returned from vacation, I decided to give my brain some further rest.

As a fictional novel I found The Shack to be an emotional rollercoaster. Young deals with some of the most emotionally gripping issues of our culture, the senseless evil of child kidnapping and murder. The strength of the plot provides this book a reason for continued reading alone.

As religious literature, Young broaches post-modernity in a public forum. His theological dialogues are aimed at challenging the rigidness of modernity and the pride of humanity in thinking it has arrived at all the correct answers. I can see where The Shack would prove challenging for the many pewsitters who don't take time to (re)evaluate their religious beliefs. For the theologically adept, Young provides little that is new. His purpose is to shake up the stodgy, not write a systematic theology.

The amazing elements are the numerous intertextual allusions to biblical teaching. Since the time of Luther there have been officially recognized differences of opinion on what biblical passages imply for our understanding of God. Young frequently makes references to biblical passages without citing them chapter and verse. This style of writing requires the reader to catch those audience conventions to fully recognize what is taking place. The biblically illiterate reader will be lost during those times and may accuse the author of "making things up."

The Shack brings the Bible to a readership where there is increasing biblical illiteracy. Perhaps the plot will cause some readers to increase their own understanding of the intertextual corpus and find a deeper understanding to the dialogue with Elousia, Jesse, and Sarayu.