My Reconstruction Story, Part 2

If you came back after reading my last blog then first, let me thank you. It is not always an easy journey to walk along the path of someone else's passion. I tried really hard to make the pieces come together as well on paper as they do in my head. You will have to let me know how well you think I did, because this is another long post. 

Now that you're here, though, let me share a concept that has, in my opinion, led to the incredible impact of Christianity around the world and specifically in Western culture. It is something I've only recently learned about, but it is bringing clarity to issues I've been wrestling with for some time. It is Affective Theology. For the sake of time, I'm going to link to a blog that explains it in great detail, by someone who is (in my opinion) a modern expert on the subject. Ron Frost (who says he has graduated from being called Dr.) provides a very helpful explanation here. If you are more of an audiofile, you can listen to a fantastic interview here. 

Essentially, though, Affective Theology is looking at behavior as heart-driven, centered on a love relationship with the Triune God, rather than mind/will/intellect-drive, centered on the responsibility to the Creator. 

Closely tied to Affective Theology is Trinitarianism. If you're anything like me, then you will be wondering what I mean by that. You may be especially confused if you've spent a great deal of time in church or seminary, which I have. You see, I believe in the Trinity. But it's always been a bit of a conundrum that was too complex to really wrap my mind around, and it is. Fred Sanders, in his book The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything issues a prudent warning, "Trinitarian theology should never be an attempt to transgress the boundary marked by God's Word in Deuteronomy 29:29: 'The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us..." (p. 75). But, as I am learning in my current studies, it is an essential theological framework that really does change everything! 

Sanders isn't my favorite author on the subject, though. Michael Reeves is, with his book Delighting in the Trinity. It's not a long book, but it contains so much rich perspective and insight; it is changing how I look at and think about God, in beautiful ways. 

First, Reeves says "Yes, the Trinity can be presented as a fussy and irrelevant dogma, but the truth is that God is love because God is a Trinity" (from the Introduction, p. 9). So much of Reeves introduction described me, it was challenging. I could completely relate to his statement on page 11, that "[f]or all that we may give an orthodox nod of the head to belief in the Trinity, it is simply too arcane to make any practical difference in our lives." That is pretty much what I thought. Except the Trinity has is key to an affective theological perspective! 

That is a strong statement, but I do not believe it is overstated, honestly, especially as we wrestle with questions of justice. And the reason centers on relationship. In fact, Reeves explains the Trinity in terms of relationship. 

God is a mystery in that who he is and what he is like are secrets, thing we would never have worked out by ourselves. But this triune God has revealed himself to us. Thus the Trinity is not some piece of inexplicable apparent nonsense... Rather, because the triune God has revealed himself, we can understand the Trinity. That is not to say we can exhaust our knowledge of God, comprehend and wrap our brains around him... To know the Trinity is to know God, an eternal and personal God of infinite beauty, interest and fascination. The Trinity is a God we can know, and forever grow to know better (p. 12). 

Reeves goes on to explain the Trinity, in the context of relationship. "...just the fact that Jesus is "the Son" really says it all. Being a Son means he has a Father. The God he reveals is, first and foremost, a Father" (p. 21). According to Reeves, "The most foundational thing in God is not some abstract quality, but the fact that he is Father" (p. 23). It would be so easy to share quote after quote from Reeves' book, but, that won't really accomplish my ultimate purpose, which is to share what difference this understanding about the Trinity makes anyway. So, let me sum up (and this is not original to me, but I don't remember who said it); at the center of the Universe is a Relationship! 

Circling back to topics I've mentioned before, let me review some key definitions which have for me, in light of this understanding, taken on tremendous new significance. 

First, let's talk about justice. What is justice, in a biblical sense. Tim Keller, in his book Generous Justice, does a fantastic job laying it out. Though going into great detail won't be worthwhile (this video is fantastic), I want to touch on a key element. Tim Keller describes it this way, 

We must have a strong concern for the poor, but there is more to the Biblical idea of justice than that. We get more insight when we consider a second Hebrew word that can be trasnlated as 'being just,' though it is usually translated as 'being righteous.' The word is tzadeqah, and it refers to a life of right relationships (italics added)... in the Bible tzadeqah refers to day-to-day living in which a person conducts all relationships in family and society with fairness, generosity, and equity (p 10)... Primary justice, or tzadeqah, is behavior that, if it was prevalent in the world, would render rectifying justice unnecessary, because everyone would be living in right relationship with everyone else (p.11). 

If, at the center of the universe is a relationship, and if, in essence, we are invited to be part of that relationship, and justice is about right relationships, then the Trinity is essential, to justice, to fighting poverty, to ending injustice, to everything!

We looked at justice. Now let's look at poverty. How do we usually define poverty? The functional definition in the US, and even within the developed world, is based on material assets and measured by how much someone does or does not have. Brian Fikkert, co-author of When Helping Hurts, presents a much different perspective, here. It's very short and well worth watching. Fikkert expresses, very poignantly, what Bryant Myers writes in his seminal book Walking with the Poor. He says that poverty is "the absence of shalom in all of its meaning" characterized by broken and unjust relationships (p. 146). That is very similar to a report from the World Bank titled "Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us?" Yet, in the social justice conversation here in the US, what are we looking at, arguing about, and trying to fix? Ultimately, poverty, but we have the definition wrong! 

With a faulty definition of poverty and justice, our efforts to correct the symptoms of the "broken and unjust" relationships that characterize poverty, rather than addressing the root issue. Economic injustice is corrected by redistributing income. Racial injustice is seen through a primarily economic lens, especially as talk of reparations increases. We see inherited wealth and homeownership as keys to changing current dynamics, without recognizing that social justice programs since the 1960s have not effectively improved the situation for any of the groups who have "benefited" and have, in fact, led to the deterioration of the Black family unit. This documentary, featuring Milton Friedman, is old, but it presents a very insightful perspective on the realities of the help people receive from current social programs. 

At this point, it is also important to talk about shalom. This video from the Bible Project helps paint a picture of what shalom is, but when you think about Myers' definition of poverty, how do the two fit together? That's where the beauty of the Trinity really shines through. This is, I hope, where I can connect things together and help explain my heart, my journey, and the beauty of what God has constructed in place of the bad theological framework I'd built. 

Poverty is, in essence, the absence of shalom or wholeness in a relationship. It allows for injustice to occur, whether through lying, cheating, manipulation, exploitation, or some other expression of broken or unjust relationships. 

Justice is, in essence, restoring shalom, through (as Tim Keller puts it) fostering an environment or culture where everyone is living in right relationship with everyone else. Arguably, this kind of relationship is what we have come to see as "moral," "civil," or "just" behavior. 

The Trinity is the picture of shalom, and in the Gospels we are invited to be part of that perfect, whole, complete relationship (let me be clear, though, that we neither diminish nor add anything to the relationship of the Godhead by our addition or absence, because God is not dependent on us). Through the power of the Holy Spirit, we have the ability to live supernatural lives (based on the second and third chapters of Paul's letter to the Corinthian believers) and demonstrate the Fruit of the Spirit, which includes behaviors such as kindness, goodness, and gentleness, all of which are highly valued, but increasingly rare in our current culture. 

Finally, and I think confusion over this is a huge factor in the deconstruction of faith for so many, I believe the root of our recognition of human value in Western culture, and the foundation of current international human rights law, is rooted in Jesus' statement in Matthew 22. He said that loving God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself fulfills all the Law and the Prophets. I am arguing that, to treat your neighbor as yourself, you have to recognize the humanity of your neighbor!  Without a biblical foundation for human value, layered on the bedrock concept of imago Dei, there is no explanation for human value!

David Stamos, in his book The Myth of Universal Human Rights, says, "a creationist foundation for universal human rights lacks intellectual respectability" (p. 29). He also says that "Talking about human rights as if they actually exist, as objective properties of human beings, is the majority view among believers in human rights" (p. 2). He continues, "One often finds... in discussions on human rights, not only that all humans have human rights and have them equally, but that human rights are the rights that one has 'simply' because one is human..." (p. 31), a claim that is, according to Stamos, "fundamentally arbitrary" (p. 31, italics added). 

Since, according to Stamos, "human is a species term and there is no consensus in biology on what a species is... depending on how one devines 'species,' there are currently in existence upwards of 30 million species on Earth. Why would humans and only humans have those special rights called 'human rights'?" (p. 31). 

Yes, I realize that talking about human rights and inherent worth is different. But, Stamos' view sets the stage for the work David Livingstone Smith is doing on the topic of human value. His book Less Than Human, publisehd in 2011, asks an intersting question, "What does it mean to think of someone as a human being, and what is it, exactly, that dehumanized people are supposed to lack?" His answer is revealing... 

Thinking of someone as a human being is thinking of that person as a being with human essence: an imaginary 'something' that all humans are supposed to posses, and which makes them human. A dehumanized person is thought to lack this essence" (p. 263). 

I suggest that the "human essence: an imaginary 'something' that all humans are supposed to possess, and which makes them human" (p. 263) is the image of God or the imago Dei. 

As God's image bearers, we have intrinsic value, and when we treat our neighbors as less than ourselves, we are denying the essence of their humanity. 

Yet, how many people, in church, who identify as evangelical, do exactly that? 

Yes, I know. We have to have standards. We have to provide appropriate accountability. Yes... I know. And yet, even in providing accountability and in having standards, can we do so in a way that recognizes inherent value, even of people who fail to meet our standards of performance? I would argue YES! We can. And we must, especially people who claim to represent Christ! 

I would say, at the root of my deconstruction journey, I didn't understand God's character. I had bad theology. As a result of my bad theology, I had unrealistic expectations for what God would do or how He would operate. That was on me. 

As I have studied justice, though, and as I have wrestled with what the Great Commission really means (since it is, after all, the reason for doing what I do), I am appalled by the behavior of people inside the church! And I think, to a large degree, the people who are deconstructing their faith are wrestling with that inconsistency. At least people I have spoken with are. We are not living up to our expressed ideals. We are, in essence, hypocrites. My question, of late, has been why? Why are we not living the way we talk about, sing about, preach about, and judge others for? I think it is because of bad theology... we don't understand the character of God!

Some would argue (Ron Frost among them) that part of the problem traces back to the Puritans. Such a discussion is beyond the scope of this already long and convoluted journey. Suffice it to say that, according to Frost, Protestant faith practice can be divided into three basic "streams," Classical Theism, Augustinianism, and Mysticism. Very briefly, classical theism focuses on responsibility, Augustinianism focuses on relationship, and mysticism focuses on experience or ecstasy. For the purposes of trying to tie everything together, I'll just focus on Augustinianism, because of its focus on relationship. 

Let's review, quickly, the idea of Trinitarianism, that God is, in essence, a relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Affective spirituality (explained here), is based on the biblical principle that our hearts drive our behavior and rule our affections more than our head. And the Gospel is about inviting people into the relationship of the Godhead, where they can experience shalom. It is the opposite of poverty. 

Yet, in our churches, we operate very much from a rational framework, laying out doctrine, theology, soteriology, eschatology, and so on in a logical, reasonable way. We invite people to live differently, using solid biblical exegesis, as if information alone could motivate change. We may have implicit awareness of a more affective, Trinitarian perspective (I know I did) but few teach a robust theology of God that focuses on either of those in an explicit, clear manner. And if we don't understand who God is, or how the Gospel works, then we won't have our "house" built on solid rock, and when bad things happen we will be able to weather the storm. If we don't know who God is, or worse, if we have a bad image of God, then we won't be able to weather the storm. 

In my case, God rebuilt my faith on a firm foundation, with the understanding that I don't get to determine God's character based on my circumstances. He helped me understand, even without the wording, that I have been invited into a relationship with Him, and that when I enter into that relationship, everything changes. He has shown me what true justice is, why it matters, how the root of poverty isn't the absence of material resources but the absence of shalom, and how the solution to so many problems in society isn't "social justice," but to fulfill the Great Commission by truly teaching others what Jesus taught His disciples, who taught other disciples, who taught other disciples, until Western civilization came to look much differently than the rest of the world, and biblical values were codified into international human rights law. 

God has rebuilt my faith. I have never been more convinced of God's goodness, grace, justice, and sufficiency. I can trust Him. It has completely changed how I live. And, I think, will completely change how others live as well, once they find their place in the story of the Trinitarian God of the Bible.