kent lee's blog & ramble

The term "evangelical" was popularized by Martin Luther ("evangelisch" in German), which meant a follower of the gospel. The term was originally a very good and useful term, as it referred to someone who believed in a religion based on faith and following the teachings of Christ, rather than man-made religious rules. It was meaningful enough but also broad enough to encompass a general theological orientation and religious lifestyle. It could include and accommodate somewhat different views or interpretations of Christian belief, including those who focused more on the grace, spirituality and lifestyle of Christ. As such, it was not the exclusive property of one religious group or theological orientation. The meaning has been generally positive in modern church history. However, in recent decades the term has been hijacked by fundamentalists who insist on a narrow interpretation of the term, insisting on a set of specific theological beliefs, while ignoring the C...

Warum läßt Gott es zu? Warum erfahren wir Leiden, and warum so viel Unrecht und Leiden in dieser Welt? Das können wir wirklich nicht wissen oder beantworten. Keine Religion, keine Theologie, keine Apologetik, keine philosophische Theorie oder Rahmen ergibt irgendwelche Antwort, die wirklich geht. Keine wirklich passt. Also ich versuche hier nicht, diese Problematik eigentlich zu addressieren. Ich kann nur ein paar kleine Gedanken dazu geben.  Imago Dei Wir sind nach dem Gottesbild erschaffen, im ,,imago Dei" gemacht. Wir denken oft daran, daß das heißt, wir haben Seelen, Bewustsein, moralischen Sinn, eine Fähigkeit für ein Verhältnis mit Gott, und so weiter, und das stimmt natürlich. Aber es gibt noch mehr im uralten Sinne, d.h., in der uralten nahosten Kultur, worin die Erschöpfungsgeschichte in 1. Mose zusammengesetzt wurde. Es heißr auch, daß wir als Vertreter Gottes hier gestellt sind. Als vetreter und Angehöriger Gottes, sollen wir seine Erschöpfung ...

So fühle ich mich heutzutage im Bezug auf meiner Theologie. In Bezug auf meinem vorherigen Blog-Stück, muss ich sagen, es ist schwer, diese abgespaltenen Richtungen zusammen zu bringen. Ich finde, in diesem Tiel meiner Glaubensreise, dass ich ganz underschiedliche Richtungen abstimmen muss: meine neue Emerging-Theologie-Richtung und/oder moderne evangelische Richtung, meinen aalten evangelikalen Glauben, und die charismatische Richtung meines Glaubens. Im Moment scheint es, wie Öl und Wasser zu mischen. Ich schreibe heute über einen gewissen Schwerpunkt: die Theologie des Todes und der Hölle.   Universalismus kann ich nicht akzeptieren - nicht ganz. Aber die Theologie der exklusiven Errettung von Menschen finde ich problematisch - wo die Mehrheit der Mesnchen zur Hölle gehen müssen. Hier in Kürze hat es mit dem Charakter Gottes zu tun, zum Beispiel, wie könnte er Seelen ewiglich und endlos bestrafen für einen beschränken Satz von Sünden? Wie ist das kon...

This post is updated with a few more limericks. I'm not a Calvinist, of course, but if you're familiar with Calvinism, you may find the following limerick to be cute - about a brand of hyper-calvinism. Franciscus Gomarus Was a supralapsarius; He actually gave Adam an excuse. God had decreed, foreordained Adam’s deed, God had precooked Adam’s goose. And a couple of Catholic or high church flavored ones... With a fear of divine retribution, You are seeking the priest's absolution. Show remorse and regret? He'll forgive, not forget, What you did to deserve execution. ... It's hard to describe the frustration We derive from our priest's cantillation. His liturgical text Makes us bored and so vexed, When he stops, he receives an ovation. For a bit of historical flavor... In Christology's greatest debate, The Antiochene school carries weight. "Our Lord Christ," they opine, "Was more flesh than divine." Alexandria...

I've got a new website up with my pedagogical materials, writing materials, and a few ESL materials, reflecting the work that I do at the Center for Teaching & Learning at Korea University. www.tinyurl.com/kentlee7 I've also got some ESL and linguistics materials on my old Hanyang Univ. site: http://world.hanyang.ac.kr/~kentlee/app/ [phonology] http://world.hanyang.ac.kr/~kentlee/rw/spring2009.htm [reading / writing] http://world.hanyang.ac.kr/~kentlee/tmag/ [teaching methods] http://world.hanyang.ac.kr/~kentlee/slr/ [language research methods] I've found a new website to host my older Bible study materials (from my time at ICCF, Illini Chinese Christian Fellowship): www.tinyurl.com/enseoul Enjoy...

As a person with charismatic leanings, I have come to prefer Catholic / Anglican / Episcopal forms of charismatic Christianity. As mentioned in my last post, charismatic Catholicism goes way back to the early church, under the rubric of Christian mysticism. The reason I prefer these forms is because they are more balanced. Protestant charismatics and Pentecostals greatly overemphasize things like speaking in tongues, which are really a minor gift. Tongues have been practiced throughout church history, and there is no historical or scriptural basis for the claim that tongues and other charismatic gifts ever ceased*. But they have never been considered "a big deal" or in any way a sign that a person is more spiritual than another who doesn't do tongues or such gifts. Only with the advent of modern charismatic movements did such an extreme emphasis get put on tongues and charismatic gifts. St. Paul commanded us to desire the better gifts - in that context, he was referring t...

As I've read about church history in the past year, I've come to learn about mystical traditions that have been an essential part of the history of Christian practice. What we call mysticism refers first of all to proper, biblical forms of mysticism, which generally correspond to charismatic Catholicism (and related movements in other churches) in more modern terminology. It may also refer to some types of theology and practice that can be aberrant, speculative, and heterodox, which tends to give mysticism a bad name. But 'mysticism' should be understood primarily according to "mainstream mysticism". Mysticism is essentially a lifestyle and theology of direct, personal experience with God, and thus, is emotional, passionate, and engages the person intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally. It is grounded on a biblical understanding of the fear of God and the love of God, and thus, mystics approach God as a Being to be held in great awe and respect, yet one ...

A common question posed by skeptics and non-believers is why we Christians insist on religious orthodoxy. Aren't other things like "love" (whatever they mean by that) more important? Well, true Christian love without a proper foundation is hollow. Christian living without a proper foundation is pointless. In fact, without orthodoxy (proper belief) and orthopraxy (proper lifestyle), it is no longer biblical Christianity, but a human-made religion, an idolatry, a god of one's own making. This is the case if we deny that God is transcendent, holy, beyond our understanding; all-powerful, all-knowing; immanent and ubiquitous and omni-present, always at hand and near us at the same time he is transcendent; that he exists as a trinity of Father, Christ, and Spirit, which is how he revealed himself to us; that he is love and loves us, but is very unhappy with how we ignore him and how we treat him and how we treat each other; that Christ as God died for our sins so we could b...

Some might ask what the point of theology is, as often it has been misused in various ways - for selfish intellectual thrill and indulgence, cultivating the ego, showing off, for controlling others, for reasons other than what it is intended. Theology literally means 'knowledge of / knowing God' - and that's the point. Real theology, pursued properly, should bring you closer to God, in a real, meaningful way. Otherwise it's just religious intellectualism or religious rationalism, or maybe some sort of religious sensationalism (e.g., the way prophecy is often taught) or a way to rationalize a sanctified emotionalism (as in some abuses of charismatic theology). Real theology, at the simple or very profound level, should somehow lead you closer to God. Either it provides you practical means of connecting directly to God, overcoming barriers to intimacy with God, or at least leads you to a fear and wonder of God, or a deeper love of God, that translates to a closer relation...

Fear of God in the biblical sense is not fear in the average psychological sense; but there is no adequate word in English that is strong enough to describe it. Fear of God means a profound awe, respect, and reverence of God. It's profound, heavy awe in light of who he is, his holiness, and how infinite, magnificent, omnipotent, loving, incomprehensible, and totally different he his, that he is beyond our understanding. Fearing God is the ultimate realization of worship and loving God with all our hearts, soul, and strength, and leads us to love God in such a way, more than ever before. Fearing God is the beginning of wisdom, for only then do we begin to realize who we are and what God is like, and what that means for us. Fearing God means approaching him with deep reverence, focusing on him rather than ourselves. It means our minds cannot handle how infinite, other-worldly, different, holy, and transcendent he is - our minds are boggled when we contemplate who he is. We can only ...

God is God. There are no words to describe or define him adequately. There is no way our minds can comprehend him, no way our natural minds can grasp him. His ways are not our ways. He exists outside the cosmos, i.e., he is transcendent, as the cosmos is merely his creation. He exists in a sense that we cannot understand; it is not any sort of existence that we can understand. For instance, his existence and essence are infinite, and he is self-existent. We can only grasp whatever exists in a temporal sense - that which begins at some point, is created, and ceases to exist (only the human soul does not cease). But God justs exists. Infinitely. We cannot wrap our minds around that. We can sort of imagine our souls not ceasing to exist, living forever into the future, because we haven't died yet. But can you imagine existing without having ever been born, without ever having a beginning? Of course not; it blows your mind. But that's how God is. We cannot grasp his existence or es...

God is God. There are no words to describe or define him adequately. There is no way our minds can comprehend him, no way our natural minds can grasp him. His ways are not our ways. He exists outside the cosmos, i.e., he is transcendent, as the cosmos is merely his creation. He exists in a sense that we cannot understand; it is not any sort of existence that we can understand. For instance, his existence and essence are infinite, and he is self-existent. We can only grasp whatever exists in a temporal sense - that which begins at some point, is created, and ceases to exist (only the human soul does not cease). But God justs exists. Infinitely. We cannot wrap our minds around that. We can sort of imagine our souls not ceasing to exist, living forever into the future, because we haven't died yet. But can you imagine existing without having ever been born, without ever having a beginning? Of course not; it blows your mind. But that's how God is. We cannot grasp his existence or es...

Jesus is fully God and fully man, together*. That is a mystery that we cannot really grasp, another aspect of God of which we can only stand in awe and wonder. As C.S. Lewis stated, there are only three options to Christ, three ways to respond: that he is Lord, a lunatic, or a liar. And that is how people in his day responded. At one point, his family came to take him - in that day, that meant to take him away, because they thought he was crazy, and some of the people thought he was crazy: "And when his family heard about it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself [i.e., crazy]. He is possessed by Beelzebub'" (Mark 3:21). The Pharisees viewed him as a liar, accused him of blasphemy, and even attributed his powers to the devil. Clearly he claimed to be God, for that is why the religious leaders hated him and wanted to kill him; such was clearly stated at his trial. He claimed to be God, a fact that cannot be argued away. No sane human...

Faith is what Jesus described as choosing to give up everything to follow him, to be his disciple. That means absolute, full commitment. St. Paul described it in terms of salvation and justification by faith alone. The Old Testament described faith and salvation in terms of the covenant, and also described faith this way: Hear Oh Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. [Dt. 6] The Hebrew word for 'strength' [meh-ode'] is broad in meaning, including "intensity, vehemence; exceedingly, utterly, great(ly)". Biblical faith is passionate, and requires giving your all to God, loving him with your whole being - mentally, psychologically, intellectually, and emotionally, with passion. Faith or belief in the biblical sense is not just intellectual assent or intellectual belief. Look at the Latin word for 'faith', which gives you a better sense than our modern Western...

To sum up, some basic principles of orthopraxy discussed so far are: 1. Public confession of faith and witness 2. Grace-based practice of faith - spirituality and lifestyle based on grace; not only is salvation based on faith, but so is sanctification 3. Observing the sacraments or ordinances (baptism, communion / eucharist) 4. Observing spiritual disciplines, such as prayer, attending church, quiet times, reading Scripture 5. Love and fear of God 6. Love of others - believers and non-believers The list above adds spiritual disciplines in addition to what was discussed in the previous posts. These are considered essential for a well organized, balanced spiritual life, are commanded in Scripture, and have a long history of importance and primacy in Christian practice throughout church history. I may be missing something important, but for now this will do as a starting point. Now when we consider the basic tenants of orthodoxy, these principles of orthopraxy shoudl follow from them, and...

In this post on orthopraxy, again I'm kind of rambling, shooting in the dark, just playing with what might be essential elements of Christian orthopraxy. So I welcome your thoughts and critiques on this. The epistle of James talks a lot about how Christians should live, that our faith is properly demonstrated and proved ("justified") by our works, and without proper lifestyle, our faith is dead. But when we talk about general orthopraxy, we don't want to get bogged down on a bunch of rules, a rule system - that leads to legalism, and avoiding legalism is an important goal here in developing the concept of orthopraxy. That's why I want to develop principles of orthopraxy, to provide a coherent framework for practicing Christianity, Christian lifestyle, and the relationship between faith, orthodoxy, and practice. So a logical place to start is with the Ten Commandments, which are foundational to biblical morality and lifestyle, but not with individual commandments,...

[Today's post begins a new and perhaps somewhat rambling theological thread over the next few days.] Evangelical and orthodox Christianity (be it Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or other denominations) is defined by several crucial, fundamental beliefs, namely: [1] the triune, omnipotent God who create all things; [2] the full deity and humanity of Christ; [3] Scripture as God's authoritative, revealed word; [4] Christ's death and resurrection; [5] salvation by faith in Christ alone; and [6] Christ's imminent return. Christianity differs from other religions by its unique, faith alone basis for salvation, and its conception of God. It also differs from other religions in that what makes a person a Christian is not intellectual acceptance of these points, but a personal relationship with Christ, by faith and surrender to him as Lord and Savior. The spiritual relationship makes a person a Christian, but this necessarily entails full acceptance of the above six ess...

When I was younger, for example, in my teenage years in fundamentalist churches, I used to regularly hear some bad analogies for faith, especially in evangelistic or apologetic contexts. I heard faith being compared to sitting in a chair [“your belief in the chair’s ability to hold you does no good unless you sit in it”] or getting on a plane [“your belief in the plane’s ability to take off safely or transport you won’t work until you decide to board it”]. Now I cringe whenever I hear salvation compared sitting on a chair, or getting on a plane. Thankfully, my church here doesn’t use such analogies that trivialize faith and salvation. Such analogies are cheesy, simplistic illustrations of salvation. They reduce faith to something trite, like a mundane decision, a mere intellectual act, little different than choosing to vote for a certain party, or choosing what shoes to wear in the morning. And they’re rather human-focused rather than God-focused. (They sound rather Arminian, in fact.)...

Years ago I was leading a Bible study at our fellowship, and it was the start of a new semester, hence more visitors than usual, and so this study had a few new people. I don't remember the topic of that particular Bible study, but in the middle of the study, out of the blue, one of the visitors suddenly interrupted with a very off-topic comment. She said that we should think about vieweing God addressing God as a female instead of a male, and her husband chimed in to support her. We were surprised by this sudden, heterodox point, which was unrelated to what we were discussing - something just out of the blue. I was able to handle it, and had support from other well informed believers. I tried to explain that we don't think that God is literally male, but it's an important biblical metaphor, how God revealed himself to us, and how he wants us to view him as an authority figure and such. They weren't satisfied, of course, tried to argue, and didn't return after that....

Salvation is like this: You're caught up in a fast moving river, in the process of drowning, as the river is hurling you toward a steep waterfall, where you will plummet to your final death, drown, or be dashed against the rocks. Jesus stands on the shore, shouting your name. He extends his arm out to you to grab you. He's the only one who can save you. You are helpless. All you can do is respond, and let him grab you, let him rescue you. He is your hero. Your only hope. Or you can refuse his help. Try to save your own life from the predicament that awaits you - though you cannot. Ignore his outstretched hand, and decide to go it alone, be your own boss, the king of what's left of your life, the master of nothing but your own destruction. Or call out for help, let him grab you and save you, let him pull you out, revive you, dry you off, give you new clothes and a new existence. Notice that you contribute absolutely nothing here. He does all the work. All you did was not to ...