Monday, July 21, 2008
creed 3
The Creed, johnson says, “communicates a compelling vision of the world’s destiny and humanity’s role that challenges the accustomed idolatries and the weary platitudes of current worldly wisdom.”
creed #2: Johnson
Johnson says that the Creed performs five distinct but interrelated functions: It narrates the Christian myth, interprets Scripture, constructs a world, guides Christian practices and prepares the Christian people for worship. Myth, by the way, does not mean untrue. It is language that seeks to express a truth beyond what we can test and prove.
He examines each statement in the Creed in detail, explaining what it means and why Christians believe it. In particular, he is thorough (even exhaustive) in giving all of the scriptural references for each statement. (Readers could exhaust themselves by looking up each reference. Most of us will accept Johnson’s research as accurate.)
Johnson is known for his opposition to the so-called Jesus Seminar and the attempt to discover “the historical Jesus, apart from faith.” As he did in a previous book, The Real Jesus, he points out in several places that a Jesus stripped of divinity is just another human being. Why, he asks, would such a Jesus matter more than Socrates or Confucius or the Buddha?
Johnson steers a middle course between fundamentalists, who take every word of Scripture literally, and progressives, who insist on a “reasonable” Christianity. One battleground between the two forces is the doctrine of the virgin birth. He contends that it is neither possible nor important to know the biology of Jesus’ conception and birth. Rather, what is important is that the incarnation of God’s Son came about through both divine and human agency.
He covers the Catholic Church’s addition of the filioque phrase, a doctrinal matter that still divides the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. He believes the addition was unnecessary.
One of the strongest chapters in this book is Johnson’s examination of the four marks of the Church(chapter 8)—one, holy, catholic and apostolic. These, he contends, describe an ideal that the Church has never realized and will never fully realize. He notes, too, that the term “Roman Catholic” is oxymoronic, combining the element of universality with a highly particular adjective.
After examining the whole Creed, he says, “Everything up to this point has been introduction.” His final chapters try to explain why it matters what Christians believe. It is because Christians offer what they believe to be the truth about the world in every respect. The doctrines expressed in the Creed are not only true to Christians, but true for all. That, he says, is the positive witness the Creed makes to the world.
He also notes the simplicity of the Creed. It consistently affirms what we believe without trying to explain how those things are true. We believe, for example, that God created all things, but the Creed doesn’t tell us how.
He examines each statement in the Creed in detail, explaining what it means and why Christians believe it. In particular, he is thorough (even exhaustive) in giving all of the scriptural references for each statement. (Readers could exhaust themselves by looking up each reference. Most of us will accept Johnson’s research as accurate.)
Johnson is known for his opposition to the so-called Jesus Seminar and the attempt to discover “the historical Jesus, apart from faith.” As he did in a previous book, The Real Jesus, he points out in several places that a Jesus stripped of divinity is just another human being. Why, he asks, would such a Jesus matter more than Socrates or Confucius or the Buddha?
Johnson steers a middle course between fundamentalists, who take every word of Scripture literally, and progressives, who insist on a “reasonable” Christianity. One battleground between the two forces is the doctrine of the virgin birth. He contends that it is neither possible nor important to know the biology of Jesus’ conception and birth. Rather, what is important is that the incarnation of God’s Son came about through both divine and human agency.
He covers the Catholic Church’s addition of the filioque phrase, a doctrinal matter that still divides the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. He believes the addition was unnecessary.
One of the strongest chapters in this book is Johnson’s examination of the four marks of the Church(chapter 8)—one, holy, catholic and apostolic. These, he contends, describe an ideal that the Church has never realized and will never fully realize. He notes, too, that the term “Roman Catholic” is oxymoronic, combining the element of universality with a highly particular adjective.
After examining the whole Creed, he says, “Everything up to this point has been introduction.” His final chapters try to explain why it matters what Christians believe. It is because Christians offer what they believe to be the truth about the world in every respect. The doctrines expressed in the Creed are not only true to Christians, but true for all. That, he says, is the positive witness the Creed makes to the world.
He also notes the simplicity of the Creed. It consistently affirms what we believe without trying to explain how those things are true. We believe, for example, that God created all things, but the Creed doesn’t tell us how.
the creed post #1
Ive been reading this great book by Luke Timothy Johnson called the creed. I highly recommend this read here are a few quotes.
Some groups within Christianity have remarkably clear boundaries. They know exactly who they are, how they are different from others, and what they demand of their members. They insist on the "literal" meaning of Scripture and on "classic Christian teaching." Even though they are often as individualistic in their piety as other forms of Christianity, they expect conformity to the group in matters of doctrine and behavior. They are also the forms of Christianity that are growing fastest in number and influence.
Unfortunately, these Christian groups tend to confuse the accidental with the essential. They tend to make some single element of belief or of morals the litmus test of membership, indeed of true Christianity. For some it is a literal inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture; for others, baptism in spirit; for others, recognition of papal authority; for many, the condemnation of homosexuality and the canonization of the nuclear family; for many, a politics that calls itself conservative but is often reactionary. Failure to agree means exclusion. Such forms of Christianity flourish because they actually demand something of their members and they satisfy the human hunger for clarity and certainty.
They are also fundamentally sectarian, because they define themselves as much by what they oppose as what they affirm. They exemplify the classical definition of heresy as the elevation of one truth to the distortion of other truths. What each of them opposes in one way or another is the entire world shaped by Modernity. The Enlightenment is the great enemy.
These groups pay a remarkable amount of attention to some small point of self-definition, compared to the attention they give to the heart of the gospel. Worse, they are often preoccupied with external signs of conformity but neglect the evidence of abuse and corruption around them. The classic example is their public opposition to sexual immorality accompanied by their blindness toward economic injustice. And because they set their boundaries by what is nonessential rather than what is essential, they repel those outside (and some of those within) who despair at their consistent habit of straining the gnat while swallowing the camel.
At the other extreme, some groups lack any real sense of boundaries. They do not answer the question "What does it mean to be a Christian?" clearly, and offer little sense of what is demanded of the individual Christian. They have explicitly or implicitly assimilated to the world of Modernity, have resisted the creation of strong boundaries in favor of openness to the world, and have aligned themselves politically with the forces of change within culture rather than with the forces of resistance. They define Christianity in terms of acceptance and inclusion, and regard boundaries as barriers.
This extreme also has its inconsistencies. It is, in a sense, as sectarian or heretically selective as the first. It attacks the other style of Christianity for identifying Christianity with reactionary politics, but is itself just as committed to liberal politics. It bemoans the narrowness of a literalistic reading of Scripture in service of doctrine, but is just as committed to a literalistic reading of the Bible in service of history. It condemns the other extremes narrow-minded, exclusionary style of life, not recognizing in such condemnation another form of narrow-minded exclusiveness. It mocks the periodic appearance of charlatans among the ranks of Evangelical leaders, but seems incapable of recognizing the charlatans among its own leaders. (298-300.)
Some groups within Christianity have remarkably clear boundaries. They know exactly who they are, how they are different from others, and what they demand of their members. They insist on the "literal" meaning of Scripture and on "classic Christian teaching." Even though they are often as individualistic in their piety as other forms of Christianity, they expect conformity to the group in matters of doctrine and behavior. They are also the forms of Christianity that are growing fastest in number and influence.
Unfortunately, these Christian groups tend to confuse the accidental with the essential. They tend to make some single element of belief or of morals the litmus test of membership, indeed of true Christianity. For some it is a literal inspiration or inerrancy of Scripture; for others, baptism in spirit; for others, recognition of papal authority; for many, the condemnation of homosexuality and the canonization of the nuclear family; for many, a politics that calls itself conservative but is often reactionary. Failure to agree means exclusion. Such forms of Christianity flourish because they actually demand something of their members and they satisfy the human hunger for clarity and certainty.
They are also fundamentally sectarian, because they define themselves as much by what they oppose as what they affirm. They exemplify the classical definition of heresy as the elevation of one truth to the distortion of other truths. What each of them opposes in one way or another is the entire world shaped by Modernity. The Enlightenment is the great enemy.
These groups pay a remarkable amount of attention to some small point of self-definition, compared to the attention they give to the heart of the gospel. Worse, they are often preoccupied with external signs of conformity but neglect the evidence of abuse and corruption around them. The classic example is their public opposition to sexual immorality accompanied by their blindness toward economic injustice. And because they set their boundaries by what is nonessential rather than what is essential, they repel those outside (and some of those within) who despair at their consistent habit of straining the gnat while swallowing the camel.
At the other extreme, some groups lack any real sense of boundaries. They do not answer the question "What does it mean to be a Christian?" clearly, and offer little sense of what is demanded of the individual Christian. They have explicitly or implicitly assimilated to the world of Modernity, have resisted the creation of strong boundaries in favor of openness to the world, and have aligned themselves politically with the forces of change within culture rather than with the forces of resistance. They define Christianity in terms of acceptance and inclusion, and regard boundaries as barriers.
This extreme also has its inconsistencies. It is, in a sense, as sectarian or heretically selective as the first. It attacks the other style of Christianity for identifying Christianity with reactionary politics, but is itself just as committed to liberal politics. It bemoans the narrowness of a literalistic reading of Scripture in service of doctrine, but is just as committed to a literalistic reading of the Bible in service of history. It condemns the other extremes narrow-minded, exclusionary style of life, not recognizing in such condemnation another form of narrow-minded exclusiveness. It mocks the periodic appearance of charlatans among the ranks of Evangelical leaders, but seems incapable of recognizing the charlatans among its own leaders. (298-300.)
Heathers Job.
many of you have asked about heathers job (melissa, Katie etc.) so here goes. Heathers company chose to go another direction in the social services field. they had 5 group homes with over 60 employees all of which were terminated. they felt that the direction of the future was foster care. This is both a blessing and a curse for the children. It is a blessing because it will hopefully place them in homes. however these children have extreme behavior problems, and will not most likely thrive or even make it in regular homes. this is unfortunate because outside of group homes the only other option is psych wards and juvenile detention centers. thank god that not all group homes are closing and all of the kids found new placements in other group homes.
heather misses her kids and the work greatly and is trying to decide what she wants out of life. please continue to pray for her in the search.
heather misses her kids and the work greatly and is trying to decide what she wants out of life. please continue to pray for her in the search.
Friday, July 4, 2008
75th wedding anniversary
two weekends ago heather and i were blessed to celebrate her great grandparents seventyfifth wedding aniversary... both of her grandparents are 96. pretty crazy when you begin to think that heather and i have only been married for two years. they have spent more time together than heather and my lifetime added together. they lived through two world wars a deppression, the creation of virtually all technology and all the while remained deeply in love.
they were absolutely sweet. my favorite part of the weekend was when grampa sent GG some roses. Now if you can imagine. grampa is probably one of the most selfish people i have ever met in my life. GG. is stubburn and strongwilled but she will do anything to make her man feel appreciated. so here on a weekend where she had recieved about 25 floral arrangements most of which were absolutly huge and extravagent, she still made grampa feel as though he had given her a 20 carat diamond ring. (he didnt) He sent 12 red roses (that were Beautiful but far from the most beautiful arrangmetn of the weekend). When the roses came GG. got up and hugged and kissed her man and said that she was the happiest woman on earth... she said she needed nothing more on the earth after recieveing the roses. it was then that i had the realization that this is what got them to 75 years. she knows how to make him feel that he is the best thing since sliced bread. (maybe better since he invented the bread and pie oven.) she knows how to honor him.
i hope that i can be this for heather. i hope i can make her feel like grandpa feels when grandma douts on him.
they were absolutely sweet. my favorite part of the weekend was when grampa sent GG some roses. Now if you can imagine. grampa is probably one of the most selfish people i have ever met in my life. GG. is stubburn and strongwilled but she will do anything to make her man feel appreciated. so here on a weekend where she had recieved about 25 floral arrangements most of which were absolutly huge and extravagent, she still made grampa feel as though he had given her a 20 carat diamond ring. (he didnt) He sent 12 red roses (that were Beautiful but far from the most beautiful arrangmetn of the weekend). When the roses came GG. got up and hugged and kissed her man and said that she was the happiest woman on earth... she said she needed nothing more on the earth after recieveing the roses. it was then that i had the realization that this is what got them to 75 years. she knows how to make him feel that he is the best thing since sliced bread. (maybe better since he invented the bread and pie oven.) she knows how to honor him.
i hope that i can be this for heather. i hope i can make her feel like grandpa feels when grandma douts on him.
hey tim.
Just wanted to say hi. I also wanted to let you all know that we are doing good. heather is looking for jobs while on unemployment. we are both helping her grandmother with some major organization projects (think clean sweep), we are also taking on some extra care taking responsibiliteis with the great grandparent.
we have our big lutheran interview on the 3rd or 4th of august. we are super excited about this opportunity please be in pray for us over the next month. I have a few more pages to write, ( out of 40) for the interview process.
other than that we are just chilling and enjoying our first full california summer.
we have our big lutheran interview on the 3rd or 4th of august. we are super excited about this opportunity please be in pray for us over the next month. I have a few more pages to write, ( out of 40) for the interview process.
other than that we are just chilling and enjoying our first full california summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)