« February 2004 | Main | April 2004 »
March 13, 2004
Thankful for Being Offended
I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day about drinking alcoholic beverages. His reason against drinking them is in order to avoid offending another believer. Basically, he (and many others that I have talked to) uses the classic argument from Romans 14 in order to forbid certain practices that God does not. And I think the passage is useful in such situations as far as it goes. But without doing a complete exposition of the texts, I see some pretty large holes applying it the way that they do.
One of the problems I see is their understanding of the word "offend." Understandably, people understanding this term to mean the same as it does in the common vernacular. The most common usage of the word "offend," according to my dictionary is, "to cause displeasure, anger, resentment, or wounded feelings in." The second most common is "to be displeasing or disagreeable to." Importing this meaning into Romans 14, then, forbids causing any sort of displeasure, anger, etc. to a fellow believer by my behavior. Fortunately, the Biblical term means something different. It, rather, communicates the idea of placing a stumbling block before someone or causing someone to sin. Frankly, I am glad that I have had the privilege of being "offended," in the modern sense of the word. I have had the frequent experience of seeing or hearing of someone (usually whom I respect) doing some activity, and my reaction is one of displeasure and even anger or resentment. But those feelings have forced me to evaluate that behavior according to Scripture. And frequently I have discovered that indeed God does not forbid that activity. Consequently, letting go of the legalism of forbidding that which God does not (thus, being holier than God), I am sanctified. In the end, I am thankful for being offended.
Another problem that I see with this thinking is that it implies that weakness is almost commended. Paul's argument is not meant to encourage the weak man in his weakness. He is, after all, weak. In his forbidding, his conscience is not bound by God's law. This is not a good thing he is doing. I am not saying that we ought, therefore, to flaunt our liberty in front of the weak believer (that is forbidden). I am saying that it is not wrong to attempt to educate him (even at the risk of "offending" him--in the common sense).
I have also heard argued that our modern culture has corrupted certain practices, and so by their association with the culture, the practices (though not wrong of themselves) are inappropriate for believers. Besides the fact that this assumes an a priori negative view of culture, this thinking cannot be applied consistently. Applied consistently, it would forbid drinking alcoholic beverages because it is associated with drunkenness. It would also forbid marriage because it is associated with adultery and divorce. It would forbid politics because it is associated with lying (maybe that would actually be good!). It would forbid owning anything because that is associated with materialism. It would forbid many other legitimate functions because they have been corrupted by sin. Rather, Christians need to participate in these things in a distinctively Christian way. All the world is Christ's. We ought not call unclean what He does not.
Posted by jhyink at 09:55 PM | Comments (0)
March 05, 2004
A Plea for Charity
Tim Enloe, in his post called "Anymore, I Don't Get It," has given an empassioned plea for charity in spite of disagreement. Recently, I have been reading The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity by Philip Jenkins, and he speaks of Christianity as a demographic unit. Thus, he includes even those bodies like Nestorians and Monophysites, who have been declared as heretical. I have been forced to consider how I am related to such people. I have a background in churches that give the impression that they are the only bodies left who stand for the truth. Naturally, therefore, I assumed that other ecclesiatical bodies are not really churches, thus removing any obligation that I might have toward them. What Tim is promoting is a healthy ecumenism, a recognition that Christ's Church consists of more than just those of us who dot all our i's and cross all our t's correctly. Besides, assuming that Christ is currently sancitifying his Church, by washing her with the Word, what does that say about us when we find out that we have misplaced a dot (a jot or a tittle)? This is a very complex issue, and his has many implications. But I too echo Tim's plea for charity toward those within other theological and ecclesiatical traditions. We are Christ's Church.
Posted by jhyink at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)
March 02, 2004
Review of Foucault's Pendulum
Several weeks ago, I lent a friend of mine a copy of Through New Eyes, by James Jordan, a book which has totally revolutionized my perception of reality. After reading some of it he told me that it reminded him of Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco. He lent me his book, and I have just finished it. At first I was skeptical, but those who are familiar with Jordan's work will recognized why my friend made his observation. Here is a review I have written about it:
Trying to encapsulate Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum into one idea is as difficult as trying to explain the history of the world in one sentence. The story is about three editors of a publishing house who attempt to formulate (or, perhaps, discover) a grand, cosmic, and secret Plan by connecting known pieces of history together. And if my understanding of the book is correct, then I would contend that the underlying theme is precisely what those editors are doing: connecting. Early on, Causaubon, who tells the story, tells us, "It was also the day I began to let myself be lulled by feelings of resemblance: the notion that everything might be mysteriously related to everything else" (139). At another point, Belbo, another one of the editors says, "I have letters that offer revelations on the connections between Joan of Arc and the Sibylline Books, between Lilith the Talmudic demon and the hermaphroditic Great Mother, between the genetic code and the Martian alphabet, between the secret intelligence of plants, cosmology, psychoanalysis, and Marx and Nietzsche in the perspective of an new angelology, between the Golden Number and the Grand Canyon, Kant and occultism, the Eleusian mysteries and jazz, Cagliostro and atomic energy, homosexuality and gnosis, the golem and the class struggle" (230). And finally, Causaubon explains, "But whatever the rhythm was, luck rewarded us, because, wanting connections, we found connections—always, everywhere, and between everything. The world exploded into a whirling network of kinships, where everything pointed to everything else, everything explained everything else..."(384).
As the three editors compile their information (originally only for a book on the history of metals), they research as wide a range of subject matter as can be imagined. They spend hours (or for Eco, pages) explaining histories of the Templar Knights, Rosicrucians, Masons, Jesuits, and every other secret society and conspiracy theory imaginable. Because they are convinced that every fact is somehow connected with every other fact, they recruit help from a rather unlikely source to make connections: Belbo's computer, Abulafia. Explaining history by connecting facts begins as a game until they start taking their "discoveries" too seriously. The outcome of their efforts follows naturally from their efforts.
Although many readers have been dissatisfied by the slow pace of the book, Eco does a masterful job in making his own connections and observations from actual history. Without a doubt, such a masterpiece would be impossible without an encyclopedic grasp not only of the facts of history but also of its consequences. Several lessons may be appropriately learned from this great work as well. First and simply, we are reminded to be wary of every new idea that purports to explain what we see around us. Dozens of conspiracy theories and cults claim to offer the one explanation for what has happened and is happening in the history of the world. And there is no shortage of dupes who accept and follow such explanations. In Foucault's Pendulum even a computer program spitting out responses to men who are playing a game lead people astray. Theories are propounded still, which are deduced from equally silly methods. Second, all facts, historical, scientific, "religious," or otherwise, are indeed interrelated. All truth is derived from one Source. Eco misses the Foundation of all truth, the great Antitype of which all of reality is a type, a symbol, a metaphor. But the fact remains, all of what we observe is an expression not merely of God's arbitrary choices but of who He is.
As a side note, James Jordan has read at least some of Eco's work. In Sociology of the Church on page 140, he refers to Eco's most popular work, The Name of the Rose. He calls it a fascinating book. That one is now on my to-be-read list.
Posted by jhyink at 10:04 PM | Comments (0)