The Top Ten Theological Ideas of Christianity

THE TOP TEN THEOLOGICAL IDEAS OF CHRISTIANITY

Quotable Quote: “Without reason supporting faith, Christianity becomes either so much spiritual mumble-jumble or a religion of wooden literalism akin to fundamentalist Islam.”

At the end of each year, news outlets and magazines usually publish a flurry of top 10 lists. So, I decided I would put together my list of the greatest theological insights in all of Christian history. I worked to keep the list to ten great ideas. This means a lot of terrific insights didn’t make the cut. You may think my list is stellar or you may think it stinks. But, I mainly did it just for fun. Hopefully it will whet your appetite for theology in 2016.

Here are some things you’ll notice. No one beyond the high Middle Ages is listed. Yeah, that is my bias. However, if I could have squeezed in one more great idea, I would have included Karl Barth’s Christological view of God’s ordinances. He was a 20th century Protestant theologian. Also, all the insights came after the first century except one because all of them (including the one from the biblical era) were developments building upon scriptural revelation.

You will also notice that Augustine made the list three times. As Prof. Phillip Carey says, “If you are a Western Christian, Augustine is in your blood–whether you realize it or not.” Anselm made the list twice out of sheer brilliance. Aquinas got only one mention. That may surprise you. However, Aquinas may have had the most powerful sociological impact on Western Civilization because of his stellar idea and because he synthesized the great philosophical and theological insights of his age leaving a priceless legacy for the modern era.

I will list each idea with basic information and a short description of why it is important.

1. God is Triune — the Church Fathers (Nicene Creed). Christianity had to deal with two notions: the apostolic witness that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are divine, yet, protect the Oneness of God.

2. Jesus: Fully Human and Fully Divine — the Church Fathers (Chalcedon Definition). Jesus’ humanity and divinity had to be rightly defined in order to protect human salvation.

3. Salvation Includes the Gentiles without the Ceremonial Law — St. Paul & his team. This actually happened during the time of the apostles; however, it was the first great theological breakthrough by the Church.

4. The Eternality of God — Boethius. Boethius defined God’s eternal existence as that which is outside of both time and space. This was a real game-changer.

5. Original Sin — Augustine. Western theology rests on Augustine’s insights into the Fall. This idea slays legalism and self-righteousness.

6. Evil as a Privation — Augustine. A truly brilliant insight that protects the Jewish-Christian notion of the goodness of creation.

7. Just War Theory — Augustine. This made possible the rise of Christian nations after the fall of Rome. This was an historical game-changer.

8. The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement — Anselm. Even today, this insight stands as a bulwark against Modernity and Protestant Liberal Theology.

9. God as The Greatest Conceivable Being — Anselm. This idea is literally an “attribute generating machine” in order to understand God. Once grasped, one’s childish notions about God fall away.

10. Faith Working with Reason — Aquinas. Aquinas protected and strengthened the idea from antiquity that man’s greatest gift was his rational nature; therefore, reason supports faith. Without reason supporting faith, Christianity becomes either so much spiritual mumble-jumble or a religion of wooden literalism akin to fundamentalist Islam.

Well, there you go. What do you think? What would be on your list? Feel free to comment–just for fun.

Why I Am Writing A Blog Again

WHY I AM WRITING A BLOG AGAIN

I have started blogging again. The blog is called the TheologyGuy. For about five years I wrote another blog that became far more popular than I ever expected. It was called Theology for Dummies. When I got cancer, though, I stopped writing. Part of this was due to the battle against cancer, but even after the battle I refrained from writing. I refrained because my blogging was deeply related to my spiritual journey and that journey had been profoundly wounded by a spiritual experience during the third round of chemotherapy. The wound manifested itself as a belief that God hated me. Though intellectually I could tell myself this thought was nonsense, emotionally, I could not shake it. I should have sought counseling, but I did not. Instead I remained in the grip of that horrible experience which I call the “dark valley of my soul.” Failing to get counseling, I embarked on a period of ungodly decisions.

Dr. Phil says, “There are no victims, just volunteers.” He is right. I cannot claim I was a victim of this horrible spiritual experience. I volunteered to act against my beliefs, my conscience, and all that I had held dear. On the other hand, once my ungodliness was revealed, I instantly knew that the top priority was that my soul and my relationship with God needed healing. Despite the great hurt that I have done to my marriage, my wife has been gracious by being willing to forgive and work together with a Christian counselor. My bad behavior is undeserving of her grace and forgiveness. All I can do is be grateful that God has created in her a willingness that is truly a miracle of Christ-likeness.

Fortunately, our counselor immediately launched me on a path of spiritual recovery. Part of the prescription for recovery has been a daily experience of encountering God’s love. He has also recommended that I write again. For obvious reasons, one of the big themes I have been exploring is God’s love. I am still plagued by a shadowy sense that God hates me, but I am gradually overcoming this through study, prayer and meditation. So, you can expect my blogging to major on the love flowing from God.

Though I am an Evangelical Protestant, I am a big fan of Medieval and Scholastic theology. I am sort of a self-taught expert on Thomas Aquinas. For those who don’t know, Aquinas is a designated Doctor of The (Catholic) Church. This means he is recognized as a primary teaching source on doctrine. Pope Pius V declared that Thomas was “the most brilliant light of the Church.” He is also a heavyweight on God’s love. So, you can expect me to reference him often.

In fact, here is something he wrote. The question he was dealing with was, what is more important, to know God or to love Him? Typically, we would say that loving God is more important than just knowing God. Lots of people know about God, but they may not love Him. However, Aquinas has a more nuanced answer.

(Summa I-II, Q. 3, A. 4) Reply to Objection 4. Love ranks above knowledge in moving, but knowledge precedes love in attaining: for “naught is loved save what is known,” as Augustine says (De Trin. x, 1). Consequently we first attain an intelligible end by an act of the intellect; just as we first attain a sensible end by an act of sense.

His point is (quoting Augustine) that loving God ranks above the knowledge of God; however, if you don’t know about God, you cannot really love Him. First you have to know about God in order to love Him. So, knowledge and love work together. But, the proper knowledge of God comes first. I see two implications to this insight.

First, people need to be presented an accurate picture about God. They need accurate knowledge about His loving kindness and goodness. If given a true knowledge about God, it enhances the probability that people will end up loving God. I know this from personal experience. When I had a false picture of God, in my heart I was terrified of Him–I ran from Him. This is why my new blog is dedicated to revealing the God who is love.

Secondly, I believe the church would help itself by understanding how important it is for seekers to be presented an accurate picture of God’s true identity. This is why theology (the study of God Himself) is so important. Unfortunately, I believe the level of doctrinal and theological knowledge amongst the clergy has fallen on hard times. If Aquinas and Augustine are right about accurate knowledge preceding love, then what is at stake is nothing less than a whole generation’s love of God. If we sincerely want people to wholeheartedly love God, then accurate theological knowledge is imperative.

A Primer on Islamic Terrorism

I was recently asked by friends at a party to share my thoughts regarding terrorism and the cultural clash with Islamic radicalism. I thought I would put a few observations down in writing on this very important theological issue.

My first observation is that this is a religious war. There is no sense in pussyfooting around. While it is true that a minority of Muslims are radical and most are peace loving, yet, it is a minority that is growing rapidly. But more importantly, this is an extremely religious ideology drawn directly from Muslim sacred writings. If you doubt this, I implore you to watch the HBO special “Terror in Mumbai.” You can watch the whole documentary on YouTube. It tracks the accounts of the 10 Islamic terrorists that slaughtered 164 people over a four day horrific killing spree in Mumbai, India. I remind you that this terrorist attack had nothing to do with American foreign policy but was directed by Muslims against the “infidel” Indian people. What is remarkable about this documentary are the captured cell phone conversations between the 10 killers and their handlers. The conversations are loaded with religious language praising God for the opportunity to kill people and die in a blaze of religious glory to go to “paradise.” It is beyond credulity that anyone could watch and hear this documentary and then claim that what was happening “had nothing to do with religion or Islam.” It is precisely religious and precisely Islamic.

My second observation is that this religious war has been going on for 1,400 years. It has had its hot and cool phases. Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have entered into another hot phase. This is the point that Samuel Huntington made in his seminal book “Clash of Civilizations.” Therefore, it is not going to go away. The last great Islamic attempt to conquer the West was defeated at the Battle of Vienna on–notice this date–September 11, 1683. The Western command was held by the King of Poland, John III Sobieski, who led the Polish forces. However, it was a combined multi-nation Western force against a huge Ottoman (Muslim) army. Sobieski is still greatly celebrated in Eastern Europe as a model Christian leader. It is my view that only people who are ignorant of history believe that our current terrorism is merely a blip in the otherwise peaceful history of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. Islam has always been committed to the sword as a means of religious conquest, domination and conversion. Thomas Aquinas wrote this observation 700 years ago regarding the beginnings of Islam:

Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arm.

My third observation is that the West has generally been in a position of reacting to Islamic aggression. There are a handful of historical exceptions, but, by and large, the West merely rallies to respond to Islamic attempts at conquest. Even the much maligned Crusades were a response to long-term Islamic aggression. Understanding this, you need to realize that it has often taken the West a fair amount of time to realize the seriousness of the threat before it responds with vigor. I think with San Bernardino, the American public is awakening to the real and present danger of Islamic aggression. And this leads to my next observation.

The secularized West is toast. Post-Christian Western Europe likely cannot prevail against a hot phase of Islam. It has neither the stomach nor the backbone for a fight against religious zealots. In the past, Europe faced down Islamic aggression with a heart beating with Christian idealism. The Anglo-sphere and Eastern Europe are the two remaining parts of Western Civilization that have robust enough Christian populations to rally against Islamic extremism. Already, Second Amendment advocates in the United States (largely represented by Christians), are in the process of arming themselves against terrorist threats. But, force of arms to save Christian civilization is not the only way to face down Islamic aggression. Christianity relies upon persuasion and not persecution to advance the cause of Christ. Christianity is the world’s greatest proselytizing religion. Islam remains vulnerable because it’s ideology is unnatural and violates God’s law. This is why Islam must rely so heavily on violence. This is true even within its religious sphere. Therefore, many Muslims will always find Christian liberty alluring. Think about this. Any religion that must force people to remain faithful through the threat of death is, at its heart, weak. Islam threatens death to any Muslim that apostatizes or converts to another religion.

Finally, don’t think this clash of civilizations will disappear any time soon. It will be long, hard and costly.

In his book, Samuel Huntington predicted the West would rediscover Christianity or face the probability of assimilation into Islam. Metaphorically, radical Islam is like the intimidating enemy of the Star Trek series–the Borg. The Borg was a giant collective of depersonalized individuals that had been assimilated into one unified organization with the intent of assimilating all other species. The motto of the Borg was, “Resistance is futile.” In various Star Trek episodes and movies, the “Federation” nearly faced destruction by the Borg, but somehow found the courage and intelligence to thwart Borg assimilation. Christianity carries with it the innate courage and intelligence to save our hard won freedoms and future.

THE REAL JESUS

THE REAL JESUS

One of the great stumbling blocks caused by Christianity is the doctrinal belief that God became a real man. This has always been a problem. It was a problem for both the Greeks and Jews in the ancient world and it remains so for Muslims, Jews and secularists. Specifically what I am referring to, though, is that God assumed a definitive identity in a real time and place. He did not come to us as a generic form of humanity, rather, he came to us as Jesus of Nazareth. A generic human or some sort of idealized version of a human would be much more acceptable. You see, a generic human would be more universal and politically correct. But, Jesus was a 1st century Jew. Why would God cause problems by doing this?

Here Aquinas states the problem.

(Summa III, Q. 4, A. 4) Objection 1. It would seem that the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature abstracted from all individuals. For the assumption of human nature took place for the common salvation of all men; hence it is said of Christ (1 Timothy 4:10) that He is “the Saviour of all men, especially of the faithful.” But nature as it is in individuals withdraws from its universality. Therefore the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature as it is abstracted from all individuals.

The point of the objection is straightforward; namely, that it just seems better–since Christ is the savior of all humanity–that the Son of God should have assumed a generalized human nature and not the humanity of a specific racial, national and family group. This seems to make sense. Certainly, if Hollywood was making a movie about God coming to earth as a human, they would make him a United Nations’ amalgam–a perfect blend.

Aquinas gives an extensive list of reasons why this would not work. Let me just concentrate on two of them.

Quoting the brilliant John of Damascus (675-749 AD), he writes:

(A. 4). But human nature as it is separated or abstracted from individuals is “taken to be a pure conception, since it does not exist in itself,” as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11). Therefore the Son of God did not assume human nature, as it is separated from individuals.

What he is saying is that an “abstracted” human would not be a real human. A real human is an actual individual. Therefore, if the Son of God did not assume a real, individual human nature then it would be a fiction and useless for our salvation.

Here is another reason why a Hollywood-ized “universal” human would not work:

(A. 5) Thirdly, because it is fitting that as one Divine suppositum is incarnate, so He should assume one human nature, so that on both sides unity might be found.

This is an elegant statement. Aquinas writes that since the divinity of Christ was One, then the humanity of Christ needed to be “of one human nature”–not an amalgam of all of humanity. This, of course, is stated beautifully by Paul.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

I love it when Paul writes “the Man Christ Jesus.” He makes it so specific. Our Mediator–who stands between us and God–was the “real” Jewish person who was raised in a family in Nazareth.

I admit my bias, I think Christianity is the best of the major world religions. One reason why I am biased is that I am fascinated by beauty. I love the beauty of nature. I also enjoy beautiful man-made things. Christianity–by a country mile–has produced the greatest treasure trove of art, music, sculpture, architecture and song of any religion. The Gothic Cathedral, as an example, is a stunning, unparalleled example of Christian artistic and technological achievement. There is a reason for this. The Medieval cathedral is a celebration of the Incarnation where the divine and human meet together. Therefore, the Cathedral literally had to be stunning. Nothing less would do justice to the majesty of the Word made flesh.

There is also a reason why the Christmas season–despite all the madness of shopping–is so loaded with beauty. You see, the Incarnation is not just about one real man named Jesus. It is about that Man reaching to each one of us and lifting us to the very throne of the divine. That real Man reaches the real me. Now, that is staggeringly beautiful.