Religionless Christianity

I was talking to Casey earlier about this paper he is writing, which I hope he shares on his blog when he is finished with it...although his publisher might not like him giving it away for free. We were talking about Bonhoeffer looking forward to a “religionless” Christianity. In this religionless Christianity there would not be special words than only Christians understood and only used when talking with their Christian friends. I think a lot of times Christians say these religious words without giving any explanation as if no explanation is needed. I think people that just say it instead of explaining it in beautiful ways in which people that have never heard of it can grasp it really don’t grasp it themselves. Now I do realize that there are people who grasp it but never explain it in ways in which someone who doesn’t understand it, or has little understanding of it can actually grasp it too. These people need to wake up and realize that not everyone has had their noses in theological textbooks for the last 30 years of their lives. At the restaurant I work at, I can mention foie gras, show you that it is available as an appetizer and how it is part of the duck cassoulet but, if I cannot explain it to someone in a way that is going to make it appetizing to him, he isn’t going to buy it. The same is true for terms like “justification.” I can mention that in a sermon but if I never explain it in a way that, as one preacher says, brings the cookies down to the bottom shelf, people aren’t going to be really amped up about it nor are they going to be able to live in light of it or understand how sanctification is different from it. So, is a term like justification just religious talk? Can we find a word that embraces all that is true and good about “justification” but looses the technical term that so many people don’t understand? The thing is, computers have technical terms that have to be explained and medicine has technical terms that need to be explained, so maybe theology has technical terms too, terms that aren’t going to be understood unless you explain them and the thing to do is not change the term but just make sure you explain the term to people so they aren’t afraid of theology. I hate it when people say they hate theology. I especially hate it when pastors say, “I'm not theologian but…” Give me a break. All Christians should be theologians of some kind. I love what Vintage Church is doing with this concept. So, I think we should remove the technical terms as much as possible, realizing that they are not always helpful, but also realizing that sometimes removing the technical term is less helpful than keeping it. In those cases, the goal is to talk about the concept in a way that is inviting and creative and then say… “and that, my friends, is (insert your favorite theological term here).”

Why is this on my mind? This not only comes from the conversation with Casey but from reading some in McLaren’s a Generous Orthodoxy, especially the epilogue where he talks about not wanting to be called an Evangelical but rather an evangelical and chapter 19 where he explains why he is Emergent. More to come on those two things later…

Is He present in a very real sense in my life?

I just read a great article in Golf Digest on Tiger Woods that has a lot of commentary on his father’s role in his life and what has changed after his father’s death. The author, Jamie Diaz, quotes several times from Neil Chethik who says that after a father’s death, sons that were close to them start to do things to connect themselves to their fathers and integrate their fathers inside themselves so that the father can still be around. Diaz says that in Tiger, Earl Woods is still around in a very real sense. The first thought in my mind was how our Father in heaven lived through His Son and how after Jesus’ death the Father can live through us who have His Spirit. Chethik said that sons do things that connect them to the memory of their father. They wear their father’s old clothes, use their old tools, read their favorite books, and listen to their music. What am I doing to connect with my father? I ask that question thinking about my earthly father (who is still alive and well) and my heavenly Father (who BTW is very alive and very well too). According to Chethik, men who were close to their fathers often achieve their greatest accomplishments after their fathers are no longer physically present. This happened in Jack Nicklaus’ career and it is happening in Tiger’s. The Bible is satiated with statements of the superb things we will do with the Spirit’s presence in us. The sad thing is that I really resonate with what Chethik says when he says that the process of connecting to the father is a healthy process that tends to wane in intensity in about 18 months. 18 months huh? That’s 540 days. I normally wane in intensity in about 5 days and I know I'm not alone. My Father lives through me and I can do great things because of that but I need constant encouragement to be doing the things that connect me to Him so my communion with Him is deeper (same goes for my communion with my Dad in Jackson, AL). Diaz sees Earl Woods’ presence in a very real sense in Tiger’s life. I pray that people see my Father’s presence in a very real sense in my life. So...may the heavenly Father’s presence be very real in Tiger’s life and in your life and in my life.

Were the claims of Christianity unique in the first century

I just finished listening to Rob Bell in sermon 399 from Mars Hill Bible Church. In it, he says that the claims of Christianity were not that unique from the other religious claims from that day. The main god from the Roman Empire was Mithra who was born of a virgin in a cave, was worshiped by shepherds, had 12 followers, had something to do with life and death being conquered, and originated around 600 BC. The myth of Attis originated around 200 BC. Some of the beliefs include that he was born of a virgin, , was hung on a tree, and rose from the dead. Another, the Adonis religion, originated around 200 BC, born of a virgin, was referred to as the son of god, and his followers believed he died to save humankind. Horace, an Egyptian god, was born of Isis who was a virgin, the legend originated around 1500 BC, he died from a crucifixion, and when he was a child foreign kings brought him gifts. When Caesar died, there was a comet and twelve people came forward to say that they saw this comet and Caesar’s followers said that of course they saw a comet because it was Julius, because he was the son of god, rising from the dead and ascending to the right hand of the god in heaven. So, if in the first century you said, “my God was born of a virgin and rose from the dead”, you might get a response like, “sweet man! Mine too!” The claims of the Christian faith simply were not that unique or original. Everybody’s god had risen from the dead. So, Paul writes in Corinthians saying that he didn’t come with persuasive words, but in humility with a demonstration of God’s power.

Have you heard anything like this? I have heard that the claims of Christianity are very unique when compared to the other religions. Maybe many other claims are unique, but those mentioned above are not?

One well respected biblical scholar told me that this was simply hogwash. He said that there was an inscription found in a Roman cave of a person with a donkey’s head being crucified. He said this was done because the Romans thought the Christian religion was so stupid and even Paul said that the unspiritual would think that someone hanging on a cross to save humanity was foolishness. He also said that Christianity was very different from other religions because it is the only one that doesnt make you earn your status. While I fully agree with that final statement, it still doesnt speak to the other claims like virgin birth, where he was born, who visited him, and how many followers he had.

As I researched this, I found this website, and this article written by a preacher turned atheist.

I first posted this with the third paragraph as the end. Then, I wanted to add in some links to the names of Attis, Adonis, and Mithra. First, I realized that I had all of those names spelled wrong. Secondly, I found that there is a ton of info on the net about these religions being very similar to Christianity and even more general info on those gods in general. Even the early church fathers commented on this very thing. This post was at first going to be just throwing up the question to see if anyone had heard of this stuff. Now, I see that it is all over the internet and I cant believe I have been in church for all of my life, have a BA in Bible, and am half way through a Masters Degree in Divinity and I have never heard this stuff. Let me make this clear to any of you out there that are Rob Bell haters...he totally believes in Jesus and his point in all of this was to get Christians to live more like Jesus would have them to and less like we have been living. The whole point of the message was that we should be demonstrating the power of the gospel, announcing that this is the kingdom of God coming to earth, and then if they want to hear more, fine, and if not, shake the dust off and move on.

So, I go on to more discussion on this and I hope you will join me.

Jesus Evangelism Question #1

The professor of evangelism at Beeson Divinity School says that Jesus' earthly ministry was characterized by three actions. (I first wrote this post saying that the ministry was characterized by three things, but that is not specific enough. These are actions, not attitudes. Some example answers would include "walking on water" and "turning water to wine". Obviously those arent the answers because we only have it recorded that he did those things once each.) What do you say those three things are?