Eternal Life

Eternal life has generally been given a narrow definition: life after death. However, a reading in Lucretius has opened the door to some thoughts on the subject:

And now what cause

Hath spread divinities of gods abroad

Through mighty nations, and filled the cities full

Of the high altars, and led to practices

Of solemn rites in season- rites which still

Flourish in midst of great affairs of state

And midst great centres of man's civic life,

The rites whence still a poor mortality

Is grafted that quaking awe which rears aloft

Still the new temples of gods from land to land

And drives mankind to visit them in throngs

On holy days- 'tis not so hard to give

Reason thereof in speech. Because, in sooth,

Even in those days would the race of man

Be seeing excelling visages of gods

With mind awake; and in his sleeps, yet more-

Bodies of wondrous growth. And, thus, to these

Would men attribute sense, because they seemed

To move their limbs and speak pronouncements high,

Befitting glorious visage and vast powers.

And men would give them an eternal life,

Because their visages forevermore

Were there before them, and their shapes remained,

And chiefly, however, because men would not think

Beings augmented with such mighty powers

Could well by any force o'ermastered be.

This section of Lucretius contains one theme that is interesting concerning eternal life. That eternal life is being known. Lucretius is talking about idols and how their eternal life is subject to their being known by men. However, this view is consistent with the Roman people and Emperors, in that, eternal life was not living past death, but being remembered past death. The Romans and Greeks, particularly the Epicureans held that death is the end. Therefore, eternal life was not living past death, rather it was being known past death. Thus is why Emperor's went so far in conquest and building because those acts would be remembered.
In John 17:3 John adds a statement that seems a little misplaced:

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (NIV)

The phrase begins to take a new shape having considered the Greco-Roman view of eternal life. For the Romans, eternal life was about being known after death. Egocentric. For John, eternal life was about knowing Jesus Christ. Christocentric. Is John making a direct claim against the Roman view? Yes, but more than that, he is establishing a Christocentric eschatology, rather than a anthropocentric eschatology.

Virgin Birth?

Recently, in a class at the college I attend, a professor made the comment that if one does not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, it is because they do not believe that God can do miracles. I however, propose that this is a false statement. To say that one is a deist on the sole account of their belief in the virgin birth is an unfair assumption. Furthermore, the virgin birth of Jesus is not an essential belief. I believe in the virgin birth. However, I want to point out that this is a matter of faith. Epistemologically speaking, one cannot know whether or not the virgin birth occurred historically. The only 'evidence' one has is the written attestation of Matthew 1 and Luke 1. Thus, I would first like to note that neither of these authors were present to verify. They had to believe it on account of the story told orally. If one thinks it right, they can take Matthew and Luke as strictly historical documents. However, before modern times, there aren't many historians who record strictly what was historical. And to place that modernist assumption on them due to their title of historian is unfair. Furthermore, contemporary literature to the gospels also had similar stories of heroes being born of virgins. The common critique is that these stories are not that similar and that those women weren't actually virgins. Such a different story applies to Alexander the Great:

It seemed to the bride [Olympias, Alexander’s mother], before the night when her marriage with Philip was consummated, that there was a clap of thunder, that a bolt fell upon her womb, and that from the stoke a great fire was kindled, and then, breaking out in all directions into sparks, was quenched; then later, after the marriage, Philip saw himself in a dream placing a seal over his wife’s womb; and the carving of the seal, as he thought, had a figure of a lion; and when the other seers viewed the vision with suspicion, as meaning that Philip should keep careful watch over things concerning his marriage, Aristander of Telmessus said that the woman was with child (since nothing that was empty required a seal) and that she would bring forth a son who would be high-spirited and like a lion in his nature. And on one occasion there appeared also a serpent stretched out beside Olympias; body as she slept, and they say this especially dulled the love of Philip and his ardor so that he did not thereafter often approach her – either because he feared certain sorceries that might be practiced upon him, or because he avoided her on the ground that she belonged to one greater than he.

However, the story of Plato is rather similar to the gospel's account:

Speusippus, Plato’s nephew, in his work called Plato’s Funeral Feast, and Clearchus in the Encomium on Plato, and Anaxilaïdes in the second book of his work On Philosophy, say that there was a report at Athens to the effect that Ariston [Plato’s father] sought to have union with Perictione [Plato’s mother], who was then of marriageable age, and did not attain his end; and that when he ceased from his violence he saw the appearance of Apollo; wherefore he kept her pure from marriage until she brought forth her child.[1]

Does this not sound similar to our account of Luke and Matthew? Indeed Diogenes' account is from the 3rd century A.D., but he is quoting literature from the 4th century B.C. I am not trying to say that the virgin birth is just a copy of other great stories. Or even that those stories stole from the Gospels. I am trying to point that Roman/Greek literature often included virgin birth narratives in order to show that such honorable and great men could not have been born like the normal human being. Is it so ridiculous to say that that virgin birth may have been an early Christian tradition to show that the Messiah of the Israelites was too great to be born by natural circumstances?

The great theologian Karl Barth did not feel the need to force the virgin birth to be historical. Rather, the story was written to make the point that salvation does not come through men - God's work to save humanity is not the result of the relations between a man and woman, but rather the result of God's intentional creation and planning in the world.

---

[1] Diogenes Laertiusm iii. 2. Compare the translation by R. D. Hicks in “Diogenes Laertius,” i, 1925, p. 277, in the Loeb Classical Library. The Greek text is also found in that edition.

Saved by Works?

I was raised to believe that we are justified through faith alone as stated in Ephesians 2:8:

⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast.

However, in recent months my studies and research has led to quite a new understanding. It is my conclusion that salvation is very much intertwined with works. Here are just a few reasons that I think works are necessary.

First, the current view that Christians are saved by their faith and that simply believing in their hearts will attain salvation is developed out of the western, Lutheristic understanding of faith. It was Luther who first designated that the individual's faith is sufficient to save the soul. Therefore, what that person does in the flesh has no inherent affect on their salvation. Yet, I think it is extremely important to point out that Luther did not consider James part of the canon of Scripture, which as we will see later, has a plethora to say about faith and works. Therefore, I find that this error - faith of the individual alone saves a man - is misled and frankly non-biblical. Thus, it is now pertinent to show salvation from the words of Jesus and the New Testament, with a focus on James. Then I will suggest the view of salvation with the help of Wright and Sanders.

Matthew 25 is one of the leading passages on salvation and judgment. I mentioned this in my previous post, however, I felt this was a good place to explain more. Matthew 25:31-44 states,

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Jesus is quite clear that judgment is based on the actions (works). Jesus states that all the world will be gathered and they will be judged on their works of feeding the hungry, aiding the stranger, clothing the naked, healing the sick, and visiting the prisoner. Jesus demand for those who follow him follow the exact things that Jesus did during his ministry. Jesus was interested in saving the entire person, both body and soul. This story is quite evident that Jesus judges the world by what they do.

Yet, one will argue what Paul said in Ephesians 2:8. That we are saved by faith not by works. This is true, especially in light of our salvation based on Jesus' faith. But, this is where the Epistle of James becomes important. James in chapter 2 says,

¹⁴What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? ¹⁵Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. ¹⁶If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?¹⁷In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

¹⁸But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

James is quite clear that faith without works, is dead. His point is the same as Jesus: When you see someone in need and do nothing, you are not a follower of Jesus Christ. You works will be evidence of your faith on judgment day. Your faith will be judged by your works. We may not be saved by works, but we are inevitably judged by works. James goes on to say that even the demons believe in God (to have faith and to believe are the same in Greek: "pisteuo"), so what better are you than the demons if you believe. The difference is obedience. As the demons do not obey and will be judged, so also those who do not obey the commands of Jesus will be judged.

It is now quite evident why Luther didn't think that James was canonical. James contradicts the very foundational work of Luther to say that works doesn't matter. The works which Jesus prescribes are necessary for salvation. Therefore, let us no longer preach a gospel which requires a few repeated words, rather, let us preach the Gospel of Jesus which requires full submission and a change in life.

Justification/salvation should be understood with a covenantal understanding. E.P. Sanders, in his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism discusses the covenant. He suggests the idea of "covenant nomism" in which a Jew became a member of the people of God by birth/circumcision and they maintained their membership by the works of the Law. In other words, birth got them into the community and obedience to the Law kept them in the community. In the same way, faith brings one into the community of the Church, and thus the person is saved. Works then maintain their position within the community of the Church. A person is saved by being a part of the Church, not individualistically as Luther would have believed. We are granted salvation initially through Jesus' faith(fulness) which justifies our faith. However, if we disobey by not doing the works Jesus has called us to, then we forfeit our membership in the community of God and thus forfeit our salvation.

Idolatry Alive and Well

Idolatry is just as present today as ever. I'm not talking about the worship of other gods rather than the Christian God. Nor am I really interested in talking about the rampant idolatry of materialism. I'm not even going to talk about the idolatry of self and the individual. I want to talk about one particular form of idolatry. Nationalistic idolatry.
Idolatry for the Christian is the worship of anything other than the trinitarian God. My point is simple. Some Christians and churches in the United States are guilty of the sin of idolatry by worshiping the United States of America. This nationalistic idolatry becomes obvious in several ways. First, Churches bear the banner of the United States on their stages. Architecture is theology. Generally, whatever is highest on the stage is the most important. As well, whatever is closest to the front of the stage is of higher importance. Where is the flag usually found? Towards the front of the stage to the right or left of the stage. Across from the U.S. flag is usually the Christian flag, to serve as an excuse to raise the U.S. flag. Has it not occurred to anyone that raising both of these flags is dualism? Both represent the allegiance to a nation/kingdom. On one side, the nation of the United States of America, on the other, the kingdom of God. Churches are supporting the notion that people can serve both the United States and the kingdom of God. This is Dualistic in nature and thus idolatry. As Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters." (Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:13). To which those guilty respond, "Jesus was talking about money." False. Jesus used wealth as an example of idolatry. Others will respond, "the U.S. and the kingdom of God are different. The first is physical and the second is spiritual." Again, false. Jesus did not come to establish a "spiritual" kingdom. When Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God in Luke 4 from the scroll of Isaiah, this is what he said:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed, 
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.

Jesus proclamation is in no way purely spiritual. He came to establish a physical kingdom in which the gospel is preached to the poor and captives are set free. The blind will see and the oppressed will be freed. If you don't believe me, read the Gospels again and look at Jesus' kingdom proclamation and what he spent his time doing. Or looking at Matt. 25, Jesus claims that he will separate the sheep from the goats based on how well they physically did the work of God (If you don't think that your salvation is affected by works, then read Matt 25). Jesus' kingdom is not something in our hearts. It is a present but not yet reality of God working in the world through those who love him. How can you say that the U.S. and the kingdom of God are different? They both require full allegiance. Was not Jesus killed by the Romans for his threat against the government of Rome? Obviously, Rome and the kingdom of God collided. Christians were martyred because they preached the kingdom of God, which subverts the kingdom of Rome.
Second, We sing the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance in our churches from the very pews which we claim to praise God Almighty! Are you kidding me? This eerie worship of the nation is direct idolatry, even within the very building we come to worship God. Some will cry, "We aren't worshipping!" Are you kidding me? Since when did people standing out of some emotional draw and shouting the the words to a nation not count as worship! I watched as the entire congregation, out of some misplaced leading of their heart, sat for all of the actual worship songs, yet stand only for the National Anthem! IDOLATRY! Those who don't see it are ignorant.
Third, we always mention a prayer for the troops of the U.S. I'm not against praying for people. But here are the connotations of this demanded prayer in our churches. First, it shows that the church is aligning itself with a particular government. Never in the early church do we find Christians aligning with any governments. They simply aligned themselves with the kingdom of God. Also, Christians have killed Christians for centuries because of allegiances to worldly nations rather than the kingdom of heaven! Since when do we put this nation before our Kingdom? Why is the church killing the church in order to adequately serve a pagan nation? Furthermore, praying for our troops often carries the hope of victory against the enemy. This contradicts the kingdom proclamation of Jesus to: "Love your enemies and PRAY for those who persecute you" (Matt 5:44). The kingdom of God commands complete allegiance and obedience, which includes this command. You cannot follow this command and support the war of the nation.
The worship of the United States in our churches needs to end now! We cannot sit aside while the nationalistic propaganda is fed to Christians. Its time for churches to draw away from support and serving the U.S. "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:20). Submitting to the governments (whether that be U.S. or China or Hitler) does not mean that we support them. It means we follow the Law so that the only thing people can hold against us is our faith in Jesus Christ. If our faith in Jesus calls us to something different than what the government is demanding, then let us forsake this country for the kingdom of God. As Joshua said, "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15).

The Family System

I recently translated Mark 3:21, 31-34 from the original Greek text as presented in Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Two thoughts became obvious in that moment. First, the gospel story directly portrays Jesus mother in a very human, not-so-divine, sort of way. In the story Jesus' family (or literally "the ones from him" came to retrieve him because they said, "He is out of his mind" (NIV) or more literally "He is outside of himself". Sorry Catholic brothers, you are correct on many things, but on the divinity of Mary, this passage should be taken seriously as showing her lack of divinity. The story continues in verse 31 with the attempt of his mother and brothers looking for him to take him away. Jesus answer is simple, "Who are my mother and my brothers. And looking around at the ones sitting around him he said, "Behold, my mother and my brothers. Whoever might do the will of God, this one is my mother and brother and sister" (my translation). This brings me to my second thought. Jesus is serious about his use of the family system to describe his people, later called the church. Those who are part of the church are just as much our family, and I would say even more so than our fleshly family. The comment of Jesus that requires his follower to "hate" his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters and even his own life has always been perplexing and confusing to Christians and non-Christians alike. They always point to the fact that Jesus just wants his followers to love him "more." Yet, if we look at Jesus' developing familial model, we see that Jesus is seriously asking people to leave their families and join into a new family, that is the kingdom of God. I think Jesus' model is this: Upon entering into the Community of Christians, one no longer lives according to fleshly relations, but to the relations that are created by the Spirit. Namely, the relationships with fellow Christians. In this model, we are called to leave behind our earthly families to join the family in Christ Jesus.
However, there are two things I want to cover. First, if a Christian's earthly family is part of the family of Christ, then their relationships are made new in the new family through the Spirit. Second, leaving your family does not mean that you do not love them. We are called to love others and the family should be a focus of our commission to restore the world to Christ. However, if they are not a part of the Church (on a whole) then your requirement is to your Church family, not your earthly family. In other words, the church family is set above the earthly family.
So, what does this mean? This means that the way we used to go about family living, now is carried out in our church community. In our families, we take care of needs medically, economically, socially, and physically. Likewise, now we are called to care for our church family in these same ways. And in this, the body of Christ will fulfill the theology that Paul placed forward in Galatians 6:10 which says, "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." We are called to do good to all, but above all this new family of believers, called the church. We are called to be a family that knows each other beyond just names. To be a family that interacts and meets each others needs. To be a family that encourages and challenges. To be the family of Jesus Christ.

Forgive and Forget

There is a story in the book Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf that tells of a Muslim woman. She was a teacher in Yugoslavia when the civil war started. She recounts of times in which she was beaten by former students and colleagues because she was a Muslim. In fact, she tells that one student urinated in her mouth mocking, "That is all you are good for you stinking Muslim." The woman's hate grew. So much so that years later she named her son Jihad which means revenge. She told her child, "May this milk choke you if you ever forget." She dedicated her son to violence and hatred. She would not forgive her attackers. Conversely, she chose to remember the wrongs done to her.
You have heard that it is said, "forgive and forget." And I tell you the truth, if we do not aim to forget the wrongs done to us, then forgiveness is not complete. This is a risky statement, especially for desiring for this woman to forgive her attackers. Yet, I think this is the desire of Jesus and Paul. Paul says frequently, "Forgive others as Christ has forgiven you" (Col. 3:13). Furthermore, I think that forgiveness is only perfected in forgetting.
Since God's forgiveness is our modus operandi for our forgiveness I find it necessary to remember the extent of God's forgiveness. Has it not been written, "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us" (Psalm 103:12). Or in another place, "You will have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl our iniquities into the depths of the sea" (Micah 7:19). Or in another place, "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (Jer. 31:34).
What would it take for us to separate the sin from the sinner as far as the east is from the west? It requires nothing less than forgetting. Forgetting the sin and leaving ourselves open to be hurt again. Does the Lord not do this for us? Even as we continue to sin (but do not use this as an excuse to sin). Let us not be bound to grudges by our memories of sins long past and enter a forgiveness that is true to the nature of God. My point is simple: forgive and forget.

The Narrative Nature

A recent study of Lyotard and the effect of his declaration of postmodernism as, "Incredulity toward metanarratives" has led to some interesting thoughts on theology. Metanarratives are taken as those underlying narratives that are considered true in all places at all times, namely reason. Reason has dominated theology for the past several hundred years. To this point, the worship of reason has developed some critical (fatally in my mind) issues in our theology. First, one of the goals of Christians is to prove their faith using "reason" as its ally. This involves taking the Bible away from its tradition roots into a purely historical document. Thus, stripping Christianity of its faith. Second, it has moved preachers to move from lectionary preaching (following through the Bible in whole parts) to proof text preaching (sermons with points that are proven by random verses throughout the bible). Proof-text preaching is very 17th century philosopher and leads to strong misunderstandings. Calvinists are the kings of proof-texting. The error in proof-texting is that you can make the Bible say anything.
However, if we follow Lyotard in throwing out the metanarrative of reason, we are left with narratives. The Bible is a narrative. It is a story of the work of God in the world and salvation of his creation. Thus, this would lead us back to lectionary preaching, in that, our preaching would reflect the narrative nature of the Bible. We would no longer preach the few verses that reasonably support our own agendas, rather we would guide God's people through the narrative of the Gospel.
Yet, the idea of being a storytelling church is bigger than simply preaching through the Bible. Being a storytelling church requires the church to be part of the narrative of the Bible. This means that tradition comes alongside the scripture in our churches. Traditions in story telling include the Eucharist (telling of Jesus' sacrifice) and worship (God's people praising Him for his work in the world) and baptism (the story of the Resurrection and its redemption of man).
Let us throw off the modernist belief in reason as the narrative above all narrative and join the story of God.

World Peace?

As I was sitting in my comfortable recliner today, dwelling on the issues facing our world today, I found myself dwelling upon world peace. It's a phrase that you commonly hear among politicians these days (let alone among Miss Universe competitions). The question always arises, "How are we to accomplish "World Peace" in a world of chaos and war?" I think I must first define world peace. World peace is the point at which all humanity ceases to war and fight. It is not the point where the whole world agrees, which is unagreeable in and of itself. World peace does not call for all people to agree and differences to disappear. World peace is the moment when differences are recognized and all of humanity accepts the differences of the other. World peace happens when borders no longer represent what is ours and what is theirs, rather only differences in laws and preferences.

So, what needs to happen for world peace to work? I have one main point here. For world peace to be even slightly realistic, nationalism and patriotism must die. Nationalism (Loyalty and devotion to a nation) and patriotism (love for a country and willingness to sacrifice for it) are the two thorns in the side of world peace. They are the forces that drive walls between countries and call men and women to war against other nationalists and patriots of rival nations. Rival is a key word. Due to a fear that the "enemy" (nationalists of other nations) will try to take what is theirs, the patriot will die to protect what is theirs, namely their views and possessions. They believe that the ways of their nation are so much more correct, that they are willing to force those ways upon other nations; and this is their method of acheiving world peace. It is egotistical, self-serving and worst of all, nationalistic.

Naturally, the nations leaders all encourage and almost demand nationalism from their citizens. The way to keep a nation together is to create a common enemy for all the citizens. Thus, countries often find themselves in wars every so often, in order to maintain nationalism and patriotism. Yet, if the whole world were to find a common enemy, then maybe world peace would be possible, because all humanity would be forced to work together to protect what is humanities (such is the ideology in the late movie "Watchmen"). Thus, the only plausible way to logically destroy nationalism and patriotism, is to find those things which all humanity suffers against. There are not many things, but currently medical sciences work to cross borders, such as the cure for cancer. Natural disasters also work to loose nationalism and being men together. World peace will be the product of men working together and sharing. By opening themselves to others and removing their need to protect themselves from the other.

I do recognize the few issues here. First, this requires all humanity to agree to lay down arms at the risk of giving up so of what is "theirs," which is unrealistic. However, this is already understood as the price of world peace. Second, the cure for cancer and natural disasters are only temporary. Soon after, nations would return to nationalism and patriotism. Third, the leaders of the nations would have to give up some power to discourage nationalism. Not very many politicians would be willing to surrender nationalism, the primary tool for national peace.

World peace, in my mind is possible 0nly through the worldwide death of nationalism and patriotism. These would necessarily need to be replaced by a nationalism of all humanity and a patriotism that places all men and women worldwide before the self.

Beginnings

Before I begin any blogging, I think it is necessary to clear the air. First, I do not claim to know anything on Philosophy nor Theology, these are simply my thoughts "on Philosophy and Theology." While reading Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy," I found it entertaining and necessary to continue to ask questions like Socrates, to continue to story-tell like Voltaire, and to critique like Kant. Therefore, this blog is simply a discussion of thoughts concerning the areas of philosophy (and its many sub-sections) and theology.