Jun

30

Theologica’s where it’s at. (New blog ‘The Ethereal Muse’)

June 30, 2008 | 1 Comment

Posted by ben hind · Filed Under Plugs 

I have just begun a new blog over at Theologica called ‘The Ethereal Muse‘ (has a ring to it don’t you think?). This is mainly due to the popularity of Theologica, which is mainly due to the fact that it’s such a fantastic idea, which is mainly due to the brilliant mind of Michael Patton. So it looks as though The Ethereal Muse is going to be my main one until I decide what I’m going to do with the Submerging Influence. So don’t hesitate to get signed up at Theologica and give it a read. Thanks for everyones support here at the Submerging Influence the past few months.

- Ben

Jun

25

Jesus: the radical Messiah - The suffering servant

June 25, 2008 | 3 Comments

Posted by ben hind · Filed Under Christology, Theology 

Having talked about the Jewish expectations of the Messiah, it is clear why Jesus life and teachings were so radical in His day.

Jesus managed to gain a lot of attention from who He liked to hang around with. Sinners, gentiles, prostitutes, tax collectors, the sick and unclean who were forbidden to enter the temple. Not only was He breaking taboo by doing all this, it seems to go against what the Messiah was supposed to do. The Messiah was supposed to destroy the wicked… not invite them to dinner! And instead of judging the world it seems He prefers to show mercy. The woman caught in adultery by Jewish law was to be stoned to death. But instead of being her judge, Jesus opts for being her defense. You can see why John writes in His gospel ‘For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (Messiah)’.

Another bizarre action by Jesus is how He serves others. The disciples seem puzzled when Jesus gets on His hands and knees with a bowl and towel and starts washing their feet. Surely His disciples were to serve Jesus, not the other way round? After all wasn’t the Messiah to be King, the very person you wouldn’t expect serving someone else? But Jesus insists on turning everything on its head. For He says, ‘I have not come to be served, but to serve.’ Is this ‘Jesus the servant’? Whatever happened to ‘Jesus the Messiah’?

Jesus teachings sound even more radical when put in their historical context. ‘Love your enemies’, ‘do good to those who persecute you’, ‘if someone hits you, give them the other cheek as-well’. These don’t sound like war cries; something you might have expected to hear from a Messiah. Jesus does not call for the liberation of Israel by Roman occupation; but for peace. To tell a group of Jews living in first-century Israel to ‘love your enemies’ was to love the very people who had just taken over your country.

The radical love that Jesus called for can be seen in His own ‘cheek-turning’ at His crucifixion. Far from calling down fire and brimstone on the Romans (which He could have done), some of His last words were ‘Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they’re doing’. He even promises paradise to the thief next to Him on the cross (far from administrating justice it seems He opts for grace and mercy again). But even more striking is who He’s dying for; the very people who are crucifying Him! And not only them, but for the sins of the whole world. Far from conquering it, He instead dies to make peace between the world and God.

Jesus is not just a saintly figure who did some ‘nice things’ for people. But someone who from the beginning not only claimed to be Messiah (though I haven’t discussed that yet), but who went against all traditional views of what the Messiah would be like. Instead of judgement there is mercy. Instead of war there is peace. Instead of vengeance and justice there is grace and forgiveness. Jesus was and is the radical Messiah.

Part three coming up…

Jun

24

Jesus: the radical Messiah - Jewish ideals

June 24, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Posted by ben hind · Filed Under Christology, Theology 

Wikipedia article on ‘Messiah’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

Many Jewish leaders throughout history have claimed to be the Messiah (click here for quite a long list). Most notably Simon bar Kokhba (here), who lead a revolt against the Roman occupation of Israel in 132AD. Which by some twist of fate succeeded, becoming it’s prince. And ruled for 3 years… before being dethroned 2 years later. But none quite like Jesus.

The main belief among Jews, especially during the time of Jesus, was that the Messiah was to be the King of Israel (Messiah meaning ‘anointed one’, as Jewish kings were anointed with oil at their coronation). A King of Davidic descent to be exact. Who would come to rule from Jerusalem, overthrow the Roman rule over Israel, judge the world, and bring about the ‘Messianic age’ of peace and prosperity. This would all be done, obviously, through force, violence and a lot of fighting. This doesn’t sound like the Jesus of the gospels.

Culminating in the gospels as Jesus walks towards Jerusalem, Jesus needs to break the news to His disciples. You can understand why the disciples didn’t understand Jesus speaking of His future death. But surely the Messiah was to be King, not crucified? And even in the garden as Peter draws his sword to cut a guards ear off (not a very good swordsman, obviously) you sense that the disciples still haven’t ‘got’ it yet. And neither has anyone else.

Just as Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey, fulfilling yet another Messianic prophecy (Zechariah 9:9), the crowds hail Him as King of the Jews. And King of the Jews He is, but not in the way they expect. The mood changes quickly as Jesus is arrested and taken before the Sanhedrin and Pilate to be judged. Quite the opposite of being the ‘judge of the world’, don’t you think? The one who was once hailed as the Messiah is given a crown of thorns, a mock purple robe, is bowed before in ridicule, and is sign posted ‘King of the Jews’ at His defeat.

You can understand why the disciples ran away afterwards, and why the Gentiles seemed far more ready to receive Jesus as Christ than Jews as Messiah. Jesus didn’t seem to fit the bill for the Jews of His day, or many Jews of this day for that matter. This all makes one wonder, what is Jesus trying to accomplish by all this? Was He not the promised Messiah that would restore Israel and judge the world? Why didn’t He take the opportunity to be King when He had so many who would willingly follow Him to battle?

To be continued…

Jun

23

‘The shack’ review

June 23, 2008 | 1 Comment

Posted by ben hind · Filed Under Books 

Warning: Spoilers abound.

Synopsis…
The main character, Mack, emerges from the first few pages as a deeply wounded individual struggling with life after the abuses of his father and the loss of his daughter at a camping trip. The middle aged man with loving wife and kids is one day shocked to find an anonymous letter in his mail box, asking him to come to ‘the shack’ for the weekend. The same shack he lost his daughter to a serial killer, finding her bloody dress there a few days after her abduction. What ensues is an ethereal meeting with God Himself (the Trinity to be exact), who wants to help Mack deal with his emotional struggles that are affecting his relationship with God.

Literarily speaking…
The book for me did not have the emotional impact that many have claimed it to have. I found a lot of it overly emotive, especially from Mack who seemed to be crying every other page. This didn’t help me think of the characters as being very believable. The setting itself also didn’t help, as the shack transformed from a run-down shanty to an ethereal cottage, and the Trinity took Mack on Alice in Wonderland adventures. In the end I felt as though the whole narrative and plot was simply a vehicle to get to the ‘meaty’ bits of the story where God would pronounce monumental statements and Mack would have epiphanies. Some of them good, others either completely odd or glaringly obvious after glancing at the bible for any length of time. In the end, though, I did get a sense that this book may have a huge appeal to certain readers, even if that reader isn’t myself. It’s use of plot as a vehicle to have God speak to and heal situations that a lot of readers face may well pay off and help a lot of people.

Theologically speaking…
The theology of ‘The shack’ is not my main concern, sorry. It just doesn’t strike me as a book that wants to teach people how to think properly about the nature of God or deal with biblical passages. The books main concern is to try and help people overcome emotional struggles they have in relating to God and problems people face when dealing with the death of loved ones and abusive parents. I don’t want to overlook the theology of ‘The shack’ though, as I certainly don’t commend it for it’s theological soundness. The main concern I have is its indirect claim to authority as it puts words in the mouth of God that I certainly don’t believe God would say. The author obviously would deny putting words in the mouth of God as the book is fiction. But to the uneducated lay person who wouldn’t be prepared to think critically about some of the positions put forward, it may lead some to uncritically accept everything it says. Especially because God seems to be saying it.

Recommend to…
I would recommend this book to anyone suffering the loss of a loved one, who has had bad experience with a parent or finds it hard to relate to God on any intimate level. These and many other issues are covered in the book and may help readers get a glimpse into how God wants to help and heal us.

Stay away…
If you’re looking for a deep theological tome this is not the book for you. You may be angry every few pages with it’s lack of systematized theology and bad/non-existent arguments for certain positions promoted by the book.

Jun

20

‘The Shack’ - Q&A

June 20, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Posted by ben hind · Filed Under Books 

Does the book promote universalism?
No. Jesus explains this very clearly that although people ‘come into a relationship with Him’ from every different religion, there isn’t many roads to God. As He says, ‘most roads lead nowhere’. But then again it’s a bit confusing as He says that He doesn’t want anyone to become Christians… but surely coming into a relationship with Him is what Christianity is about?

Does the book devalue Scripture?
The book doesn’t seem to devalue scripture, but put a different emphasis on how to read scripture. It shows contempt for reading the bible to try and follow a list of rules, regulations and principles it contains. But rather that we should be reading the bible to see how God relates to people and show us how we can better relate to Him. I think this is a false dilemma as I wouldn’t pick one over the other.

Does the book have a very negative view of Seminaries and the Church?
From my impression, yes. The main character, Mack, was said to have been to Seminary, but it didn’t seem to do much for him (if anything at all). I did sense that all the topics discussed in the book between God and Mack would have been brought up in Seminary with counsiderable more depth… but it seems Mack didn’t learn anything about God in Seminary. Odd. The church is mainly depicted as another religious institution which the author doesn’t seem to like one bit. Jesus says He didn’t come to setup a religion or an institution, but to get people back into relationship with God. I agree up to a point… but surely we shouldn’t be throwing the baby out with the bath water as what seems to be happening in the book.

Does the book distort or redefine the Trinity?
The book does a good job as explaining the Trinity as one God in three persons, and God has two natures human and divine. Very orthodox. But the hangup people have with it is where God the Father is an african-american woman, not an old white-skinned long-bearded man. The book explains that God is spirit and so does not have a gender, but that God chooses to use the term ‘he’ because it helps people relate to Him better. In this case, God the Father chooses to reveal Himself as a woman because Mack can’t relate to God as the ‘Father’ because of his bad past experience with his own father. It’s merely God personifying Himself to Mack, later He changes into an old man with a pony tail though. I can understand why, but I don’t think the bible gives us licence to relate to God in feminine terms.

Does the book have a very negative view of hierarchy, authority and political systems?
Yes! It cannot be stated more bluntly than that. God is shown to have a very negative view of any hierarchy, political system, or anything to do with someone having authority over someone else. Though God seems to be understanding as to why we have systems in place to ’survive’, He doesn’t like it. It doesn’t say God wants these systems to be over-thrown, but that through our relationship with God things will eventually change (?). In the system but not of the system. It seems to be promoting some sort of Christian-anarchy. I don’t whole-heartedly disagree with that, but I don’t think things are that simple.

Does the book deny sin and following Gods law?
It has firmly in place the fact that Jesus died for our sins, and so we do not face condemnation, or the need to feel guilty or ashamed. Which I’d agree with. But it doesn’t seem to give a very clear picture on how we go about avoiding sin in the first place. The major emphasis is on being in a loving relationship with God, without having to follow rules, laws, or even principles. I don’t know where I stand with this, it’s a bit of a grey area for me.

Is the book heresy, which could damage peoples faith?
I don’t think it is. At the end, it’s a novel… fiction. It is clear that the book contains the authors opinions on what God thinks about certain issues and how He wants to deal with problems people have. I don’t think you can take it as theology, but rather read it like you’d read any fiction. It may contain elements of truth, but in the end it is only the authors opinions. If you want to take issue with it to the point where you don’t think anyone should read it, then you should be consistent and not read anything apart from the bible. As everything has elements to it that can be false, whether we know it yet or not.

Did it change your life as many have claimed it might?
Actually, it didn’t. I found it very touchy-feely and already knew a lot of what the book talked about. This is probably because I don’t like fiction, but would rather like a good book on theology. I can see how it would help people who need to see God in a more intimate way who can identify with the guys problems. But it didn’t do a lot for me unfortunately.


FireStats icon Powered by FireStats