Posts Tagged ‘Theology’

Where are the Prophets — The Real Ones?

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 by Antipas Harris

Today is a very sad day in South Georgia. After a long fight to prove his innocence, Troy Davis faces the death penalty tonight. From my view of the television, largely Caucasian American Law Enforcement Officers are on post to maintain order outside the chambers with tons of people, appearing to be mostly  African Americans, standing in protest, awaiting the Supreme Court’s final decision whether to execute him or acquit him.

Then, word comes back — “The Supreme Court Denies Davis Appeal.” Gosh! The scene on the television screen is way too reminiscent of the scenes from the 1960′s Civil Rights Movement. Some scenes and situations need not be repeated — this is one of them!

Davis is accused of murdering a police officer is 1989. The evidence has been weak to prove that he is guilty. Yet, he has found it difficult to prove his innocence. It is not surprising that Davis is African American. Researchers like University of Iowa law professor, the late David C. Baldus  has proven that racism permeates the death penalty and has done so since it was re-instated in America.

I have no desire to protect the guilty at the expense of the violated. Yet, the death penalty is problematic on so many levels. I cannot address all of them here.  However, I will say that research proves that the practice of the death penalty represents strands in American fabric that are racist at the core. There are similar racist strands that seem to weave through the educational system, job markets, Plan Parenthood’s abortion clinics, and more. Read the rest of this entry »

Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011 by Nicholas Daniels

Wolfgang Vondey, Beyond Pentecostalism: The Crisis of Global Christianity and the Renewal of the Theological Agenda. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. xiii + 267 pp. $32.00 paperback.

In a well-known verse from Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus exhorts his disciples with the following: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3). Sadly, few theologians have followed the Lord’s advice; and theology has grown old, taking the visage of stodgy, European men—dominated by reason and Western ideology—rather than the joyful play of children. This has brought global Christianity to a state of crisis, for Christianity has rapidly expanded around the world, while theology has remained static, dominated by Western orthodoxy, ethnocentrism, and reason.

In response to this crisis, Vondey suggests that theology must return to the playground so that it may be renewed and flourish in its current global space. Inspired largely by Gadamer and Suurmond, he applies the metaphor of “play” to the theological crisis, painting a unique way forward for theology, in which the stodgy ways of performance are traded for childlike play. Thus, theology becomes an “activity done for the joy of doing it and not for any performative, competitive, functionalistic, rationalistic, or utilitarian reasons. Theologically speaking, play is the joy of God in which we participate” (13).

Particularly essential to Vondey’s quest is introducing classical Pentecostalism into global theological play. He recognizes Pentecostalism as a particular manifestation of the contemporary crisis, because its transitional nature challenges established social, cultural, and religious forms of thought and praxis. Consequently, each chapter consists of three parts: the examination of a specific aspect of the crisis, an analysis of classical Pentecostalism as a manifestation of the particular attribute, and a proposal for global Christianity, offering resources from the Pentecostal tradition to overcome the particular element of the crisis.

This is far from a mere call for a Pentecostal revival though. Vondey’s vision is much grander. In fact, he notes that play “seeks to transform everything that existed before and apart from play into something that now exists due to its absorption into the reality of play” (76). Thus, by bringing Pentecostal tradition into play with global Christianity, Pentecostalism is transformed and absorbed. Hence, Beyond Pentecostalism suggests “both that Pentecostal faith and praxis are significant beyond Pentecostal circles and that Pentecostalism, as it engages the global Christian agenda, is in the process of going beyond its own historical, theological, sociocultural, and institutional boundaries” (7).

This is precisely what makes Vondey’s proposal refreshing. The performance-oriented methods of theologians such as Vanhoozer fail to liberate theology from the cognitive-linguistic level of Scripture. This focus continues to favor competition for “right” interpretation and performance, perpetuating the battle among Christian communities for the singular title of “church.” In contrast, Vondey calls for a shift from cognitive performance to imaginative play, allowing orthodoxy and orthopraxy to integrate with orthopathy. Subsequently, theology transcends orthodox structures dominated by reason, challenging them to change, expand, and grow. Therefore, revelation expands beyond the textuality and performance of written text, doctrine beyond the creed as a rule of faith, liturgy beyond its identity as a product of the church, ecclesiality beyond the structures of Western culture, and classical Pentecostalism beyond its own self-identity. Hence, rather than a Pentecostal revival—which often contains separatist tendencies and an interest in self-growth—Vondey desires for a change in agenda to that of renewal—a globally focused agenda emphasizing “changes in religious life, institutions, structures, liturgy, catechesis, worship, preaching, ecumenical relations, and theological parlance” (193).

While Vondey’s proposal for an imaginatively playful theology of the heart maps a joyful and restored Christian theology for the global sphere, his offering does raise a few questions as well. These primarily center on the nature of play and the exclusivity of the Christian message. For instance, he recommends that there be play between culture and the church, wherein spiritual discernment comes from both sides. However, one wonders how global Christianity protects itself against syncretism and a loss of its exclusivity? Moreover, one wonders if play is a sufficient metaphor to deal with more serious issues such as sin and judgment. While play invites areas of nonplay into play, what is to be done with those areas which refuse to play? In the same vein, is it possible that combining elements of performance and play will address these concerns?


Theology in the Rearview Mirror–Let go of the parking brake!

Monday, January 3rd, 2011 by Wolfgang Vondey

Don’t say theology is hip. Or cool. Or whatever you call it. You know: belonging to the stuff that is hotly debated; fast on the tracks of the latest developments; culturally and politically informed. Contemporary theology is many things, but being ahead of the crowd is not one of them. Theology is what you see in the rearview mirror. While everything else is racing in hot pursuit of the crucial topics, theology has a hard time keeping up. The old boiler is steeming, the engine is coughing … but don’t kid yourself. Among the Porsches and Ferraris of today’s scene, theology simply puts on the parking brake. Read the rest of this entry »

Good Sex, Bad Sex: What Is Permissible for Christians?

Monday, May 24th, 2010 by Wolfgang Vondey

Sex has a bad reputation these days in Christian circles. No wonder, with a church plagued by sex scandals, pornography, soaring divorce rates, teen pregnancies, and increasing social pressures, one might almost be tempted to reject sex as inherently evil–the hissing snake destroying the harmony of the garden of Eden, the rotten fruit in a life of bliss that opened human eyes to each other’s nakedness. In response, the answers are often sought in a life of abstinence and celibacy.  But sex in itself is not bad. The tempter in the garden did not introduce sex to humankind but the knowledge of good and evil. And as the story shows, both dimensions apply immediately to human sexuality.

The apostle Paul offers some advice in 1 Cor. 10:23-33 on discerning the good or evil in the context of eating meat bought in the market place. The options are either that no such meat should be eaten, since it may have been from a sacrifice made to idols, or that all meat can be eaten, since the manner of its use is of no significance. In response, Paul provides an important answer: meat itself is neither good not bad; what matters is the manner in which we engage it in relation to our neighbor! “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God” (v. 31). In using this analogy, I am deliberately reducing human sexuality to the idea of the flesh—-at least for a moment. As far as our bodies are concerned, no part of our flesh is bad. We are at liberty to have sex as long as it is for the glory of God. Read the rest of this entry »

Extra-marital Sex: Marriage’s Greatest Enemy

Monday, May 10th, 2010 by Wolfgang Vondey

Sex outside of marriage is a common form of sexual behavior. Masturbation and pornography are two forms of extra-marital sex I have discussed in previous posts. Both of these forms of sex focus primarily on oneself. A more significant form of this kind behavior is the actual sexual activity with another person that is not one’s spouse. Among these activities, pre-marital sex doubtlessly ranks highest, while extra-marital sex with another person by those who are already married is no less a concern. Extra-marital sex is sex outside of marriage, but it has everything to do with marriage. In fact, extra-marital sex is marriage’s greatest enemy.

As I have outlined in previous posts, the importance of Christian discourse about sex is that we bring God into the debate. Extra-marital sex is no exception. Sex outside of marriage is sex for the sake of sex. Its primary scope is physical, its duration temporary, its goal the fulfillment of one’s own desires. Extra-marital sex distorts the image of marriage. Its widespread practice has undermined the public idea of marriage to the extent that one might think marriage had nothing to do with sex. Stand-up comedy portrays marriage as the problem of sex. The laughter of the audience betrays that many people find truth in that caricature. Unwittingly the comedy act betrays that everyone is in on the joke; it is confirmed by their own experiences. Marriage is not sex, but it has everything to do with sex. In fact, sex within marriage is marriage’s greatest ally.

Sex outside of marriage separates the idea and the act of sex from the idea and practice of marriage. Reduced to a self-rewarding, physical act, it is discovered that sex works—without marriage. The powerful idea that sustains sex outside of marriage is the actual lack of any idea of marriage. Pre-marital sex, often seen as a testing ground for the “real” life of marriage, actually becomes a counter-practice that contradicts marriage. Extra-marital affairs, sometimes seen as an escape from married life, are more than that: they destroy marriage. More precisely, sex outside of marriage destroys the purpose of sex.

As Christians, we have to find the purpose of sex in the human relationship with God. Even in Christian families, sex is often reduced to the human spouses. The good or the bad of married sex are directly related to the good or the bad of husband and wife. What is missing in many Christian bedrooms is an understanding of marriage that is not consumed by the human persons. Augustine’s classical theory of love may again be helpful here: “Now love means someone loving and something loved with love. There you are with three, the lover, what is being loved, and love” (On the Trinity, VIII, 14). We may adapt this idea and speak of three things in marriage: husband, wife, and marriage itself. It is the latter that marks the purpose of husband and wife. All things are directed not only toward the spouses but towards the marriage. To put it bluntly, marriage is the purpose of sex.

This definition of the purpose of sex requires a thorough dealing with the Christian image of marriage. A simplistic idea of marriage as an end in itself must be avoided. A biblical image of marriage includes the union of husband and wife, physically and spiritually; it includes a covenantal relationship between the spouses ordained by God. It includes the importance of intimacy and the joy of the consummation of the physical and spiritual union in the sexual act, not to mention the possibility of the procreation of another human being as a result of the openness and commitment of husband and wife to become father and mother. In short, marriage involves a commitment to the other person because of and beyond the reality of sex. Put differently, sex is a significant part of marriage but it does not exhaust marriage. Marriage is everything that sex cannot be. Marriage is what allows us to bring God into the bedroom.

In Augustine’s view, love is the Holy Spirit. It is a gift of God in which God gives of himself. The biblical view of marital love shows clearly that it is intimately connected with sex. And yet, we hesitate to call sex a gift from God. More importantly, it is not a gift that God simply left on our doorsteps, anonymously. In the gift, God is still present. It is forever God’s gift. The separation of love and sex in extra-marital behavior is itself an act of separation, and it carries this separation into marriage. Whether due to shame, guilt, ignorance, or willful repression, the married couples who engage(d) in extra-marital sex are separating themselves from God and from each other.

What do we have to say about this in our churches and academies? What do we say to the large group of singles? How do we bring healing and restoration to marriages that suffer as a result of extra-marital sex? How do we bring God back into the bedroom?

Masturbation…It’s a Christian Problem

Monday, May 3rd, 2010 by Wolfgang Vondey

Woody Allen once said that masturbation is like having “sex with someone I love.” The statement was made about the same time the Catholic Church restated its views on masturbation in its Declaration on Certain Questions concerning Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana, 1975). Briefly put, one might say that the Church’s teaching directly opposes that of Woody Allen. In a nutshell I would paraphrase the Declaration to say that masturbation is like sex with someone I learn to hate.

I was confronted with the drastic difference between these views at a time when masturbation was discussed as a form of “autoeroticism” or “self-satisfaction” in my high school biology classes. Make no mistake, neither Woody Allen nor the Church were ever discussed. In fact, no moral judgment was made at all. All sexual activity was discussed strictly under the idea of gaining understanding of the functioning of the human body. Surprisingly, the entire project addressed only the physical organs. At no time did we talk about the operation of the human mind, the imagination, love, hate, or desire. Don’t even think about bringing God into the discussion.

Allen was right when he brought love into the discussion of sexual activities. So did the Catholic Church. Love, correctly understood, is the proper context for all sexual activity even though, as C. S. Lewis reminds us in The Four Loves, sexual experience can occur without love. In the case of masturbation, Allen’s statement exhibits a particular kind of love that is perhaps best characterized as make-believe. It is shaped by two misconceptions: first, that love of self is an acceptable context for sex, and second, that sex is a sufficient manifestation of love. I say “sufficient” here, because sex, in the right context, is a manifestation of love, but it is not a complete manifestation. Sex alone always remains an incomplete manifestation of love. Thus, just as problematic as Allen’s statement is the popular euphemism for sex as “making love.” The question of masturbation finds its most potent implications in our understanding of love and its proper context.

In the history of Christian thought, Augustine offers a classic description of love when he states that love is not love unless you love someone (On the Trinity, VIII, 12). The point being: someone other than yourself! Love of oneself is seen as imperfect and ultimately unacceptable as an image for God. God, who is love (1 John 4:8), cannot exist only in his love for himself. Augustine here paints a picture of love as relational and as requiring a relationship with someone other than ourselves. In this sense, masturbation is a celebration of one’s own love of self. One is satisfied with oneself and content with one’s own love. For a Christian, nothing could be further from the truth.

The biblical Scriptures show that it is important to love yourself, since we are to love others in the same manner we love ourselves (see Lev 19:18 and its frequent use in the New Testament). Yet, this love is not a simple one-on-one relationship. the love of a Christian is not a simple line from one person to the other. Rather, it is always a triangular desire. It is only in the fact that God is love that human beings can also understand and direct their own love for themselves and for others. We love because God first loved us. For Christians, therefore, masturbation is fundamentally a theological concern about the right ordering of desire.

Masturbation presents the Christian with a theological dilemma: how to reconcile love of self and love of God in the sexual activity of the human person. One alternative is to shut God out of the picture. As I have stated previously, we keep God out of the bedroom. Theology does not engage sexuality. The other alternative is to excuse our actions in one form or another (“God does not care” or “This does not affect my salvation”). In any case, we suppress God. More precisely, we suppress our love for God. And by the same token, we suppress our love for ourselves and for others. The Catholic Declaration emphasized this point when it rejected psychological and sociological factors as the sole explanatory powers for accepting or rejecting masturbation. The problems of masturbation as a habitual practice lie deeper. Christians who continually practice masturbation find themselves in the way of their own love for God and others. Masturbation becomes a form of self-gratification when no such gratification seems warranted. Studies show that the frequent response to this insight is guilt and often the resolve to discontinue one’s practice. As it has become habitual, however, many Christians find themselves caught in a loop between masturbation, guilt, and resolve. In this loop they learn to love themselves less and less. Masturbation becomes sex with someone we hate.

How do we respond to this problem? It is precarious to discuss this aspect, since there seem to be only two sides in the issue: those who practice masturbation and those who do not, and few want to locate themselves squarely on the first side. If recent studies are correct, then masturbation continues to be the most prevalent form of sex. Period. If I am correct that masturbation is ultimately a theological problem, then we are justified in saying that masturbation is one of the most significant theological problems of our time. Were do we start to find a solution? Who should be engaged in the process? What does it take to overcome the problem? And what exactly do we see as the end result?