Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Theological Liberalism in the Local Newspaper

I saw this sign driving by one day, but I didn't expect to see it show up in the local newspaper. The person submitting this pictorial found it refreshing. I find it absurd, but I'll leave the spelling error alone.

First, you might say that God is too big to fit in any "religion," if you use technical distinction. By this I mean, "religion" is man's attempt to get to God on his own. Taking this definition, I would say that all human attempts at reaching God fail. No "religion" can do it because God is too big, mysterious, an holy that we cannot reach Him in our own efforts. This leaves human beings with a real problem. If all man's attempts at reaching God ultimately fail, how are we to know anything about him at all? The good news here is that God has made himself known; he has revealed himself, and he has spoken to man in the Bible.

Of course the likely response to this is that my argument doesn't hold any weight because you may not believe the Bible. However, it still doesn't keep the sign in the picture above from being absurd. This sign is on the marquee of a Congregational Methodist church. I don't know much about this particular denomination, but the name at least sounds like it belongs to a Christian congregation. Christianity has 66 book of sacred scripture collected in what we call the Bible. Christian congregations ought to be defined by the Bible, and the Bible is an exclusive book. In Genesis you see a God who created the universe and created all human beings from a single originating pair. In Exodus you see a God who reveals himself to Moses as a jealous God who condemns 1)the worship of any other gods, or 2) the creating of images to worship which implies that God regulates how he is to be worshiped, or 3) taking the Lord's name in vain which implies an empty claim to follow him. Later on in the Old Testament the people are told that they worship God with their lips but their hearts are far from Him. In the Gospels, Jesus claims to be the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to God but through him. Jesus also claims that a rejection of him, that is Jesus, is essentially a rejection of the Father. If we take Jesus words seriously, we cannot reject Jesus and still claim to be following Christian God.

The absurd thing about the statement, on that marquee is that it claims to come from a Christian church. If they would just take the sign off and call themselves universalists at least it would be honest, but how can anyone who claims to be a Christian so easily abandon the words of Christ?

Saturday, February 17, 2007

What is Sin? And What It Isn't?

If anyone at all is reading this blog, then you know that I have interacted with some of the discussion on a blog by a feminist theology student. She is self professedly influenced by Mary Daly, a radical feminist at Boston College. Mary Daly has her own ideas about what "sin" is. Here is a quote from the New Yorker, from February 1996, that shows what she thinks that word means:
EVER since childhood, I have been honing my skills for living the life of a Radical Feminist Pirate and cultivating the Courage to Sin. The word "sin" is derived from the Indo-European root "es-," meaning "to be." When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a woman trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, "to be" in the fullest sense is "to sin."
Now it is obvious that I disagree. I of course hold to what would be a "traditional" view of the definition of sin; however, let's take a look at what she has to say, and try to understand her method of hermeneutics, and see if this is anything close to what the Bible means when it uses the term "sin."

  1. First of all, let's look at her use of etymology: She says that the word "sin" comes from the "Indo-European root 'es-,' meaning 'be.'" Well, this just may be true. I've never studied Indo-European language roots. So I grant that this is quite possible. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The Bible wasn't written in Indo-European, or English. It was written in Hebrew and Greek. Why in the world, would we want to know about the origins of words used in a translation, when they have nothing at all to do with the original languages to which they refer. This is merely the fallacy of etymology at work. Don't be fooled.
  2. Second, is it that usage determines the meaning of a word in a statement. Is it the etymology of a word? No one seriously thinks this is true. The meaning of words is determined by their usage in sentences. When I say, "the milk in the refrigerator is 'expired,'" do I intend the meaning of the term expired that is derived from its etymology--that it 'breathed out?'" Of course not, I mean it the way all native English speakers would understand it. The milk has gone bad and needs to be thrown out before it stinks. Which is what we should do with interpretations that are obviously violation of the intention of the author. Either this is willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what at text is saying, and undermines the ethical requirements of the social contract of human language, or it is an extremely naive attempt at scholarship.
  3. Third what does the Greek word for "sin" mean? While, more extensive documentation could be done, I will use Thayer's Greek Definitions, simply because I have it in electronic form on a free bible software program.
1. ἁμαρτία
hamartia
Thayer Definition:
1) equivalent to 264
1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour,to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

ἁμαρτάνω
hamartanō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be without a share in
2) to miss the mark
3) to err, be mistaken
4) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
5) to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
Part of Speech: verb

These make up the word translated sin in the New Testament in its noun and verb forms.

4. Now, how does Hebrew use the word. For Hebrew the lexical information will be abbreviated for space and time considerations. I will not be looking up all the cognate uses. This data will come from the free version of BDB (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon):

חטּאת / חטּאה
chaṭṭâ'âh / chaṭṭâ'th
BDB Definition:
1) sin, sinful
2) sin, sin offering
2a) sin
2b) condition of sin, guilt of sin
2c) punishment for sin
2d) sin-offering
2e) purification from sins of ceremonial uncleanness
Part of Speech: noun feminine

חטא
châṭâ'
BDB Definition:
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to miss
1a2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty
1a3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to bear loss
1b2) to make a sin-offering
1b3) to purify from sin
1b4) to purify from uncleanness
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to miss the mark
1c2) to induce to sin, cause to sin
1c3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to miss oneself, lose oneself, wander from the way
1d2) to purify oneself from uncleanness
Part of Speech: verb

אשׁמה
'ashmâh
BDB Definition:
1) guiltiness, guilt, offense, sin, wrong-doing
1a) doing wrong, committing a trespass or offense
1b) becoming guilty, guilt
1c) bringing a guilt-offering
Part of Speech: noun feminine

שׁגה
shâgâh
BDB Definition:
1) to go astray, stray, err
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to err, stray
1a2) to swerve, meander, reel, roll, be intoxicated, err (in drunkenness)
1a3) to go astray (morally)
1a4) to commit sin of ignorance or inadvertence, err (ignorantly)
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to lead astray
1b2) to lead astray, mislead (mentally)
1b3) to lead astray (morally)

These first two of these are the typical words used when the English translations use the word sin. The other two were a used much less frequently where we find the word sin. There may be others, and this is not the place for comprehensiveness. I'm just trying to demonstrate a point. Even if the "Indo-European root 'es-,'"does mean "to be" surely the English translators aren't stupid enough to think that's what was meant when they were reading the original languages.

The fact is, encouraging people to have the "Courage to Sin" is exactly what the last of the Hebrew definitions that I gave implies--to lead astray (morally)." Which makes me think of what Jesus said about those who lead others astray: Luke 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

I hope that this encourages anyone reading this to pray for Ms. Daly and anyone whose ear she has captivated. Deconstructing the definition of a word for the promotion of an anti-biblical agenda, is a dangerous thing. Let us pray that their eyes would be opened to see the light of the gospel of truth.


Monday, January 15, 2007

Are Liberals Really More Tolerant Than Conservatives?

It has been interesting to watch that feminist blog that I had mentioned earlier. The author of the blog has been very nice to me in allowing me to dialogue with those on her page. And others have been equally polite. But just recently I have been blasted by one poster who basically told me to "buzz off." Click the title to link to the full conversation.

I had originally posted the conversation here. But since there was concern over me posting it without MasonDixon's permission, I decided to remove it, and you can just click the title of this entry to see for yourself.

Like I said, an interesting interchange. Quite ironic. I'm being told that I have an opinion that is not open to being challenged so I should buzz off, because he doesn't want to hear my opinion. I'm glad that I saw the irony in this situation or it might have angered me. Instead, I had a little fun with it.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Necessity of the Whole Bible

I was browsing through some of the other blogs with the same interests as I have, and found one by a student in Massachusetts who openly holds to feminist theology. I read her most recent post, and commented to her with one question: What role does the Bible play in what you call Christianity?

You may find her blog at http://marydaly.blogspot.com/.

In this article she explained her view of what Christianity is, and she used much language that you might hear in evangelical circles. However, this language had been redefined to fit her purposes. Is this a legitimate way to claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ? The only access that we have today to any historical knowledge of who Jesus is, is through the Bible. One might be tempted to look only to the gospels to find this picture. However, this is assuming that there is some contradiction between the gospels and the epistles--or the rest of the Bible for that matter.

And what historical arrogance we display when we think that we can judge who Jesus was better than those who knew him, and who knew his followers at the time that he walked this earth!

My point is this, if we do not agree with those who first called Christians about essential questions such as the nature of God, Sin, Humanity, and Reality, we have no business calling ourselves by the same name as them.

The theology that I read on that post is really merely giving new application to what Freidrich Schleirmacher began a few centuries ago--which gave birth to classical liberalism. In an attempt to make Christianity more reasonable to modern people, Schleirmacher rejected the historic Christian message and redefined his terms. Classic liberalism, in an attempt to then get something out of the Bible that they could accept redefined Jesus in to their own image. In a paraphrase, as Albert Switzer said all liberalism did was to look down into the well of history looking for Jesus, but all they saw was their own reflection looking back. This is the definition of idolatry--making God in man's image.