Another Response to Boyd's book - Paul Copan

I posted this caution last time I posted a review article on Cross Vision, and I'll post it again:

Caution: Don't read the the following articles if you aren't ready yet for a broad, sweeping overview of the entirety of the book!

For those of you who are ready to go there, the following is a link to a critical review by Paul Copan of Greg Boyd's book Cross Vision: Greg Boyd's Misunderstandings of the 'Warrior God'

Paul Copan is professor and Pledger Family Chair of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Florida. He is the author of many books, including Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, Did God Really Command Genocide?: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (with Matt Flannagan), and The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas: Paul’s Mars Hill Experience for Our Pluralistic World (with Kenneth Litwak). (bio from The Gospel Coalition)

Boyd has written several responses to specific points in Paul Copan's article. Those responses can be found here: http://reknew.org/tag/paul-copan/

Turning the Tables Sermon Series by Boyd

If you've blown through the sermon series' that have already been posted and you're wanting more, I found this one addressing the seemingly violent actions of Jesus: Turning the Tables.

Here's a description of the series, according to the Woodland Hills site:

We believe God is wholly love and completely non-violent, and that we are called to exemplify this love. Despite this, many of Jesus’ words and actions in the New Testament seem violent. And over the centuries, people have used these passages to justify their own violence. In “Turning the Tables,” we will examine these portrayals of Jesus to understand them better. By doing so we hope to build a deeper trust in God’s love, and also use them as a launching point to examine the violence in our own lives.

Views on Judgment and Atonement

If you're looking for some extra-curricular reading after reading Chapter 9 of Cross Vision, which deals primarily with judgment and atonement, I recommend the following:

The Cristus Victor View of Atonement by Greg Boyd
This article expands on the Cristus Victor view of atonement referenced by Boyd in Chapter 9. 

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized by Stephen D.Morrison
This is a nice summary of the views on atonement throughout church history.

On having the right answers...

The journey through Greg Boyd's book Cross Vision has touched on nearly every major tenet of Christian faith and theology - scripture, holiness, free will, sovereignty, trinity, relationship, evil, and love. (And we're only halfway through!) Because it has disrupted some of my own thoughts on theology, I went looking for some writings on theological study, the pursuit of doctrine, and the need for having the "right" set of beliefs. One of the things I, personally, have taken comfort in is the fact that so many Old Testament characters are referenced in the New Testament as people of faith and are clearly included in God's community, despite having so very many things wrong. Meaning, I, too, can get things wrong and still be within the grace of God. This is so simple...and, yet, many of us have a great deal of concern about getting it wrong. I started wondering about the history of that concern. Why are we so fearful? And how can we respond to that fear?

So, if you'll bear with me, I'll take you on the journey of what I've found today.

Somewhat surprisingly (or maybe not), there is a great deal of support for some of Boyd's positions in this insightful and informative article by David W. Congdon and W. Travis McMaken in Christianity Today: Ten Reasons Why Theology Matters:

Appeals to this or that text have been used over the years to justify any number of ethical positions, from slavery and apartheid to the subjugation of women and anti-Semitic pogroms. Furthermore, all the so-called “heretics” in Christian history knew their Bible very well and could find ample support for their positions within its pages. 

In order to address this problem, the church from the outset developed two rules of interpretation: the “rule of faith” and the “rule of love.” The rule of love stipulates that one must read Scripture in a way that promotes the love of God and neighbor, and the rule of faith offers the church’s shared theological affirmations as a similar guide for reading. Jesus Christ stands behind each of these rules...

In other words, scripture is somewhat difficult to interpret and can be used in support of all manner of evil and heresy. Therefore, we need a standard for interpreting scripture, and that standard is Jesus. (Sound familiar?) Furthermore, in reference to the fervent defense of traditional doctrine, the authors state:

If the Word of God is indeed “living and active” (Heb. 4:12), then a militant defense of the past can result in the silencing of God in the present. Those who follow such a living God must also be on the move, bearing dynamic witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ in our own place and time.

Wow. I really want to sit with that scripture for a while because I believe it has some of the key to unlocking the question of how we understand scripture and what scripture really is. I won't pretend to offer answers, but I do think Hebrews 4:12 is worth sitting with for a while.

Finally, I found the following statement uplifting and refreshing in the midst of the complexity of this study:

The journey of Christian discipleship is a matter of learning why we believe, and thinking hard and carefully about this belief, not so that we can bludgeon others with our knowledge but so that we can bear faithful witness to God in the totality of our life.

Theology is less about the what and much more about the how. We are called as Christians not to sign up to a certain doctrinal statement but to follow a certain way of life.

Please, go read the whole article! I appreciated every word of it!

Next, I read A Dangerous Trend in the Churches of Christ by Jack Wilkie at Focus Press directly addressing the issue of "rightness" in Christianity. In this article Wilkie quotes Tom Keller saying,

Idolatry functions widely inside religious communities when doctrinal truth is elevated to the position of a false god. This occurs when people rely on the rightness of their doctrine for their standing with God rather than on God himself and his grace.

Wilkie points out that focusing on rightness and the finer points of doctrine, "de-emphasizes Jesus" and leads to either pride or fear or both. Wilkie says that, "When our sermons, classes, and articles constantly emphasize our role in salvation, the things that make us different, and what others have wrong," we become prideful and we lose sight of Jesus.

On the other hand, there are those who are trained in the “rightness” doctrine who constantly question their standing. They realize that if they’re relying on their rightness, they had better not have a blind spot or a misunderstanding when they die. ...

The Bible tells us very clearly that those who seek will find (Matthew 7:7-8) and that we can know that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13). That inability to feel confident that’s caused by an over-emphasis on rightness isn’t how God wants us to live. What does that say to outsiders about His love and grace if even the most faithful Christians can’t be sure?

It has already come up in our group discussions a few times that there's something about this opening up of doctrine that makes us take a look at the way we judge other others, and Wilkie addresses the ways in which "rightness" doctrine leads to condescension and unfriendliness. He closes his article with words that sound very much like the refrain we've been hearing from Boyd,

It’s time we turn the spotlight away from where we’re right and others are wrong, and put it back on the cross.

Although the focus is different, the conclusion is the same. We need to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus...both to understand God rightly and to love our neighbors, as Jesus taught.

We've also mentioned a few times now, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, as a framework for studying theology, which affirms 4 components of Christian theology: (1) Scripture, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) experience. For those of us who grew up in a "sola scriptura" tradition, this shifts our perspective a bit. It is helpful for me, at least, to know that sola scriptura is only one among many traditions.

It can also be helpful to know that the sola scriptura tradition may be the one that is giving us some sticking points as we work our way through Boyd's book. (I don't mean for that to have either positive or negative connotations...just that this may inform where we agree, disagree or change as we read through Boyd's book.) Gotquestions.org has a reasonable description of sola scriptura:

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. 

In other words, sola scriptura is what set the protestants apart from the catholics. This may explain why so many of us come from traditions that are reluctant to allow for "interpretation" of scripture through the lens of culture. Sola scriptura was a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction of "tradition only" held by the Catholic church of the time. It makes sense, then, that we've all heard the position of sola scriptura:

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.

The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

 Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible.

I don't have any commentary on this, except to say that I think this is close to the tradition most of us grew up with, and it might help us to articulate some thoughts on scripture and how our thoughts on scripture may inform our reading and/or change over the course of reading.

I apologize if this post doesn't flow nicely. I wanted to offer some thoughts and resources...maybe send some of you down some other rabbit trails to inform the study. Thank you ALL for all your thoughtful discussion and commitment to digging deeper!

A review & response to Boyd's Book, Cross Vision

Caution: Don't read the the following articles if you aren't ready yet for a broad, sweeping overview of the entirety of the book! 

For those of you who are ready to go there, the following is a link to a review (criticism?)by Collin Cornell of Greg Boyd's book Cross Vision: Are Greg Boyd and I Reading the Same Old Testament? Cornell is PhD candidate at Emory University, and an assistance professor of Old Testament. He wrote his dissertation on "Divine Aggression in Royal Psalms and Inscriptions."

Greg Boyd published a response to Cornell's review here: A Response to "Are Greg Boyd and I Reading the Same Old Testament?"

Sermon Series - Cross Centered

Pat Clark send out a link a while ago to another sermon series by Greg Boyd that might help to shed some more light on the Cross Vision Study.

This series is called Cross Centered, and you can find it here: https://whchurch.org/sermon_series/cross-centered/

Sermon Series - Glimpses of Truth

Joanna just sent this out in email, but I wanted to share it here:

Here is the link to the sermon series Greg Boyd did on this topic if you want to supplement your reading.

Glimpses-Of-Truth, Woodland Hills Sermon Series

There is an extended sermon summary for each of Greg's sermon's in this series written by a teaching intern at Woodland Hills. These summaries are filled with good questions to ponder and a sermon recap that helps outline the topic. If you click on and open a specific sermon, midway down on the page, after the sermon description is a link to an extended summary (example: https://whchurch.org/sermon/is-god-angry/#!)

Joanna

Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence

What's brewing at Morning Blend? 

Starting January 10th, 2018 we will begin reading Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence by Greg Boyd. We'll be taking this book at the slow pace of one chapter a week until the end of our study year in June. 

From the Fortress Press website:

Renowned pastor-theologian Gregory A. Boyd tackles the Bible’s biggest dilemma.
The Old Testament God of wrath and violence versus the New Testament God of love and peace—it’s a difference that has troubled Christians since the first century. Now, with the sensitivity of a pastor and the intellect of a theologian, Gregory A. Boyd proposes the “cruciform hermeneutic,” a way to read the Old Testament portraits of God through the lens of Jesus’s crucifixion.

In Cross Vision, Boyd follows up on his epic and groundbreaking study, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God. He shows how the death and resurrection of Jesus reframes the troubling violence of the Old Testament, how all of Scripture reveals God’s self-sacrificial love, and, most importantly, how we can follow Jesus’s example of peace.

Perspectives on the story of Job

I am not inclined to offer commentary on the following articles, but I do want to offer some perspectives from familiar voices (Rachel Held-Evans, Greg Boyd, Nadia Bolz-Weber) on the story of Job and the problem of pain/evil. If you have some time this week, these articles may inform your thoughts on this week's study.

Rachel Held-Evans wrote a blog post in 2013 called "The abusive theology of deserved tragedy..." In this post she tackles the particular evangelical response to suffering that declares, "Bad things happen because God is angry. This is God’ judgment on undeserving, sinful people. Repent. We brought this on ourselves." In her words,

This theology is, in a word, abusive, for it blames the victim for whatever calamity, abuse, or tragedy she suffers and says it is deserved.

And:

...the story of Job stands as an ancient indictment on those who would respond to tragedy by blaming the victim. That’s exactly what Job’s friends did, and the text is not kind to them for it, because Job is described as "blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil."

Greg Boyd gets into the particulars of the story of Job in his article The Point of the Book of Job. (It's a detailed article and worthy of a careful reading!) Boyd expresses a similar sentiment to Rachel Held-Evans here:

Sounding remarkably like many Christians today when they confront people in pain, and illustrating perfectly the complaint that satan originally raised against God, his friends insist that since God is perfectly just, Job must deserve what God is dishing out to him.

But also...

This is not to say that everything Job's friends say about God is incorrect. This book is far too subtle to paint everything in either-or terms. It artfully paints a thoroughly ambiguous picture of the cosmos...

In another article, Boyd responds to The 35W Bridge Collapse and the Book of Job. Here he draws our attention to how closely related the problem of evil/pain is to the question of free will/predestination:

If God was controlling everything, then there obviously would be no point for God to bring up the unfathomable complexity of creation or his warfare against powers of chaos. If God is controlling everything, such matters are utterly irrelevant.

Instead,

God’s appeal to the complexity and war-torn nature of the cosmos is significant precisely because it shows that God is not an omni-controlling deity, and that because we humans have next to no understanding of this complexity or the spiritual battles that engulf it, we should not be quick to attribute catastrophes to God.

Nadia Bolz-Weber, perhaps not surprisingly, suggests that perhaps we're not asking the right questions at all in response to the story of Job (from an interview with Religion and Politics).

This is what we see at the end of Job. Throughout Job there’s basically what we call theodicy: If God’s all good, why are we suffering? And Job’s friends end up going, “Well, either you did something wrong, you know, you’re bad and God’s good, and that’s why you’re being punished, or you’re good and God’s bad, and that’s why.” You know, there are just really simple categories. It’s either black, or it’s white...

We like black and white, dualistic categories, and we love nothing more than to project those onto God...

We’ve been struggling with this sort of dualistic thinking since the very beginning. You know what’s really weird? To be human and God. It kind of has to be either-or, right? No, it’s queer. It’s like being sinner and saint. Like Martin Luther said, imul justus et peccator. We’re 100 percent of both all the time.

And here's where I'll insert just a few of my own thoughts. One of the things that has guided me in my studies of theology, especially when it comes to questions of evil and suffering in the world, is the idea that if I find myself faced with an idea about God that is just too horrific to believe, it's actually ok to not believe it. Instead, I believe that there's something that I'm not understanding. There's a truth or a mystery that is beyond my grasp. But it simply does not make sense to believe evil of God. Rachel Held-Evan says it this way (in her article The Scandal of the Evangelical Heart):

It’s not enough for me to maintain my intellectual integrity as a Christian; I also want to maintain my emotional integrity as a Christian. And I don’t need answers to all of my questions to do that. I need only the courage to be honest about my questions and doubts, and the patience to keep exploring and trusting in spite of them.

*****************
For more of Greg Boyd's thoughts on Job, listen to his sermon here: Twisted Scripture: The Book of Job.

Sounding remarkably like many Christians today when they confront people in pain, and illustrating perfectly the complaint the satan originally raised against God, his friends insist that since God is perfectly just, Job must deserve what God is dishing out to him. - See more at: http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-point-of-the-book-of-job/#sthash.7eVHmz2Q.dpu

Sounding remarkably like many Christians today when they confront people in pain, and illustrating perfectly the complaint the satan originally raised against God, his friends insist that since God is perfectly just, Job must deserve what God is dishing out to him. - See more at: http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-point-of-the-book-of-job/#sthash.7eVHmz2Q.dpuf