Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 6, 2009 10:53 pm

The other day I was reading through Genesis 3 and something stood out to me. Genesis 3 opens with the introduction of a new character: the Serpent. Adam and Eve are living in the garden, naked and unaware. The Serpent convinces them to eat of the tree in the middle of the Garden (the only one they were told not to) and they realized they were naked. Familiar story. I hadn’t previously noticed, at least not in this way, what takes place in verses 9-11.

The LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked?” (ESV)

God seems almost unaware of their naked state. He asks, “who told you that you were naked?” Why?

Is the God of Genesis 3 limited in knowledge? A God who can’t even keep track of the actions of the only two people on earth seems inconsistent with the God of Genesis 1 & 2. I’m sure some scholars would say this is further evidence of multi-author redaction of the text. Besides the fact that I am not inclined toward those types of theories, this would seem to be so blatant that even the most daft of editors would not allow these texts to co-exist. Not to mention that it seems an unnatural understanding of the text. So did God know or not.

It seems obvious, at least to me, that the author believed, and expected us to as well, that God did know that Adam and Eve were hiding because of their nudity and that the Serpent was involved in their education. So why does an aware God ask the question?

Is it possible that God wanted Adam to think about why he was hiding and discover for himself what was wrong? Did God want Adam to do a little reflecting? Was God concerned with Adam’s self-awareness? How about mine?

In any theology, Genesis predates Descartes, Locke, and Frued. I have always felt that the typical modern western Christian (myself included), tends to over emphasize self. Our faith has become deeply, and almost exclusively a personal experience. The problem is that the ancient Mediterranean (the time/land from where both Jesus and the Bible hail) seems far less interested with the self and much more interested with the community/group.

So I am left wondering, to what extent is God concerned with my self-awareness?

Comments (1)

By Richard Hamilton, January 9, 2009 10:44 am

I have been slowly and quite laboriously sifting through R. S. Sugirtharajah’s work “Postcolonial Reconfigurations” on and off for the past few months. Despite it’s small size, the book has proved a challenge for me both because of the denseness of the material and lack of immanency or necessity to complete the reading on my part. I intended on reviewing the book. It is not Sugirtharajah’s most recent work (in 2006 he released “Voices from the Margin” addressing similar subject matter). In fact, “Postcolonial Reconfigurations” was released in 2003, and can hardly be considered a current work. To date, I have not finished reading this book. Who knows, I may never finish it. But I have gleaned something from it. Something I think is important to pass along to my biblical studies minded compatriots.

Sugirtharajah’s perspective is so unique, so very different from my own. His perspective, and the perspectives he calls attention to, were nowhere on my radar. Reading his work has challenged me. And not just because we differ theologically.

I find the world of the Bible to be quite foreign. The challenges of agrarian life. The clashing cultures of East and West. The multiple layers of oppression. The stress of honor. The sting of hunger. This is truly a world I cannot know. It is all together possible that no modern person can.

I do however see, in the hushed voices of the disenfranchised, the outcast, and the oppressed a perspective more reminiscent of the story of the Bible than that of my own. This has cause me to consider the minority perspective. This does not mean their hermeneutic or theology is superior to mine. It means their voice should be valued and allowed to flavor mine.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, November 25, 2008 3:18 pm

June 19th, 2007, I posted a blog titled, “The Secret Lives of Men & Women: How Post Secret Helps Americans Veil Their Faces & Find Their Voices” about Post Secret and the trend of anonymous confession.

Since then, I have become aware of Christian versions of this, like mysecret.tv (from LifeChurch.tv) and ivescrewedup.com (of Flamingo Road Church). I’m sure there are more out there, but these are among the more popular.

I still have a nagging question. “Have we traded transparency for anonymity?” Maybe it’s too late. Maybe that ship has sailed.

Comments (3)

By Richard Hamilton, November 18, 2008 9:15 pm

Ed Young and the Fellowship Church are the latest to promote more sex.

Earlier this year, Relevant Church of Tampa Florida issued a “30-Day Sex Challenge.” Married couples were encouraged for have sex everyday and non-marrieds were asked to be abstinent for 30 day. This challenge included devotional material and relationship advice. Not surprisingly, this drew a little media attention.

In the same vein, Fellowship Church, in Dallas, TX, recently issued a “7-Day sex challenge,” encouraging their married members to commit to having sex everyday for a week.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for married couples having sex. Frequently even. I do wonder though, why has it recently become popular for churches to run “edgy” sexual campaigns? I’m not trying to accuse these churches of having impure motives. I’m sure they are well meaning. But what if they aren’t. Is it possible to maintain their message if they are just doing it as a publicity stunt? I guess the other question I have is, do these type of campaigns even work? I don’t know, but hey, why not give it a shot. Am I right?

Comments (7)

By Richard Hamilton, November 11, 2008 12:06 pm

Outspoken agnostic and professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Bart Ehrman recently wrote one the subject of suffering in “God’s Problems and Human Solutions” and has been lecturing on the subject. September 2008, he delivered one of the 2008 Foerster Lectures on the Immortality of the Soul at the University of California Berkeley. If you have an hour to get rid of, check it out.

According to Ehrman, the free-will explanation for the existence of suffering is sufficient to explain evil, but not natural disasters and the like. He proceeds to address the problem of Theodicy, how can God be just given the state of things in this world? This is attempt to rectify the ides that God is all powerful, all loving and that suffering exists.

While I have some disagreements (okay, a lot of disagreements) with Ehrman, I believe he brings up some important questions.

The question remains, how do we account for suffering?

Comments (6)

By Richard Hamilton, November 6, 2008 10:33 pm

I believe there is an intrinsic subversiveness in Jesus’ message of the Kingdom. The New Testament evangelist did not shy away from ascribing to Jesus terms reserved for the Emperor himself. King of the Jews. Ruler. Savior. Son of God. Jesus’ message was disruptive to the divisive class system of his time. He taught a form of social protest in retaliation to the oppression common in the Galilean countryside. Just calling it the kingdom reeks of rebellion.

Simultaneously, Christ followers are told to render to Caesar and make supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions.

Regardless who you supported (or didn’t support for that matter) in this recently election, everyone must answer a question. How should I act toward government.

I have heard people from any number of political backgrounds (both Christian and non) say, “If ___________ wins the election, I’m leaving this country.” or “I can’t live in a country with ___________ as it’s president.” Interestingly enough, they never seem to follow through. To be honest, I have entertained similar thoughts. Where does this attitude come from? Why is there such vitriol absurdity?

So, how should Christ followers, who are faced with reconciling the subversive nature their faith and the call to honor authority. Peter’s words on the subject seem quite fitting.

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Keep in mind who was the emperor he is telling them to honor. Nero.

At the end of the day, whatever your political persuasion, you must balance honor and subversion.

Comments (7)

By Richard Hamilton, October 31, 2008 1:20 pm

Where does our understanding of Jesus (his life and mission) come from?

The answers to this question (if we were somehow able to draw out an honest answer from within ourselves) would probably be as varied as the number of respondents. So many factors effect how we interpret Jesus. Texts. Traditions. Perspective. Limitations.

Maybe, the real question I have in my mind is, do the gospel texts serve as the primary interpretive framework for our understanding of Jesus or do other christian texts? More specifically, does Paul shape our understanding of Jesus, or Jesus understand our understanding of Paul?

Before we even get into that, I am well aware that all the christian texts this brings into play are said to bring equal weight. It’s hard to claim that is actually the case though. Let me sight a few examples.

Example 1. The kingdom vs. the church. Jesus seems vaguely (at best) interested in discussing the church. Apart from Matthew, (and only twice there) Jesus doesn’t talk about the church. Jesus’ rhetoric centers around the kingdom. Paul, on the other hand, talks of kingdom twelve times, but church sixty. Which language dominates today’s Christianity? (I am well aware that kingdom talk/theology has come back into vogue. For that matter, Jesus scholarship in general is much more popular today than it was 100 years ago. But, I tend to write in broad strokes misrepresenting and offending the general evangelical community. You know this. I think my point remains the same)

Example 2. What is our example for christian living? The gospels or Acts? I can speak specifically for my faith tradition. We have always made an appeal to Acts as our guide for practice. (I know this deviates slightly from my question about Paul and Jesus, but I think we rely more heavily on the Pauline model from the latter half of Acts than we do on the beginning of Acts)

Christians frequently teach that “difficult” texts of the Bible are to be interpreted based on what is “known” from “simple” passages. (Let it be known, I think this hermeneutic is faulty on many levels.) Interestingly, we often turn to Paul to understand other texts. The problem is, Paul’s writings “contain some things that are hard to understand.”

Is it possible, we have started with Paul and therefore misunderstood Jesus? Or at very least changed Jesus’ emphasis?

Maybe the academic trending toward Jesus scholarship will benefit Christianity after all, if, by nothing else, drawing attention back to Jesus.

Comments (11)

By Richard Hamilton, October 7, 2008 8:55 pm

Inspiration of Scripture. The very thought of it brings the most impassioned debates to the forefront. This issue has divided churches, gotten professors fired and incited riots (okay, I don’t know of any riots, but it doesn’t seem to be too far fetched). Why is this issue so powerful and divisive? The inspiration of Scripture has historically been at the core of Christian theology and the center of Christian debate. It was debated at Synod of Hippo (393), the Councils at Carthage (397 and 419), and the Council of Trent (1546). It was the first issue addressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1664). And it was the reason for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). It was a driving force of the Reformation. In the Restoration Movement, it was at the center of two splits (the Disciples of Christ and the United Churches of Christ).

Today, most of the debate revolves around the understanding of two key passages, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

“All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed in the NIV] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)

“…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:20-21 (ESV)

From what I’ve seen, most “born-again” types understand these verses to mean that God forcibly possessed the various authors of the Bible. While in one breath, they would say the Holy Spirit superintended the process and used the author’s language and culture, in the next, they would say God hand-picked and was the source of each word and the writers were not the source, nor were they compliant with the process. It seems they admit as little humanity in the texts of the Bible as they feel they can get away with.

When teaching on 1 Peter , famed author/speaker John MacArthur says,

“Now these two verses are just loaded with significance with regard to this matter of inspiration. The key word here is the word “moved” in verse 21. “Moved,” carried along, borne along, it’s a word that is used in secular Greek sources to refer to something floating down stream like a leaf. They were literally carried along by the Holy Spirit. The writers of Scripture, the men who wrote the Scripture…and by the way, there are no female writers of Scripture, all 66 books are written by men…so the Spirit of God moved these men along so that they actually spoke from God borne along by the Holy Spirit.”

It seems to be his understanding that the biblical writers were completely passive through the process, almost as though they were in a trance and didn’t know what they were saying. (I also find his aside on women interesting.) It is quite likely Joe six-pack evangelical view inspiration in these very terms.

Let me give you three hypotheticals and see whether they would make the cut under these standards of inspiration.

One. An early Christian writer sits down and dictates letters to a secretary. He even, on occasion allows the secretary to add a personal comment or two to the letters. Inspired?

Two. Early Christians are worried about their favorite Apostle dying and his stories about Jesus not being passed on. As a solution, they ask a scribe to write down the teachings. After it is finished, he shows them to the Apostle who says the writing is good. Inspired?

Three. An early convert to Christianity, who never physically met Jesus, went around talking to eyewitnesses and compiled what they said into a concise account to Jesus’ life. Inspired?

These don’t fit into the typical understanding of “men moved by the Holy Spirit” or “God-breathed.” But, without their inclusion, the New Testament would be short a few Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark (if you trust Eusebius’ account of its composition…I am skeptical, but many evangelical apologists appeal to him…at least when it is convenient) and the Gospel of Luke.

My favorite is Luke. “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.” Luke 1:1-2 (NASB) The text itself claims to be a massive research project, an ambitious journalistic undertaking.

So, what does this mean? Well, either Luke-Acts doesn’t belong in the cannon or we misunderstand inspiration.

**the text below was not contained in the original post bu was added Wednesday, October 8.**

Let me be clear. I do believe the bible is inspired, accurate and authoritative! It just seems my understanding of what that means and why that is differs from some.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, September 19, 2008 3:32 pm

There is an article on nytimes.com today titled, “In Japan, Buddhism May Be Dying Out”. According to Norimitsu Onishi, Buddhism is loosing its appeal to the Japanese because it is seem as a religion of the dead, not the living.

While the message of Christianity should be one of life and resurrection, I wonder if we aren’t running the same risk sometimes.

Comments (1)

By Richard Hamilton, May 30, 2008 3:03 pm

As many of you know, I am looking for a new ministry. I am parting ways with the church I have worked with the past 4 1/2 years. They are having a lot of problems meeting budget and have decided to cut my position. In my search, I came across a non-instrumental church on the West Coast looking for a youth minister. I know it was a long shot, but Sarah and I really liked the area and the church was very ethnically diverse, which appealed to us, so I sent in my resume. Here’s the thing, they actually called me for a phone interview, and it went well. They arranged for a second phone interview and I thought it might really work out.

I guess maybe at this point I should give some background for those of you who are like, “What does he mean ‘non-instrumental.’” Actually, Wikipedia does an adequate job on that front. Check out the wiki on churches of Christ. For our purposes, it’s sufficient to know that they are independent churches from the Restoration Movement which broke fellowship with other churches of Christ/Christian churches during the American Civil War partially in rejection of using instruments in their worship gatherings. My background is in the churches that use instruments (among other things) in our gatherings.

Anyway, I had a second interview and it did not go as well. They interviewer spent 1 1/2 hours trying to convince me that instrumental music in worship was sinful. I assumed this meant I didn’t get the job, and I was right. Here is the e-mail I got a week later (the names have been changed to protect those involved, except mine of course):
__________

Dear Richard,

I want to thank you for interest in the “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” Church of Christ. It appears to me that you are a sincere and committed individual who will be an asset to any organization that you choose to serve. As for us with the church of Christ in “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage,” we have decided to continue our search for a Youth Minister in other candidates because we can not reconcile the doctrinal differences in regard to instrumental music that exist between us. We believe that the “sacrifice of praise” like all sacrifices must be offered as specified by God, if they are to be acceptable to Him. In this case, God has specified “the fruit of our lips” (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.

Again thank you for your interest in us. I encourage you to continue to your study in all matters pertaining to God’s goodness, power, and will for our lives.

May God bless you in your efforts to serve him,
“John Doe”,
“City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” church of Christ
__________

I see two big problems with the non-instrumental way of thinking (besides the fact that they won’t hire me, oh yeah, and they butcher/mis-use texts of the Bible).

One. There is an idea they have that if we aren’t explicitly told it is okay, its not. The guy just flat out says that in the e-mail. “God has specified ‘the fruit of our lips’ (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.” I think you need to explain that one. Let’s assume this verse is telling us to sing. Let’s also assume this verse is about corporate worship gatherings (which is a stretch). How does this verse forbid Christians from using instruments? If the use of instruments was so wrong, don’t you think Paul would have jotted down a “I do not permit the use of the harp, lyre, cymbal or trumpet” somewhere? Christianity is the Law of Liberty. The words of Jesus about some particularly religious people come to mind. “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” Most of these churches are so inconsistent. They own property, have Sunday School, hire youth ministers and utilize PA systems. None of these are explicitly commanded in the Bible. If you were to carry this principle to its extreme, most of what they do as a group would not be allowed.

Two. All this energy is spent on one of the most insignificant parts of the Christian life, music. I know. Some of you are stunned because Rich Mullins and DC Talk were essential to your conversion. Here’s the deal. The early church was dedicated to some things, namely the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer, and music didn’t make the list. I love music. I always have it on. I never leave home without my IPod. But, music is not worship. A transformed life and a renewed mind, that’s worship. A life of sacrifice, that’s worship. Spirit and truth, that’s worship. Music can be part of worshiping God, but it cannot become more important than worshiping God.