Scott Freeman

I hope to continue blogging regularly over the next few days but I don’t really know what my schedule will be. Packing is picking up steam and the desktop is already dismantled. Tracy and I will have to fight over the laptop.

One of the things that I am looking forward to beginning next Wednesday is the opportunity to be in an office again. Call me weird but I love being in an office. I love study time and digging deeper into the text.

Shortly after I announced my resignation in Waco my office computer died. The cost for it to be repaired would approach the cost for a new machine. Rather than expect a new computer as a lame duck I just spent the last two months of my tenure there working at home. That amounts to 3 months that I have not had regular office hours. I miss it greatly.

I also look forward to getting back into some more substantial blogging. While looking for a new work I stayed away from some of the more sensitive issues that I have dealt with in the past. When I get back to a regular grind here are some things that you can expect in this place:

–More on Moltmann’s Theology of Hope
–How militant atheism is a good thing for the church
–A series on soteriology
–More on nonviolence
–The 10 best and worst song-writers
–What’s the Deal? An opportunity for readers to plug their own political candidates
–A return to C.S. Lewis
–The greatest living theologians
–The role of women
–Good science as a backbone of good theology

These are just a few of the things that I’m looking forward to talking about. Thoughts?

I am beginning to wade through Jurgen Moltmann’s Theology of Hope. It’s a dense work but from what I have been told I align closely with him theologically. If this quote is any indication I am in for a treat.

To believe means to cross in hope and anticipation the bounds that have been penetrated by the raising of the crucified. If we bear that in mind, then this faith can have nothing to do with fleeing the world, with resignation and with escapism. In this hope the soul does not soar above our vale of tears to some imagined heavenly bliss, nor does it sever itself from the earth. For, in the words of Ludwig Feuerbach, it puts ‘in place of the beyond that lies above our grave in heaven the beyond that lies above our grave on earth, the historic future, the future of mankind’.(Das Wesen der Religion, 1848.) It sees in the resurrection of Christ not the eternity of heaven, but the future of the very earth on which his cross stands. It sees in him the future of the very humanity for which he died. That is why it finds the cross the hope of the earth. This hope struggles for the obedience of the body, because it awaits the quickening of the body. It espouses in all meekness the cause of the devastated earth and of harassed humanity, because it is promised possession of the earth. Ave crux — unica spes !

I’m sure I will be blogging about this as I go.

I grew up in the conservative Churches of Christ. It is still where I hang my hat ministerially. However, as I have grown in my “knowledge and understanding” of Scripture and the nature and character of God I have developed my own doctrine, if you will, that sometimes runs counter to what is traditionally viewed as orthodoxy.

I know I’m not alone and that what is going on with the Churches of Christ is a microcosm of what takes place across the broader evangelical world.

But, I wrestle regularly with what to say as I struggle with what this faith means.

What is too critical and nit-picky?
What truly needs to be said?
How do we sound the call away from orthodoxy and toward orthopraxy without losing the audience?
How do we broach controversial topics that need to be addressed and re-studied without alienating others and thwarting essential dialogue?

I guess I should read some more of his stuff:

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Who are you? Take the quiz here.

I’m no prophet and make no claims to be. I’m not even a skilled prognosticator. If I was I’d be playing the horses.

However, there is no doubt that there is a coming tidal wave of issues that intellectually honest and sincere Christians will face in the future if not already. And surely many of us are confronting these topics in the here and now.

And these issues will make many of our previous issues look as ridiculous as so many of them are. So this list is not that of issues that will appear out of the blue but will gain steam and momentum in the years to come. In other words, these issues are already among us.

Before I begin the list let me emphasize two points:

First, I am not taking a position on any of these issues. I am merely stating that what might be settled in our minds may not be settled in the minds of people coming after us. In the future I will talk about each of these but not today.

Burying our head in the sand and pretending they aren’t really issues at all will serve no benefit for the kingdom. Nor will drawing our line in the sand and proclaiming that there is no need to deal with these issues because everything is already settled. We must be engaged, honest, questioning and concerned enough with the thoughts of others that we are willing to wrestle with tough issues.

Secondly, these are in no particular order. I make no claims as to which will consume the most of our energy.

Again let me re-state. I’m not taking a position on any of these issues nor am I stating that they should be issues. I am merely stating that we, as Christians, must be prepared to give an answer for the hope that we have. And that means meeting people where they are. In the coming months and years, this is where we will meet them.

10. Evolution and other issues of science. As the evidence seems to mount lending credence to the theory of evolution we must prepare for a greater conversation on such issues. Repackaging Creationism under the designation “Intelligent Design” fools no one and brings the conversation to a grinding halt.

9. The nature of Truth. Must the Bible be viewed solely as Propositional Truth? Is the rejection of PT mean strictly an embrace of Relativism or is there nuance?

8. Fellowship with Mormons and other “fringe” Christian groups. As the LDS gains mainstream respectability and a public backing away from much of their questionable doctrine our working relationship with these groups will come into greater need for discussion.

7. Biblical Inerrancy. The question of whether or not the trustworthiness of Scripture hinges upon its inerrancy will become more central in the coming years.

6. Bio-ethical Questions–Cloning, stem cell, etc. must be wrestled with from a Judeo-Christian perspective.

5. Homosexuality–Studying the issues anew, grappling with how to receive someone who is LGBT, and what Christ commands of us is imperative, regardless of how uncomfortable the topic is for many.

4. Gender Issues–What does the Bible truly say about the role of women? Are they second-class citizens when it comes to areas of service and leadership or is there a more progressive hermeneutic that demands something more egalitarian?

3. The Nature of Salvation–Questions of hell, heaven, and a new earth will become increasingly important as we wrestle anew with some problematic passages of Scripture.

2. What Is Church?–As we see the growth of non-traditional services and meeting places, and as many places of worship become decentralized the question of what it is we are called to do and be will increase.

1. The Atonement–Which is it: penal substitution, Christus Victor, ransom, or some mixture of the above? Or none of the above?

Note: I know that I didn’t include Open Theism which probably should be on this list.

What are your thoughts with these 10? What do you think should be added?

Back in college I had the occasion to read several of Lewis’ books. My senior year I even took an independent study that focused on three of his works leading to a paper that attempted to synthesize The Problem of Pain, Miracles and A Grief Observed.

I wish I could find that paper and suspect that I could if I looked hard enough. However, I still have the copy I used 18 years ago with my underlinings, highlights, stars and markings throughout.

In reading this 1940 work I realize that I haven’t really picked it up over the last almost two decades. This is the world’s first exposure to Lewis the theologian. And it would contain an apologetic theme that Lewis would continue to come back to.

The core of this book is an attempt to construct an adequate theodicy, the reconciliation of the existence of a loving God with the existence of evil in this world.

What became immediately clear to me as I began to read this work anew is that I no longer held the affinity for it that I did all of those years ago. It did not quite resonate with me as it had as an undergrad.

It’s not that the book is jejune although it does have its spots of tedium. And it’s not that it is poorly written or too elemental. Lewis’ intellect and scholarship are unquestioned. I even agree with his main premise: that God is good. If I did not believe that, I would not believe.

I think the problem exists in a diverging theological path from the one I was on then. At that time I was much more fond of Christian Evidences, believing whole-heartedly that there was an evidentiary magic bullet that would thrust proof into the undeniable spotlight. But I no longer feel that way. The evidence does not always demand a verdict. I share more a view with Kierkegaard that the more probable the evidence for these tenets of faith appear the more improbable they are to believe.

This apathy toward Christian Evidences does not negate the scope of this work. No, ironically, although I don’t have much truck with CE I do feel that grapplings with Theodicy is a worthy and necessary endeavor. For the greatest wrestlings of faith, to me, are those of “why?”

No, I think the problem I have is not in the conclusion that God it is good. It is Lewis’ evasion of other important questions. I repeatedly found myself saying, “yeah, but what about…” throughout his writings.

In his contention that God knows every event there is no reference, even in passing, to the idea of Open Theism. Regardless of it’s validity it’s important enough of a topic that it has to be broached. In addition, I think Lewis falls into the trap that many of us Arminians tend to when we embrace free will: making man’s choice an idol unto itself.

Another tremendous problem I have with the work is the idea that there is no sum of pain, that pain is the same if there is one person suffering as opposed to a million suffering. I disagree. Pain is exponential. Sure, every person matters. As a proponent of a consistent ethic of human life I believe that. But the temptation is to liken my sadness over life’s injustices with those sufferings in the Holocaust or Rwanda. I’d be interested to know if Lewis ever readdressed that idea.

I don’t think that Lewis would make the claim that his conclusions are satisfactory. Instead they invite more questions. Those questions are more profoundly dealt with in his later work, A Grief Observed. Alas, we have 21 years before Lewis will release that journal that truly deals with the problem of pain.

Again, I agree with Lewis in his conclusion that God is good. What that means for us leads me and Lewis to different conclusions. Nowhere is that more evidenced in his chapter on hell. While I would opt for a more nuanced and fleshed out doctrine of hell, Lewis offers up a much more orthodox take. Here, ultimately, is where we diverge.

The Problem of Pain is a worthwhile read. However, I now deem its benefit as understanding a great thinker’s take on the subject rather than a definitive work. Grade: B-

I really think this guy is serious. His headline is “Why Al Qaeda Supports The Emergent Church.”

Read this excerpt:

The emergent church is an ally in the war against radical Islam–al Qaeda’s ally. Not in the sense they are supplying bullets and bombs to Osama, of course, but in the sense they are weakening our conviction to fight.

If those in the emergent “we’re-a-missional-not-an-institutional” church had their way, American church buildings would be just like European church buildings – empty. And the church, the people themselves, would be so intellectually, morally, emotionally, and spiritually lost, confused and uncertain, that they would be incapable of doing hardly anything more than inviting their Muslim oppressors in for a cappuccino and a good conversation about the sociology of knowledge, the absurdity of propositional truth, and the misplaced certitude of the Muslim metanarrative. All the while, no doubt, nodding in agreement that America probably deserved to die and mumbling something about carbon footprints.

The term “emergent church” refers to a loose association of people who share common values and attitudes toward, well, everything. It’s Christianity for postmoderns who don’t like truth, knowledge, science, authority, doctrine, institutions, or religion. They claim absolute or objective truth is unknowable, that the only “truth” that can be known is rooted in communities of shared subjective experience–the infamous “it’s my truth” of relativism.

And if nothing is objectively true, if no text has a meaning independent of the reader, then the truth claims in the Bible are no more authoritative than the funny papers. Hence, there’s no emphasis on core beliefs, essential doctrines, statements of faith or the institutions built to defend and propagate them–especially the institutional church and its Bible colleges and seminaries.

Bottom line, it’s feelings over thoughts, the heart over the head, experience over truth, deeds over creeds, narratives over propositions, the corporate over the individualistic, being inclusive rather than exclusive, with none of that offensive “in versus out” language, such as those who are “saved” and those who are “not saved,” or even the most divisive of all referents–“Christian” and “non-Christian.”

The emergent church and its allies on the religious left are to Christianity what termites are to wood. They devour it from the inside out, little bit by little bit, and you don’t notice it until it’s too late–unless you look for the droppings.

They’re leaving lots of droppings if you only have eyes to see.

The emergent church has rejected the “linear” and “modern” categories of true/false, good/evil, and right/wrong, and they recoil at the notion of applying these terms to Christianity or any other faith tradition–even radical Islam. To believe Christianity is true, good, and right is divisive, offensive, and well, rude and anti-conversational.

It’s time to call these people out from the shadows and expose them to the light of public scrutiny.

Now, I am no apologist for all things emerging. I agree with a lot and there is much in which I differ. But to paraphrase a McLaren book this guy is on an adventure in missing the point.

Every single paragraph is Coulter-esque in its naivety and dishonesty.

(HT: Aaron Monts)

After his two poem’s Lewis would not have another work published until after his conversion.

The Pilgrim’s Regress would make the literary debut of Lewis as Christian writer and would display his greatest style of writing: allegory.

Written as his own re-visioning of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress this would would follow the protagonist, John, through his journey to faith.

Many have criticized this work as being needlessly obscure but if you have had any background in legalistic religious environments and philosophy then you will find a delightful read. I found out after the fact that some publications of the work have helpful headers that will help the reader to make the necessary allegorical connections. Alas, mine did not. However, I did not struggle too much as many of the names are usually straight-forward.

John is born in the land of Puritania, a strict environment set on following “the rules” instigated by “The Landlord.”

The Steward said, ‘Now I am going to talk to you about the Landlord. The Landlord owns all the country, and it is very, very kind of him to allow us to live on it at all– very, very kind.’ He went on repeating ‘very kind’ in a queer sing-song voice so long that John would have laughed, but that now he was beginning to be frightened again. The Steward then took down from a peg a big card with small print all over it, and said, ‘Here is a list of all the things the Landlord says you must not do. You’d better look at it.’ So John took the card: but half the rules seemed to forbid things he had never heard of, and the other half forbade things he was doing every day and could not imagine not doing: and the number of the rules was so enormous that he felt he could never remember them all. ‘I hope,’ said the Steward, ‘that you have not already broken any of the rules?… Because, you know, if you did break any of them and the Landlord got to know of it, do you know what he’d do to you?’ ‘No, sir,’ said John… ‘He’d take you and shut you up for ever and ever in a black hole full of snakes and scorpions as large as lobsters– for ever and ever. And besides that, he is such a kind, good man, so very, very kind, that I am sure you would never want to displease him.’ ‘No, sir,’ said John. ‘But, please, sir…’ ‘Well,’ said the Steward. ‘Please, sir, supposing I did break one, one little one, just by accident, you know. Could nothing stop the snakes and lobsters?’ ‘Ah!…’ said the Steward; and then he sat down and talked for a long time, but John could not understand a single syllable. However, it all ended with pointing out that the Landlord was quite extraordinarily kind and good to his tenants, and would certainly torture most of them to death the moment he had the slightest pretext. ‘And you can’t blame him,’ said the Steward. ‘For after all, it is his land, and it is so very good of him to let us live here at all– people like us, you know.’

But John dreams of being set free from such a mindless following of inexplicable rules and dreams of an island that is free of such restrictions. At first it is equated with lust but soon he sets off to find all that his heart desires.

Much of Lewis’ work deals with desire and John is intent upon finding fulfillment. But upon the route to find the island he will meet such diverse characters as Enlightenment, Reason, Wisdom, The Spirit of the Age, Mr. Broad, Mr. Sensible and Mother Kirk (The Church).

Without divulging too much of the storyline eventually John will eventually realize his need for something other than himself. Through his journey he will ultimately find a Helping Hand that will make all the difference.

Rather than delve into a fuller synopsis and review let me excerpt a few (of the many) passages that stood out to me.

From Mr. Broad:

…as I grow older I am inclined to set less and less store by mere orthodoxy. So often the orthodox view means the lifeless view, the barren formula. I am coming to look more and more at the language of the heart. Logic and definition divide us: it is those things which draw us together that I now value most–our common affections, our common delight in this slow pageant of the countryside, our common struggle towards the light.”

Upon arriving at Theism and prior to conversion:

…with his first waking thought the full-grown horror leaped upon him. The blue sky above the cliffs was watching him: the cliffs themselves were imprisoning him: the rocks behind were cutting off his retreat: the path ahead was ordering him on. In one night the Landlord–call him by what name you would–had come back to the world, and filled the world, quite full without a cranny. His eyes stared and His hand pointed and His voice commanded in everything that could be heard or seen, even from this place where John sat, to the end of the world: and if you passed the end of the world He would be there too. All things were indeed one–more truly than Mr. Wisdom dreamed–and all things said one word: CAUGHT–Caught into slavery again, to walk warily and on sufferance all his days, never to be along; never the master of his own soul, to have no privacy, no corner whereof you could say to the whole universe: This is my own, here I can do as I please.

And from my favorite chapter of the book, Securus Te Projice (Throw yourself away without care):

‘I have come to give myself up,’ he said.
‘It is well,’ said Mother Kirk. ‘You have come a long way round to reach this place, wither I would have carried you in a few moments. But it is very well.’
‘What must I do?’ said John.
‘You must take off your rags,’ said she, ‘as your friend (Vertue) has done already, and then you must dive into this water.’
‘Alas,’ said he, ‘I never learned to dive.’
‘There is nothing to learn,’ said she. ‘The art of diving is not to do anything new but simply to cease doing something. You have only to let yourself go.’
‘It is only necessary,’ said Vertue, with a smile, ‘to abandon all efforts at self-preservation.’
‘I think,’ said John, ‘that if it is all one, I would rather jump.’
‘It is not all one,’ said Mother Kirk. ‘If you jump, you will be trying to save yourself and you may be hurt. As well, you would not go deep enough. You must dive so that you can go right down to the bottom of the pool: for you are not to come up again on this side. There is a tunnel in this cliff, far beneath the surface of the water and it is through that that you must pass so that you may come up on the far side.’

All in all this is a tremendous read. Do yourself a favor and pick this up for here is where we see the greatness of Lewis’ writings begin to emerge. Grade: A

Next: The Allegory of Love (depending on when it arrives in the mails.)

Wow. I don’t always agree with Piper. But this is great stuff. Take 3 minutes and watch this smack-down of “Health and Wealth”

Even now, even though I know there is more to godly worship than just praising God I had a hard time typing that header.

And it’s not just because it’s a mouthful. It’s because I’ve always bristled at anything that smacks of “humanism.” Having done so, I’ve often skirted around a God that often seems decidedly “humanistic.”

By that I mean that God is so “up with people” that there is much in His character and nature that should inform the way we think, feel, believe and, ultimately, worship.

For most of my life I have cultivated an exclusive, for lack of a better term, “praise-centric” view of discipleship. That regular attendance of corporate worship services were and are indicative of a deeper level of faith and commitment.

However, although there can exist a correlation between discipleship and corporate participation there is also often a sizable disconnect between the two. Let’s face it, it is not rare to see people who are corporately content while being compassionately challenged.

But the more I study the more I realize that true godly worship is not the spring-board into godly living but is more the result of it. And as a matter of fact, God doesn’t want worship to be the impetus of discipleship. In fact, for God, worship results from godly living.

To wit:

Jeremiah 7:5–7
5 “For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, 6 if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.

Amos 5:21–24
21 “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them;
and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them.
23 Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
24 But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Hosea 6:6
6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Micah 6:6–8
6 “With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?
7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

This is just a sampling of passages that indicate what Marcus Borg insists is God’s stressing of justice over worship rather than vice-versa.

“Since God is just and the world belongs to God, worship cannot be separated from justice because worship or union with a God of justice empowers the worshiper for a life of Justice.”

Worship services cannot contain our love for God because it must be borne out in the way we interact with people. It must be evidenced by our cries for justice.

This idea would fuel the writings of Paul who tied in our ability to properly take communion with our relationships to others.

We have to be people who are concerned for the least of these. Who have a heart for the lost, forgotten and marginalized. Who love unconditionally and completely.
Who embody the presence of Christ and His wisdom.

We see, in the person of Jesus, God in the flesh. When we see the people that captured the heart of Jesus: the widow, the blind, the lame, the children. Then we see who we are to be in love with in this world.

Worship that sees itself inoculated or isolated from the heart of Christ is not true worship. Worship done in the absence of justice is not worship.

Worship that cares nothing for the heart of those hurting is not worship.

So, Jesus teaches us that the heart of true wisdom is to love God and love others. Completely and intertwined. Worship must be entered into with a heart and love for those you worship with.
It must be a result of a deeper love and commitment to the God of all people that sees itself lived out in their lives. In the muck and mire of broken people.