Tensions

Being Christian is a difficult task in today’s society. For instance, a Christian is pro-life, but has trouble speaking out against war. Likewise,  Christians are against economic structure that create poverty but we still shop at Wal-Mart and buy food that underpaid farm workers produce. In the same way, Christians today have a hard time choosing who they pledge their allegiance to: America or the kingdom of God.  Take immigration for example. We all know that God’s kingdom does not end at the Rio Grande River, but we have strict immigration laws. How about being  a soldier in the Armed Forces? We all know that Christianity tells us to love our enemies, but we have the most powerful army in the world. How do we reconcile these things? Can we? Must we?

This is not to say that immigration laws and the army’s are always bad, but that Christians are faced with the daunting question of which to choose. Some find it best to say that they pledge their allegiance to both. “I am Christian,” say one person, “but African-Americans are not welcome in my house.” Or, “I believe in bettering the earth as God commands, but I cannot quit growing my tobacco.” Do not misunderstand me please. I am not saying that Tobacco farmers and Racists are not Christian. What I am saying is that tobacco farmers and racists primary allegiance, when it comes to economics and equality, is not to Christianity. You can argue it anyway you want, but what you do is your primary allegiance. It matter not what you believe if everything you do says the contrary.

I am one who believes that being Christian is something that challenges everything that you do and every bit of who you are. Pledging allegiance to Christ may push you to quit that job that only burdens others. t may persuade you to speak out against your racist grandparents or burn your draft card. 

These are just a few thoughts of what is always swirling in my head. I hope to follow-up with more rambling in the future.

Anthropology in light of Theology

I know I have not posted anything in a while, but I have been super busy. Speaking of being busy, this week I have a paper due for my Modern Christian Theology class at Mount Olive College. My studies have led me to an interesting topic: Anthropology in Light of Theology. My research is about Emil Brunner’s thoughts on revelation and the divine-human encounter. Brunner’s view is in stark contrast to the popular Karl Barth when it comes to revelation. Unlike Barth, Brunner believed that revelation from God is as subjective as it is objective; a meeting between the subjective human interpretation and the objective, perfect revelation of God.

You may ask yourself why I have picked this topic. First I believe that the Brunner’s idea of revelation really puts value on being human, without going to the extreme that subjective interpretation can cause, as warned by Barth. Take the Nazi Germany churches for example. Hitler used a tainted and disgusting view of God to push his extreme motives. Subjectivism, is this sense, is what Barth is afraid of. Likewise, Brunner makes sense of what it means to understand ourselves as Imago Dei, or the image of God. What does it mean to be the likeness of God? These are all very good questions that I look forward to exploring this week.