Blog – Page 43 – New Wine, New Wineskins

August 16th, 2013August 21st, 2013

On Ayn Rand: Is Rational Selfishness Rational and Self-Affirming Enough?, Part 2

In my first post on Ayn Rand, I concluded by saying that

In my estimation, her ethical model of objectivism depends upon the ability and imperative of reasoning apart from emotional or experiential stimuli that otherwise impact rationality and upon a view of the self as autonomous. Can one reason in this pristine manner, and should one? And should one view the self as autonomous? If one answers in the affirmative, one would likely tend to affirm Rand’s objectivism as sufficiently rational and self-affirming. I don’t answer in the affirmative to either of these claims, and will discuss these matters further in future entries on the subject.

I will offer my rationale for why I don’t find Ayn Rand’s views rational and self-affirming enough while incorporating thoughts from a few individuals who left comments on the previous post. Their responses as well as others in the comment section help further the conversation. One person who commented said,

Author’s estimate that the Objectivist ethics depend on reasoning apart from emotional or experiential stimuli is incorrect. Reason is based on the material provided by man’s senses (experiential stimuli), integrated in the form of concepts according to measurable relationships among observed concretes. The concepts are used in accordance with logic, i.e., non-contradictory. Emotion does not enter into the formulation of the Objectivist abstract ethical principles, however application of these principles to real life questions can and should involve emotional input…

Based on this comment, let me clarify a few items. I did not intend to convey that Rand’s view precludes or discounts consideration of emotional input, but rather that Rand maintains that emotion and experience do not constructively shape or drive properly functioning rationality. To go further, on my view, reason is an instrument of the affections, not the other way round. Rand would reject this view. For Rand, reason evaluates emotional stimuli and experiences, but when rationality is operating correctly it is not subject to or controlled by such stimuli. In her estimation, properly functioning reason always programs or controls the affections (not vice versa), and to constructive ends (See for example The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 72; the essay in question is written by Rand’s colleague at the time, Nathaniel Branden). In contrast, on my view, all people, whether well-reasoned or not, are controlled by the objects of their affection. We are not in control of the objects of our affection as autonomous subjects, but rather responders. Rigorous thinkers often have very different value systems and do not share the same views concerning what is deemed virtuous. Their competing affections shape their reasoning and value systems (See again The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 72).

Those who think that they are autonomous and objective thinkers who keep their experiences and emotional stimuli from shaping and driving their thinking processes, but instead control such stimuli, do not think rigorously enough. Such objectivity is not sufficiently objective. Here I call to mind a selection from a chapter I wrote for Trinitarian Soundings in Systematic Theology (T. & T. Clark International, 2005), p. 24, within which I quote Søren Kierkegaard:

Objectification in the form of detached speculation is not ultimately objectivity, but disguised subjectivity. Søren Kierkegaard contends against radical objectification and detached speculation. As he sees it, the human knower is fully involved in the knowing process, and so, detached speculation is inhuman:

The law for the development of the self with respect to knowing, insofar as it is the case that the self becomes itself, is that the increase of knowledge corresponds to the increase of self-knowledge, that the more the self knows, the more it knows itself. If this does not happen, the more knowledge increases, the more it becomes a kind of inhuman knowledge, in the obtaining of which a person’s self is squandered, much the way men were squandered on building pyramids, or the way men in Russian brass bands are squandered on playing just one note, no more, no less (Søren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death, ed. and tr. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong {Princeton University Press, 1980}, p. 31).

It is an impersonal, sub-human form of knowing that seeks after autonomy. A truly human approach to the matter, on the other hand, involves participation, or what Colin Gunton refers to as ‘mutual indwelling’. Gunton draws attention to John’s Gospel’s distinctive emphasis on such ‘mutual indwelling’. According to Gunton, ‘The knowledge of which he speaks is first of all the knowledge by acquaintance that is a function of the interrelatedness of persons’ (Colin E. Gunton, A Brief Theology of Revelation: The 1993 Warfield Lectures {T. & T. Clark, 1995}, p. 118), a point John drives home in chapter 17 of his Gospel.

This brings me to my second point. Another commenter claimed: “Disagreement with autonomy is self refuting. Free will is axiomatic, you cannot refute your own autonomy without exorcising it. end of discussion.” I appreciate the concise and straightforward presentation of this claim. Still, I beg to differ. What is clear and axiomatic to some is not to others based on how the affections shape our thinking. Not every rigorous thinker has viewed free will and autonomy as axiomatic. I don’t find the celebration of the autonomous self to be self-affirming enough. On my view, the autonomous self is no self at all, for we are who we are only in relation to God and others. So, if I am to affirm self in the most advanced form, I will be impassioned to affirm the self in relation to others. Autonomy, uncircumscribed freedom, is no freedom at all for those who take issue with Rene Descartes’ classic claim: “I think; therefore I am.” Meaning and purpose are derived not by how well we think in some autonomous manner, but by what we love and how we are loved. In place of the Stoic mindset of “I think. Therefore, I am” or the Epicurean version of “I shop at Walmart and consume gobs of food. Therefore, I am,” I propose that we ponder carefully the following statement as the basis for ethics: “We are loved by God. Therefore, we are.” This divine love to which we respond rigorously with our minds and wills, not as autonomous individuals but as a community, is what shapes our personal identity and makes us truly human. In the biblical world, sin is bound up with reasoning not as an obedient response to God’s love, but as autonomous individuals who long to be in control. The end result is not simply the denial of God but also the denial of ourselves as we reason wrongly, enslaved to godless affections.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

August 14th, 2013August 15th, 2013

Beyond Cultural Monopolies to the Multifaceted Gospel

At our intentionally multi-ethnic church, a discussion has arisen from our examinations of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. We have been interacting about the characteristics of our particular gospel-centered community, trying to describe what it is like and what defines its culture. We’ve been considering what it looks like to give the gospel precedence in our hearts and minds over our cultural customs so that there is no cultural monopoly.

The late, great Lakota Sioux Christian leader Richard Twiss’s words on cultural hegemony are relevant here: “Because we are all so prone to be culturally egocentric, the temptation is to consider our worldview the biblical and correct one, shunning all others as unbiblical and wrong. Worse yet is our habit of judging cultural ways—songs, dances, rituals, etc.—to be sinful when there is no clear violation of Scripture” (Richard Twiss, One Church, Many Tribes: Following Jesus the Way God Made You, Regal, p. 113).

Cultural monopolies are often based on forms of cultural egocentrism. Such cultural egocentrism was present in Galatia, as the false teachers (Judaizers, as they are often called) were imposing on Gentiles regulations (circumcision laws) that were intrusions to the gospel that Paul, Barnabas and the leaders of the Jerusalem church proclaimed (we find unanimity of perspective on the gospel in the decision of the Council of Jerusalem on faith and circumcision in Acts 15). In Galatians 2, however, Paul tells us that when he, Barnabas and Peter/Cephas were in Antioch, Peter was guilty of going over to the Jewish table and abandoning fellowship with the Gentiles (with whom he had eaten in Antioch) when certain Jewish men associated with James came down to Antioch from Jerusalem. Paul called Peter on it. I believe that what had happened here was that these Jewish men embraced a form of cultural egocentrism: Jews were better than Gentiles, and such superiority was based on faith plus adherence to Jewish cultural forms and associations. Their sense of superiority won Peter over so that he sought to gain their approval, thus abandoning table fellowship with the Gentile Christians. Egocentrism has a way of building walls of division concerning who is in and who is out and causing people to seek to win the insiders’ approval. Of course, in the history of the Western world, Gentiles have often played this heinous egocentric card in their interaction with Jewish people to horrific effect. Cultural egocentrism can often lead to cultural genocide, as has been the case concerning Gentile impositions on the Jewish community in Western history and concerning Western and other cultural impositions on indigenous peoples throughout the world. Thus, we see that such cultural hegemony can work in a variety of ways.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul, a devout Christian of Jewish heritage, challenges the Gentile Christians in Galatia not to succumb to the cultural egocentric pressures imposed on their community from the Judaizers, as had occurred in Antioch with Peter. It is not that circumcision was bad. It was fundamentally important to the preservation of the Jewish community in its history and heritage before God. Still, it was not to be imposed on the Gentile Christians, who according to Paul, were equal to the Jewish Christians through the faithfulness of Christ and faith in Christ (See for example Galatians 3:26-29).

Here are some questions our pastor posed for reflection in bringing Galatians to bear on our multi-ethnic church context followed by my responses:

What does it look like to have the gospel ‘de-mote’ our cultural customs in our minds and hearts and in our multiethnic/multicultural community? While the gospel does not demote the cultural customs of one’s people group, it does guard against those customs being enforced on others. As Richard Twiss reminds us, we must guard against thinking of our cultural forms as the only way in which the gospel can be expressed. By realizing that the Bible does not endorse or condemn a given culture as such, we can move forward with greater freedom while remaining confident that God is faithful to contextualize the good news in our cultural context without the good news being enslaved to that context.

What does this gospel centered community look like? What are its mannerisms? In place of cultural egocentrism, we need to celebrate cultural humility and inquisitiveness. In this context, humility entails not promoting our distinctive cultural forms as absolute and others as relative. In this domain, inquisitiveness entailsseeking to discern how God makes contact with us in and through our own cultural forms as well as seeking to learn of how God works in other cultural contexts in raising up faithful witnesses to the good news of Jesus Christ in various cultural forms.

How do we get there? Getting there requires that we learn to “talk story” with one another of diverse cultural contexts in a given local church and beyond. Of course, this will entail that we move beyond homogeneous church models that focus exclusively on one ethnic group of people to the exclusion of others. We need to learn to celebrate one another’s cultures in a given locale while always shining the light of Scripture on each of our cultural heritages to make sure that there is no clear violation of Scripture, in keeping with the intent of the quotation above from Richard Twiss. Of course, this is often easier said than done. “Talking story,”referred to above, a Hawaiian cultural expression, requires vulnerability and transparency, which requires time and energy and good listening skills, as we share with one another how it is we see the good news of Jesus Christ taking root in our distinctive cultural contexts in unique and particular ways. As with First Nations talking circles, which make space for everyone to share as equals, space must be cultivated for everyone’s voice to be heard as we seek to bring Scripture to bear on our respective cultural heritages in service to the community of faith. Only then will we move beyond monolithic to multiethnic expressions as the one body of Christ.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos.

August 12th, 2013August 21st, 2013

Was Moses a Feminist?

As you may know, I edit a journal for The Institute for the Theology of Culture: New Wine, New Wineskins called Cultural Encounters. We have a new issue out and I’d invite you to take a look. I’ve reprinted the Editor’s Introduction here, giving you a sampling of what is in this issue. If it piques your interest, head on over to the journal, subscribe, and read!

Was Moses a feminist? It all depends on what texts from the Torah one emphasizes and what one means by feminist. If one takes to heart such texts as Genesis 1:26–31 on male and female sharing in the image of God and lordship in the creation, Genesis 2:18, 20 on ezer, meaning “helper” (perhaps even “warrior”; the same word is used for God as a “strong helper”), and Genesis 3:16 on a man ruling over a woman because of the fall, one might think of Moses as a feminist. Of course, there are other texts that are taken by many interpreters to suggest that the society Moses helped form under God’s direction was patriarchal (See, for example, Ex 20:17; Ex 21:2–4, 7; Nm 5:11–31; Nm 18:1–7; cf. Ex 28:1). Still, even if one were to argue for patriarchy, God places limits on it to protect women’s rights in a post-fallen state (Ex 21:7–11). Feminist or non-feminist, Moses was no male supremacist.

The Bible does not have a lot to say about gender, but rather how we are to treat one another as those created in the image of God. There’s no talk about what kinds of toys boys and girls should play with or what colors they should like. Sure, there are those texts that say men should not dress like women or vice versa (Dt 22:5). But what then does one do with Scotsmen who wear kilts? Normally, we don’t think anything of it. We understand that such clothing is associated with masculinity in Scottish culture. Besides, I doubt anyone of us would have dared to mock William Wallace of Brave Heart fame for wearing one.

Was Jacob effeminate? He hung around the tents and did not hunt like his hairy brother, Esau (Gn 25:26–28; Gn 27:11). Yet God made him the Patriarch whose twelve sons became the heads of Israel’s tribes (Gn 49:28). What do we know about Samson’s masculinity? He seemed to be temperamental, moody, irrational, and brash (See Jgs 13–16); depending on one’s cultural norms, this could pass for stereotypes for men or for women. We don’t know much about Samson’s physique, except that he had long hair. He may not have been a big, brawny man, since his strength was associated with his length of hair and God’s presence (Jgs 16:17–20). Would that make Samson feminine? What about Jesus? Was he a real man? Did he hunt and fish? We know he was a carpenter’s son, but not much more. If we are taking Scripture to heart, we will realize that Jesus’ stance on women was radical in his day. Women accompanied Jesus along with the Apostles in Jesus’ ministry (Lk 8:1–3). They were permitted to listen to Jesus teach rather than be locked away in the kitchen (Lk 10:38–41). They also proclaimed the resurrection, as in the case of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, who were given the task to inform the Apostles that the Lord had been raised from the dead (Mt 28:1–10; Jn 20:10–18). Jesus, who is the ultimate image of God (Col 1:18), is one with his body and bride (Col 1:15, 18; Eph 5:21–33) made up of men and women, to whom he gives himself sacrificially (Eph 5:21–33). His selfless giving stands in stark contrast to all the talk of men needing to be self-made and strong. It took a lot of strength for him to be so weak and give himself so selflessly in life and in death in order to make a new community not shaped by societal norms, but by his example in inaugurating the kingdom of God.

One finds talk in some Christian circles of real men being producers. What does that make of women? Consumers? A Trinitarian model of relationality involving dynamic relationality does not commodify and reduce men and women to quantities of production and consumption. Rather, men and women are communers who mutually produce and consume, but are not defined by such labels. What should define those of us who are Christians is a relational ontology shaped by Jesus’ radical example and union with his church noted above, but rarely noted in our day.

In this issue of the journal, we are not addressing such matters as church leadership, including complementarian and egalitarian themes, or sexuality, as such. There is quite a bit out there already in our circles addressing both subjects. We really wished to focus on gender. Not enough ink has been spilled on this issue, though a lot of blood has flown as a result of massive ignorance. Some of the articles in this issue of the journal set forth how gender and sexuality are distinct subjects, not one and the same. We are more interested in how the framing of gender impacts boys and girls, men and women of diverse ethnicities here and abroad, including on such subjects as sexual abuse, violence against women, and violence to men. One will find in the pages that follow that our views on gender have a significant, potentially painful, and even possibly dangerous bearing on how all of us approach maleness and femaleness.

The Editorial Board of Cultural Encounters maintains that Christian Scripture should always serve as our ultimate written authority as Christians in approaching any subject, including gender. In addition to Scripture, such subjects as sociology, including the comparison of various cultures on their views of gender, the historical development of a society’s and religious movement’s views on gender, along with such genres as film and science fiction, can also help us all think through our dominant cultural frames of reference on gender, provoking thought and constructive conversation. As you proceed in reading this issue of the journal, we do not ask that you agree with everything you read, but that you would be willing to reexamine your existing perspectives on gender in view of Scripture and the various sources studied. Take into account the various arguments involving Scriptural texts, statistics, definitions, and social groupings, along with the cultural reflections of women and men of diverse backgrounds who share their struggles on how views on gender have impacted them and countless others. Healing from trauma and compassionate and just action that flow from the sacrificial love of God can occur if we listen, look, and read well. In this light, consider how both biblically and missionally we can make our homes, churches, and societies more welcoming and inclusive spaces for cultural engagement as we seek to honor Christ, his church, and diverse peoples in our midst and across the globe.

Subscribe to and read this issue of Cultural Encounters.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos .

August 10th, 2013August 21st, 2013

On Ayn Rand: Is Rational Selfishness Rational and Self-Affirming Enough?

Ayn Rand was a most provocative and radical thinker, whom many leading Americans have claimed influenced their political and economic views.

Ayn Rand’s objectivist ethics frames morality in terms of rational self-interest or rational selfishness (Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, Signet, 1964, p. xi). Among other things, she confronted altruism and hedonism (The Virtue of Selfishness, 33). Her interview with Mike Wallace reveals her convictions in precise and startling terms. Whether one agrees with her or not, one finds here a clear and creative communicator whose ideas must be taken quite seriously. As she makes clear in her interview with Wallace, she challenges what she takes to be the foundation (altruism) of Judeo-Christian ethics.

In my estimation, her ethical model of objectivism depends upon the ability and imperative of reasoning apart from emotional or experiential stimuli that otherwise impact rationality and upon a view of the self as autonomous. Can one reason in this pristine manner, and should one? And should one view the self as autonomous? If one answers in the affirmative, one would likely tend to affirm Rand’s objectivism as sufficiently rational and self-affirming. I don’t answer in the affirmative to either of these claims, and will discuss these matters further in future entries on the subject.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos .

August 8th, 2013August 21st, 2013

Are We Called by God, Coerced or Coercing?

Paul starts out all his letters with “Paul,” not “Dr. Paul” with a long resume of accomplishments attached, just Paul. He often refers to his being called by God to be an apostle–one sent by God (See for example 1 Corinthians 1:1). His calling and sense of identity were shaped dramatically by his Damascus Road experience and his time away in Arabia (See Acts 9:1-19; Galatians 1:11-24).

What shapes our identity and sense of mission? Do we sense God’s call? Or do we feel God has coerced us, or perhaps worse, that we are trying to coerce God and others to give us a free rite of passage? Paradoxically perhaps to some, no matter how hard we try to manipulate and outmaneuver God and others, we end up tying ourselves up in knots.

I don’t get any sense from the letters in the New Testament attributed to Paul that he felt coerced by God. In fact, I come away with an overwhelming sense that Paul was overwhelmed by the fact that God would even choose him–of all people. This is a key indicator of those who truly sense that they are called by God and do not try to coerce God and others: they firmly believe the only right they have to serve God and others is God’s undeserved grace and mercy in their lives. Paul saw himself as abnormally born, as the least of the apostles, and as one who did not even deserve to be called one because he persecuted Christ’s church (1 Corinthians 15:8-9). Paul was a vivid example of the Lord’s words uttered to another pharisee being reversed: those who are forgiven much love much (Luke 7:47). The amazing love of God in Christ compelled Paul forward from the heart (2 Corinthians 5:14).

Far too many times in my Christian life I have operated from a sense that I deserve to serve as a leader rather than I only have a right to minister because God in his grace chose me and continues to choose me. I remember one occasion where I was talking with a colleague, complaining about not having the opportunity to minister in a certain context. After all, I had received a great amount of education and training to that point; I deserved to lead. My friend’s response blew me away: he wanted to stay clear of leading people because he was afraid that he would mess up their lives. He did not intend by his remarks to rebuke me. However, his words pierced me right between the ribs and showed me how undeserving I was of ministering before God to people. I wasn’t thinking about others, only myself. Those who minister from a sense of entitlement of deserving to lead will likely run over people and ruin their lives. While my friend needed to grow in his sense of God’s call on his life bound up with a Christ-shaped confidence in God (and he did), people were much safer with him than with me in ministry. May God continue to change my heart!

We will never change the world if God does not change us. Paul, when he was still Saul, wanted to change the world as much as he did when he was Paul the apostle. However, his framework completely changed: previously he would coerce and control others; he would enslave the church, taking Christians captive in chains to destroy them and the church. After his Damascus Road experience, Paul found it to be a great privilege to be put in chains for the church’s freedom and growth in Christ, for he was who F.F. Bruce called the apostle of the heart set free. There were a lot of mundane moments along the way, no doubt, as Paul sat in jail cells in chains for Christ. But God used those chains and Paul’s confinement to unleash his church.

Have you ever met someone like Paul whose heart has been set free by God to obey God wherever God leads? My wife and I recently heard Loren Cunningham, the Founder of Youth with a Mission, deliver a message at a church one Sunday morning. After the pastor of the church introduced him with all the customary and appropriate words of respect, Cunningham began sharing of God’s personal call on his life to obey God. Cunningham didn’t talk about his accomplishments over the years, but of God’s intimate initiative and his response of faith in obeying God in various situations. The message was quite simple, though profound and refreshing. No posturing. No positioning. No sense of being coerced and no attempt at coercing. Just a sense of God’s call to obey and a delight in responding in faith to obey God.

I had the opportunity to interact with other YWAM leaders, such as Danny and Linda Lehmann and John Dawson, around the time of hearing Cunningham speak. I came away with a sense that like their movement’s founder these leaders are captured by responding to God wherever he might lead. That is the way movements are formed and sustained, and kept from turning into monuments for personality cults of people driven to build empires for their egos. I sensed nothing of such empire building during my time of interacting with them, simply a passion to respond to God’s call on their lives, even in the little things. Like Danny Lehmann’s book The Next Big Thing: How Little Choices Can Make a Big Impact makes clear, “Little choices to obey the next thing God puts in front of you, whether big or little in your eyes, can change and make history,” as long as our definition of big and little conforms to God’s own definition. Simple though profound and refreshing truths. No coercion, just a sense of calling to obey God in the little things. That’s actually quite a big deal.

Those who sense that they are called by this God who loves them will not try and coerce God and others in their desire to change the world. Rather than running over people in their passion to make a world-changing difference, they will become the world-changing difference in giving themselves up for others for Christ. As was said of the Lord hanging on the cross, he who saved others cannot save himself (Matthew 27:42). Are you and I who claim to be Christians trying to save ourselves by finding some grand call for our lives, or is Christ’s call of love to obey him in faith every step of the way more than sufficient to give us meaning and purpose? Only as we experience his call to obey him in the little and big things of life as defined by God will we be the kind of people who have anything of value to contribute to the church and the rest of the world.

This piece is cross-posted at Patheos and The Christian Post. Comments made here are not monitored. To join the conversation, please comment on this post at Patheos .