Riddler

It seems I have been prolific and verbose in the last few weeks, so this will be short.

If you have been told your whole life you are privileged, empowered, and capable of being anything you want to be yet slowly recognize these life commandments are only superficially true, then who are you?

Jean Calvin... a pastor first, then a theologian

  Assigned selections from book I and book III of John Calvin’s The Institutes of the Christian Religion emphasize the role of internal self in discovering revelation of God and living a Christian life. Calvin proposes two purposes of knowledge of God include arousal to worship the true God and to encourage individuals to the hope of the future life (1.5.10). Calvin primarily addresses the individual Christian in his work versus other Reformation theologians who are interested more organizational reform. Calvin’s address to the individual seems to reflect Calvin’s pastoral concern for theological certitude by offering a theology with life governing principles rather than specific ritual rules.

Book I, chapters one through six describe the relationship between humanity and knowledge of God. Calvin offers in 1.1.1 that an awareness of spiritual self-poverty is necessary to discern and seek God. However, it is impossible to fully know the self without knowledge of God (1.1.2). Calvin writes two metaphors in 1.1.2 to help illuminate his perspective:

Just so, an eye to which nothing is show but black objects judges something dirty white or even rather darkly mottled to be whiteness itself…when we look up to the sun and gaze straight at it, that power of sight which was particularly strong on earth is at once blunted and confused by a great brilliance, and thus we are compelled to admit that our keenness in looking upon things earthly is sheer dullness when it comes to the sun.

In other words, Calvin suggests without the truly righteous standard of God a single person cannot distinguish between evil and good. Knowledge of God is required before an accurate knowledge of self is possible. Piety is the essence of what it means to know God (1.2.1). Piety is the reverence joined with love of God stemming from a human acknowledgement that humanity owes everything to God (1.2.1). Piety will also be the key to true religion as Calvin defines, “…faith so joined with an earnest fear of God that this fear also embraces willing reverence, and carries legitimate worship as is prescribed in the law” (1.2.3).

            If knowledge of the self arouses a person to seek God, but knowledge of God is necessary in order to know the self, then what is the initial spark to this intimate relationship between Creator and creature? Calvin relies slightly on natural theology. God has implanted a seed in the human being which at least provides unconscious awareness of God as Creator (1.3.1). The existence of religions in every culture is proof of this instinct toward the Divine (1.3.2). Awareness and worship of God is what sets humanity apart from the rest of creation (1.3.3). To deny humans possess such instinct would insult humanity and humanity’s intentional Creator. But, some do deny this knowledge through vanity, pride, and malice (1.4.1).

            Calvin resumes his discussion for evidence of God in creation in chapter five. Calvin uses several Psalms to describe how God is expressed “in visible splendor of his apparel, ever since in the creation of the universe he brought forth those insignia whereby he shows his glory to us, whenever and wherever we cast our gaze” (1.5.1). God is so apparent in the universe around humanity that even “the most common, untutored” can perceive divine wisdom in the natural world (1.5.2). The obviousness of God’s existence through the created world supports Calvin’s later insistence that no single person is excused from failing to seek God (1.5.15).

            Calvin uses natural theology as a “lamplight” dimly illuminating a very dark path. A more specific witness or special revelation is necessary to guide a person to God (1.5.14). This witness is the Word of God—the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ—recorded in the biblical texts (1.6.1). Certainty about God comes from the biblical text (1.6.2). Calvin asserts, “…the human mind because of its feebleness can in no way attain God unless it is aided and assisted by his Sacred Word all mortals [before and during the life of Christ] except the Jews had to stagger about in vanity and error” (1.6.4).

Once the individual attains real knowledge of God through the Word, receives mediated grace by the Son and Spirit, the individual can be concerned with living the Christian life. Calvin describes this in book III. The “sum of the Christian life” (3.7) is denial of the self, which includes bearing one’s cross. Self-denial is supported by Calvin’s Christian philosophy in 3.7.1

           

We are not our own: let not our reason nor our will, therefore, sway our plans and deeds. We are not our own: let us therefore not set it as our goal to seek what is expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own: in so far as we can, let us therefore forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God’s: let us therefore live for him and die for him. We are God’s: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions. We are God’s: let all the parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal (Rom. 14.8; cf. 1 Cor 6.19)

Self-denial is only possible when humans suspend human logic and yield to the Holy Spirit who also contains Christ who is reigning in a Christian (3.7.1). Christ’s spiritual obedience to do the Father’s will and look to the Father in all Christ’s suffering is the template of Christian self-denial. Christians can only trust in the will of God and trust only in blessings from God in self-denial (3.7.9). When Christians renounce a selfish focus, righteousness is sought which leads to binding godliness and holiness from God (3.7.3). Until real righteousness is obtained, Christians can only travel as faithful pilgrims in this world looking toward God in the heavenly kingdom (3.7.3). Calvin later summarizes self-denial for complete dependence on God as the only way Christians can avoid seeking through “evil arts” temporal things which really do not profit anyone (3.7.9). Complete dependence of God helps Christians face adversarial challenges in this life (3.7.10).

            Although self-denial is primarily spiritual and individual in early sections, Calvin addresses the repercussions of self-denial in human relationships in 3.7.4-7. A humble heart disciplined in revering God’s grace receives benefits for the sake of supporting the common good of the church (3.7.5). The church in faithful stewardship practices love of neighbor through its resources and loving the image of God in all people (3.7.6). In the same way God gives abundantly in grace, so the church should give abundantly to those in need, according to its resources. This is a duty of love (3.7.7).

            In these sections, John Calvin attends to primary areas of anxiety for most church-goers. His systematic and logical arguments show how individuals can productively focus individual energy on worshipping the Creator God and live the Christian ethic of bearing one’s cross in order to follow Christ’s example. Philosophical questions about what God is or legalistic questions about ritual performances only obstruct faithful Christian living. Calvin shifts attention to knowledge of God’s character and ethical living so the common person can live a pious life. Piety, as stated earlier, is the key component for Calvin’s idea of true religion so it is understandable why his theology pastorally shepherds church-goers to theological principles that will equip them for pious living.

*This was a short paper written on short selections from John Calvin's the Institutes of the Christian Religion. There is more to Calvin than predestination and depravity of humanity.

Neighborly Capitalism

*The following post is a reflection I wrote after my final constructive theology paper in Fall 2009*

The magnitude of economics (mixed with other concerns like political power) rouses the simultaneous hate and intrigue of economic influence over human civilization. Economics and politics have engaged constructed tools like class system based on ethnicity to limit competition and ensure the cheapest labor (boosting profit margins). Racism—as one example of oppression—is necessary to keep a ‘class’ or grouping of humanity subjugated for economic gain and to keep the system running smoothly. Identity based in economic classification has infiltrated every human institution so it seems impossible to define myself—even in purely religious or theological terms—without using economic valuation terms. Participation in the system is not voluntary, despite what political or theological voices may suggest. Capitalism has been so unequivocally efficient it has a global power that will take many generations to undue, if another system can overtake it. And perhaps this perspective is too isolated, too simplistic. A human identity has many layers and is complicated. However, economics appeals to one of the most basic instincts of human existence: survival. In our wealth, United States citizens may not feel the attraction of economics to their survival, but to their “success” or better said “excess.” In our excess, we feel entitled to act as the hand of God in global politics which will surely cause violent-laden tension as the USA is no longer the sovereign nation of the world.

Call this pessimism or cynicism, if you will, but it seems there is an allergy in Americanisms to consider critical reflection and action beyond self-interest that will bring more financial and political crises for my generation and those who follow. The bubble burst of economic markets and speculation is one indication of a dangerous game of power we have engaged. I am sorry to think most American Christians will never feel or think their economic position or larger system is repulsive any more than adultery or lying. Paul’s self-loathing statement, “I do not the good I ought and instead do what I hate,” strikes deeply in the Christian identity concerning Capitalism. Careful reading of history shows Capitalism becomes what we, like Paul, should hate yet it is difficult if impossible to extricate ourselves.

Here is an opportune and traditional point to call upon grace and the Ecclesia community. To live an alternative economy in the face of oppressive, self-interested norms is the challenge American Christian communities must call upon themselves. However, this seems too divided, too neat for contemporary minds and ethics. Privatization of religion has created neat compartmentalization of minds and hearts that allows one hand can be feeding the homeless on designated service days but forwarding oppressive financial policies with the other. Thus one hand is ensures a homeless person is dependent on the “good works” of the other hand. Injustice continues and those created in the image of God are trampled by the overwhelming power of Capitalism. It becomes even more poignant considering this is the witness of Christ in our communities. Shall we perpetually murder Christ and mourn the injustice of Christ’s death? Selfish greed is what happens when we buy into consumerist marketing and participate blindly in Capitalist paradigms. The phrase “blissful in ignorance” might be preferred, but it seems only a firm dose of acknowledging human sin will move individuals and the collective Ecclesia community toward the anticipated kindom Christ proclaimed.

Awareness is simply the first step. A deep satisfaction and repulsion of “worldly” social and economic systems must spur action. Otherwise, what will change? If it isn’t an oxymoron to consider, is it possible for an economic mind to consider outcomes and bottom lines beyond self-preservation and self-interest? If so, it would be appropriate to call this “neighborly capitalism.” Capitalism concerned with profit of the other is moving toward a political and economic kindom of God—embodying the command to love God in justice and our neighbor with peace.

Hermeneutics

A New Testament professor said to me yesterday, "Vanderbilt's goal is to train theologians, pastors, and other religious scholars in a hermeneutic of suspicion." I do agree with his statement. Today, I am writing a small paper on Las Casas (an advocate for human rights in the time of Christopher Columbus and the beginning of colonialism). I read a short summary of his life and accomplishments--completely blown away by what one man accomplished in the face of systematic tyranny. True, awful and gruesome things continued to happen because economic gains. True, Las Casas was a Spaniard--a member of the oppressing group. But, is it true that I have to criticize this man who functioned as a foreshadowing of liberation theology? Do I have to suspiciously read his historical accounts and suspect his own agenda or self-interest in various projects? For all my good academic-critical training, my first readings of Las Casas have resisted Vanderbilt's careful training. The question resulting from this experience is: what about this text pushed me toward appreciation rather than suspicion? The answer, I fear, would require exploration of myself with psychological tools. Not my game, sorry. A theological reason might be my inclination toward modern liberation theologies and respect for a single theologian willing to resist the normative culture. In the same way I appreciate the biblical prophets in their boldness and tenacity, I appreciate historical individuals like Las Casas who advocate a genuine imago dei among the historical, political-economic influences.

Contextualizing Violence

One of the most disturbing texts of the Bible used to displace native peoples and commit justified genocide is Joshua's conquest narrative. The difficulty of the text is not whether 'biblical' genocide was a reality, but the theological depiction of God as One who demands herem (holy war/genocide). During the colonial era--also known as the Age of Discovery or properly the Age of Sorrow--I am convinced the justification of the violence would have proceeded without the book of Joshua. But, the difficult part is the book of Joshua does exist as a part of the canon and cites the utter destruction of peoples in the name of a conquering God who is setting up a chosen ethnic group above others. Now there are two socio-political issues to deal with on top of the theological language of God: ethnicity and violence.

In the narrative, two ethnic outsiders are addressed: Rahab and Gibeonites. Rahab is the Canaanite zonah who cunningly deceives the male leadership of Jericho to assist Israelite spies. She secures an oath to preserve her family's life and is allowed to live with the Israelites. Rahab is remembered as a heroic foreigner who acknowledges the power of YHWH and is accepted into the community because of her faith. The Gibeonites, also fearing the power of YHWH, deceive Israel's leadership to secure the survival of their people. Violation of the herem is emphasized in the Gibeonite story and when Gibeon is unmasked they are cursed. The Gibeonites are said in the text to become an enslaved people among Israel.

In between these two stories is the story of Achen. Achen, a member of the tribe of Judah, is almost responsible for bringing the herem on the Israelites when he takes booty from a Canaanite city. Achen and his family are destroyed and expelled from the community. Achen's ethnic identity or faith does not protect him or his family. His action is seen as the ultimate betrayal of the community and the only way to redeem the community is to remove his influence. What then are we to make of the association of violence and maintaining an ethnic group? (there isn't room here to talk about the social creation of ethnicity...) Contextualizing the book of Joshua in whatever period you might propose it was composed solves some of the tension for modern readers as a 'back then' way of thinking. But, it is not a back then way of thinking. It is still very much alive and humanity still practices violence against itself. Groups then justify violence in various ways such as the political, economic, and/or religious.

If you and your larger community rely on a sacred text like the Bible, then you have three different choices in dealing with a text like Joshua: ignore it; read it redemptively (draw some allegory or metaphor from it) or historically; or struggle with it and let the pain/difficulty in the text function as a commentary on our current world. It seems to me the honest way to deal with Joshua or other difficult texts is to struggle with it allowing the grisly nature of texts to let us see the world differently. When I read Joshua, I am theologically challenged to rethink my God-talk and politically-economically-socially challenged to critique my own engagement with the rest of creation. I let the horrible violence of Joshua stand and every time I open my Bible I let the text challenge not only my identity, but my global neighborhood.