Canadian Islander Opposes Operation Iraqi Freedom!
Right now the '82's are reading Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell and I found myself enthralled with the second "movement" as he calls it. Even though the man chose to compare his chapters to the dramatic changes within a symphony (not necessarily with deliberation), he approaches theology with incredible humility (in my subjective opinion, which is derived from what seems to be his recognition of subjectivity within the interpretation of theology). I've found myself in the middle of a lot of discussion recently about scripture. I've had the opportunities in the past few weeks to discuss with a few important people why they choose to present the Bible the way they do. I'm curious because I myself am having an increasing capacity to present the Bible with some authority so I am looking to them for something to imitate.
Oddly enough I've found myself saying something repeatedly that Rob Bell criticizes. He says this, "Several years ago I was in an intense meeting with our church's leaders in which we were discussing several passages in the Bible...One of the leaders...said something like this: 'I've spent a great deal of time recently studying this issue...and I've decided to get back to the Bible and take it for what it really says.'" (Bell 53)
Wow, I say that.
Basically, he's implying even that statement has the curse of a subjective understanding based only on previous experience and education of this individual.
This style of paragraph is a shout out to Rob.
Then it made me look at what other people say. Tonight at Fuel I found myself deeply troubled with Romans 5:10 in which Paul says, "before, when we were enemies of God." Basically I brought up an analogy of a guy who is on an island off the coast of Canada, fully aware of the war in Iraq, but with no allegiance to any country. By not fighting against the Iraqis, does this imply he is an enemy of the United States, simply because of his passivity? To be fair, others did not find this a strong metaphor, but for the sake of my point, I think they do imply the answer to be "yes" which implies if you are not in a relationship with God, then you are his enemy.
Paul does say, "we were enemies." But for me, I was being asked to ASSUME a lot! I am assuming Paul meant everyboyd is the "we." I am also being asked to assume this statement does not contradict Jesus' statement that "whoever is not against us, is for us." (Mark 9:40) Now, granted this statement is in the context of a man who is not an apostle, but still a believer. However, the only other verse I could think of relating is also in Mark and says essentially that the enemy of God is whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.
Amen to that. Is an anti-war protester an enemy to the war in Iraq, you bet! I think they would say so. But is the coastal Canadian, non-affiliated dude?
Furthermore, Paul admittedly opposed the Holy Spirit, and contextually, many Romans did as well, which constitutes the title "enemy." But we don't know who "we" is. We also don't know what it takes to be "enemy" accept of course what I read in Mark. Which leads me to believe that there is more to the story than just..."not a Christian = God's enemy." We're assuming something said by a God, through a person, neither of which we've ever met face to face.
BUT there is redemption. Through my entire rant here I found a great, encouraging truth. I don't know what God says. I think there's a great chance the suppositions proposed by the people at Fuel are correct, but I can't commit to them. And tonight I realized two related lessons. 1. Subjectivity is dangerous and there is hope in carefully watching yourself and others in regards to it. 2. Studying scripture and theology, while controversial and often idolotrous, helped me walk through these questions and I came out with a better (and yet not clearer...interesting that they aren't mutually exclusive) understanding of God's love and character. So enemy's, no enemy's, Canadians aside. God is a good guy, who loves everything he created, even his enemy's. That I know plain as day, and because of that KNOWLEDGE, I fret not about what this verse means.
I can't wait for heaven, maybe I'll get to meet Rob Bell.
Oddly enough I've found myself saying something repeatedly that Rob Bell criticizes. He says this, "Several years ago I was in an intense meeting with our church's leaders in which we were discussing several passages in the Bible...One of the leaders...said something like this: 'I've spent a great deal of time recently studying this issue...and I've decided to get back to the Bible and take it for what it really says.'" (Bell 53)
Wow, I say that.
Basically, he's implying even that statement has the curse of a subjective understanding based only on previous experience and education of this individual.
This style of paragraph is a shout out to Rob.
Then it made me look at what other people say. Tonight at Fuel I found myself deeply troubled with Romans 5:10 in which Paul says, "before, when we were enemies of God." Basically I brought up an analogy of a guy who is on an island off the coast of Canada, fully aware of the war in Iraq, but with no allegiance to any country. By not fighting against the Iraqis, does this imply he is an enemy of the United States, simply because of his passivity? To be fair, others did not find this a strong metaphor, but for the sake of my point, I think they do imply the answer to be "yes" which implies if you are not in a relationship with God, then you are his enemy.
Paul does say, "we were enemies." But for me, I was being asked to ASSUME a lot! I am assuming Paul meant everyboyd is the "we." I am also being asked to assume this statement does not contradict Jesus' statement that "whoever is not against us, is for us." (Mark 9:40) Now, granted this statement is in the context of a man who is not an apostle, but still a believer. However, the only other verse I could think of relating is also in Mark and says essentially that the enemy of God is whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.
Amen to that. Is an anti-war protester an enemy to the war in Iraq, you bet! I think they would say so. But is the coastal Canadian, non-affiliated dude?
Furthermore, Paul admittedly opposed the Holy Spirit, and contextually, many Romans did as well, which constitutes the title "enemy." But we don't know who "we" is. We also don't know what it takes to be "enemy" accept of course what I read in Mark. Which leads me to believe that there is more to the story than just..."not a Christian = God's enemy." We're assuming something said by a God, through a person, neither of which we've ever met face to face.
BUT there is redemption. Through my entire rant here I found a great, encouraging truth. I don't know what God says. I think there's a great chance the suppositions proposed by the people at Fuel are correct, but I can't commit to them. And tonight I realized two related lessons. 1. Subjectivity is dangerous and there is hope in carefully watching yourself and others in regards to it. 2. Studying scripture and theology, while controversial and often idolotrous, helped me walk through these questions and I came out with a better (and yet not clearer...interesting that they aren't mutually exclusive) understanding of God's love and character. So enemy's, no enemy's, Canadians aside. God is a good guy, who loves everything he created, even his enemy's. That I know plain as day, and because of that KNOWLEDGE, I fret not about what this verse means.
I can't wait for heaven, maybe I'll get to meet Rob Bell.
posted by Austin P at 8:16 PM
0 comments
