Theology of Estrangement and the Theology of Intimacy (eBook)

Introduction

Wesleyan theology attempts to balance tradition, scripture, reason, and experience. The arguments I present reflect that approach to understanding religion and how to interpret the Bible. Biblical literalism is a fairly modern phenomenon. Before the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was the religious authority. With the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Catholic Church was broken and discredited (among Protestants). Lacking a supreme church authority, the Bible became the new authority. For some that meant biblical literalism—that every story and event in the Bible actually happened and happened exactly as written. This also meant that every Old Testament law was valid and divinely mandated. The problem with this literal approach is that some of the most important figures in the Bible reinterpret and challenge Old Testament laws. In Mark 7:18-23, Jesus says that “Whatever goes into a man from the outside cannot defile him . . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts . . . .” But the laws of Leviticus 11-15 plainly describe what defiles men (and women). Similarly the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 14:14 “that nothing is unclean in itself.” Paul not only challenges laws of cleanliness but in 2 Corinthians 3:4-18 attacks the whole principle of law (as guiding religious life), charging that “the written code kills, but the spirit gives life.” Even in the Old Testament, in Psalm 51:16, the Psalmist states that God has “no delight in sacrifice,” in spite of abundant laws to the contrary in the Pentateuch.

Some approaches to biblical studies have a strong, ideological orientation. The problem with an ideological orientation is that it tends to see the world within its own value-laden parameters. All information is interpreted and skewed to fit the ideological worldview. Attempting to see the world (and the Bible) as it truly requires openness, and a willingness to discard previous assumptions when they are shown to be lacking. The ideological approach forces information into pre-existing categories, often distorting the information to make it fit. Another failure of the ideological approach is to seize appealing information, and ignore or discard information that challenges its assumptions. Ideologists rarely question their a priori assumptions.

Ideological differences are difficult to overcome. Unfortunately for humans, objectivity is nearly impossible. People perceive reality through lenses that are filtered by values and beliefs. Very often liberals and conservatives cannot even agree on the fact that a certain event has occurred, let alone agree on the reasons for why it happened and what it means. In the case of the issue of global warming, conservatives dispute the evidence for global warming as inconclusive. The problem with acknowledging the problem of global warming for conservatives is that it requires aggressive and broad government regulation, which they in principle oppose. Since liberals believe in general that government regulation is necessary for protection against the excesses of corporations, they have no difficulty in seeking to curb global warming. Some conservatives insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction because they believed this, without the benefit of any corroborating, objective evidence. This shared delusion led to the invasion of Iraq. The distorted perception of reality makes political compromise difficult. In politics there is no such thing as reality, only perceptions of reality.

In many ways, the inspiration for this work comes from trying to come to terms with parts of the Bible that seem to be inconsistent with the dominant themes of the Bible. Initially, my interests were in two subjects in the Bible, the origins of Israel and eschatology (the last judgment). In the 1970s, attempts to explain contradictory statements in Joshua (sweeping conquest) and Judges (continuing struggles) about the settlement of Israel in Canaan inspired many articles speculating on this subject. New theories proposed a gradual, peaceful migration, or an internal rebellion against a weakened Egyptian feudal system. I was impressed by some of the insights of various writers and the expanded use of historical data, but disappointed by their tendency to try to harmonize new insights with traditional interpretations. It is my conclusion that one must fully explore the concerns, theology, and ambitions of the various writers of the Pentateuch in order to come to an understanding of what the original story actually was. It is also my conclusion that the theology of later writers of the Pentateuch is at odds with the theology of the first writer, primarily because the later additions reflect the elitism of a centralized priesthood. Ancient societies have a rigid class structure, and the priestly class is usually the highest class. The sacrificial system, the law, even the idea of a covenant relationship with God, I believe are contrary to the original theology of Israel and to the original writer.

I am interested in eschatology because I have always perceived an inconsistency in the cross and second coming of Christ. Eschatology has to do with the last judgment. The cross is central to Christianity. The cross represents forgiveness while the second coming and last judgment have to do with condemnation. The gospel of John wholly embraces the cross, stating: “For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” The gospel of Mark (Ch. 13) describes the second coming of the son of man and last judgment, which is echoed in Matthew and Luke. I was aware that Matthew and Luke differ in that Matthew stresses judgment and Luke stresses mercy. But when I started comparing Matthew and Luke to determine the exact nature of their respective eschatologies, it became apparent to me that they were in direct conflict with each other, but not on the issue of eschatology. As I began to further explore the relationship of Matthew and Luke, it became clear to me that the controversial issue was not eschatology but legalism or the legalistic relationship to God. And to my surprise, I came to the conclusion that Matthew represents the legalistic position that Paul was opposing. I began to see the books of the New Testament as rising out of the Pauline-legalist conflict. Instead of regarding them as the products of distinct Christian communities with their own traditions, I began to see them as products of the Pauline-legalist conflict, which had politicized the entire Christian community. The legalists overwhelmed Paul’s movement, but the literature of Paul and his movement ultimately triumphed over Christian legalism, represented primarily by Matthew and James.

The image of God that the Old Testament puts forward is a God of judgment. This is in contrast to the image of God of the New Testament, which is of a God that is forgiving and merciful. The primary characters of the New Testament are Jesus and Paul. They overthrow the image of a distant, estranged, judgmental God. This is an attack on the theology of a covenant or estrangement. The letters of Paul describe a conflict between two factions in the early church. It is a bitter conflict between Paul’s ministry and the Christian legalists. Paul is the leader of a group of traveling evangelists, prominent among them are Timothy, Tychicus, Mark, Luke, and Titus. Paul believes the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was to establish an intimate relationship between God and humanity. The Christian legalists, who are primarily Jews, believe that the purpose of Jesus’ ministry was to establish a new law based on the commandment to love one’s neighbor, which replaces the ritual law of the Pharisees. The legalists continue to perceive God as a distant judge that is estranged from humanity. The church was divided into a western/Greek/Pauline faction and an eastern/Jewish dominated/legalist faction. The churches that remained loyal to Paul were primarily in Greece. Paul describes his ministry in Asia (and Galatia) as “utterly, unbearably, crushed.” Paul refers to the legalists that oppose him as “dogs,” “false apostles,” and “servants of Satan.”

The gospels are products of the Pauline/legalist conflict. The author of Matthew was a Christian legalist and a bitter enemy of Paul. Just as Paul attacks the legalists as false apostles, Matthew writes of false prophets (Paul), who will be shut out of heaven. Paul de-emphasizes the law and Matthew writes that “anyone who relaxes the law and teaches men to do so will be least in the kingdom of heaven.” Paul writes of unity with God in Christ while Matthew repeatedly refers to “your father who is in heaven” (not on earth). Matthew still believes God to be estranged from humanity and residing only in the heavens. Paul believes that this estrangement has been overcome. This perception of God as intimate or remote is a primary underlying experience or premise of any theology, and is often the basis of theological disputes.

When I finished my digression into Matthew and Luke, I once again tried to come to an understanding of eschatology. I have been greatly influenced by the writings of Mircea Eliade, particularly The Myth of the Eternal Return, which examines the meaning of eschatology in primitive societies and traces its development to modern understandings of eschatology. Eschatology is concerned with the estrangement of the world from God, and how the world can be reconciled to God(often in a final, violent judgment). As I began to study the whole subject of eschatology, I saw that the...