Mailbag: readers start responding

Well after I decided to write about whatever I wanted during last week's mailbag, it apparently was incentive enough to get some new questions in the comment section. Hopefully that'll continue in the future. Well let's take a look at the current stack of mail for the Armchair Theologian:

Dear Armchair Theologian,

The Rev, really? And what is wrong with Aquaman?

First off, plenty is wrong with Aquaman. I know DC just did a whole reboot of their universe, and supposedly Aquaman has been drastically improved (I admit I have not read the new Aquaman), still, the guy just always seems to be at the bottom of the totem pole of superheroes. South Park acknowledged this when they essentially added Aquaman to the league of Super Best Friends (and gave him a name that reflects just how he is viewed among superheroes). And one only need to see poor Raj in Big Bang Theory having to dress as Aquaman when they appear as the Justice League to lose all confidence in Aquaman.

As to the Rev, you got something better? If I had a doctorate and wanted to be a villain it would open up more options, but until then I'm gonna stick with the Rev. Deal with it. 

If you have no idea what this entire conversation was about, you might want to read last week's mailbag here. 

Sincerely

The Armchair Theologian aka the Rev

_______________________________

What is your opinion of the doctrine of the trinity? Do we have to believe in it?

I'm a trinitarian through and through. I confess the three ancient creeds, I love Luther's catechism on the creed. My opinion is that it is necessary for the church. As to "do we have to believe it" the problem is such questions usually start to make faith into a new work. What must I believe to count it as faith? What is my faith checklist? When we do that we make it more about our formulations. Churches and Christians who are turned off by such (usually using the "no creed but the Bible" language) do recognize we are doing something with doctrine we shouldn't be doing. Any teaching of doctrine as "having to get it right to be saved" will lead to a new form of works-righteousness, one found in the head rather than the hands. 

That said, any notion that Trinitarian theology is not biblical is in my mind baloney. Or more importantly, it is to say if one does not believe in the trinity, where is one getting their belief about God? It was hundreds of years before the doctrine of the trinity was officially made and fleshed out, yet from early on its various confessions about God were already becoming issues of discussion. What the doctrine became is the outcome of  centuries of debate and biblical reading. It is the expression of the paradoxical nature of the God the Christians met in scripture. It is like saying "We don't believe in three gods, but we also read scripture talking about God as Father, Son, and Spirit. They are not the same, since they relate to one another, yet all divine, yet all are of the same divine being..." The more they encountered passages that say this then that, the more they had to hold God in mystery, and this was the best way to explain it. One does not need to use the word trinity or memorize its creed, but I believe faithful reading of scripture will lead precisely to the creed. It might be one thing to not use it, it's another to challenge/deny it. So I ask, if you don't believe in the Trinity, what are you reading?

And now we can talk about how doctrine has its place, not as a checklist for faith, but an expression of faith. And I think it is particularly important for teachers of the faith, because God is not making sure you have the right answers, but the right teaching will drive one to God. It will drive you to the right God, it will drive you to him deeper and deeper. Doctrine is good and useful when it compacts centuries of theology into clear/concise biblical teaching, and when it aids in the faithful preaching of God's word. It is good when it is used to help people use the larger voice of scripture to interpret and understand individual parts of scripture. It is good when it aids in preaching the word to create faith, and then in the expression of that faith. That is the place for doctrine. So it is not a matter of having to believe in the trinity, it is a matter that complete biblical teaching results in believing in the trinity, and it is very helpful for people to express that faith in the words of the doctrine of the trinity, as it helps remind us of the many ways we hold our fragile understanding of God in tension, and all the ways we can trust in this God for our sake. 

I think being anti-doctrine is foolish, since ultimately we will have a teaching about God, and we will either be using some form of doctrine (formal or informal) to inform our reading of scripture or we will soon likely find ourselves lost or confused, contradicted. Doctrine has also been used as a weapon to throw at other churches and Christians (another reason some people like churches that claim to have no doctrine - and I say claim because they do, even if they do not make it formal and organized), a way of defining the true church, so on and so forth. When we see it used aggressively, piously, exclusively, or as a necessary formulation that one must memorize, we miss its primary use - to hold together what we have gleaned from scripture, to use it for interpretation, to express what the Word has proclaimed to us about God. It's a delicate line to tow between how doctrine proclaims the truth and the doctrine being the truth itself, that to not know it or accept it is heresy, heterodoxy, or some other expression of standing outside the faith. 

I'd like to turn to one of the more well-known figures of American Lutheranism, C.F.W. Walther, to give a quick word more on what I am saying. Walther is most well known today for his work on the distinction of Law and Gospel, in it, Walther makes a series of theses on making the proper distinction. 

I would like to lift up from his thirty-third lecture on the twentieth thesis (Thesis XX reads: In the sixteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a person's salvation is made to depend on his association with the visible orthodox Church and when salvation is denied to every person who errs in any article of faith) where Walther says: 

"Some imagine they are quite strict Lutherans when they assert that no one can be saved who is not a Lutheran or who does not profess the Lutheran doctrine at least on his deathbed. But this claim stamps them, not as genuine Lutherans, but as apostates from Lutheranism. The Lutheran Church does not set up such a claim, but it does indeed instruct men how to be justified and saved by grace. There are persons living among the sects that love the truth and may be better Christians than some Lutherans. Christ rules everywhere, even among His enemies."

Note that Walther does not lift up professing proper doctrine, but having proper faith, and the church having proper doctrine; that is, the church teaching in a manner that can produce proper faith. I think this is helpful, in that it can remind us that people use different formulations, or understand the scripture differently, and the Spirit can use the smallest spark of gospel preaching to ignite a passionate faith. Doctrine is not used to determine who is in who is out of the faith and the afterlife, but rather to help draw people in, and express what it means to be in. Pure and simple.

Your trinitarian, doctrine-loving brother in Christ,
the Armchair Theologian

_________________________

Armchair Theologian,
I recently read your blog about the Christ figure of Harry Potter. I found it interesting, but I really must disagree. I think Harry is the obvious person I see Jesus be. He dies for others, hes the hero. How could you make is a bird?
Lizzy

For those wondering what Lizzy is talking about, she is responding to my post about whom I saw as the Christ figure in the Harry Potter series. In it, I propose Fawkes, Dumbledore's phoenix.

As to your question Lizzy, I think it's great to have you respond to my suggestion. And I get why one would see Harry instead. As I said in my blog "Now it's not a perfect fit. Harry is still the "hero", he still defeats Voldemort, Fawkes does little else for anyone else, not too mention he's a bird (throwing incarnation out the door). He never was a human--but neither was Azlon. So he's in good company. Having seen the movies many times and read the books a couple times he's my pick for the best bet of a Christ figure in Harry Potter. Who's yours?"

Harry is obviously yours, and I see why. But Harry also has some real issues that prevent him from being ideal. For one, he is actually only spectacular in how others choose him. He is marked by a curse cast upon him. He is the boy who lived because of his mother's sacrifice for him, not any inherent protection or power. He is only the chosen one because Voldemort made him so, made him a horcrux, insisted on his blood for his return. His wand chose him (not the other way around). And much of his story is trying to fit in, trying to be normal, it is genuine adolescent issues, not messianic fulfillment. And at times that runs contrary to messianic fulfillment.

Harry's death could be described in terms of what Gustaf Aulen refers to as the classic theory of atonement, that is what Harry really has going for him. Perhaps for you I will explore that some more soon. But until then always remember that Rowling first wrote a story, and as I also mentioned, you cannot make a perfect case for anyone in the story. She wasn't writing a theological piece first and foremost. While we find these similarities, we must always realize that such metaphors/symbolisms have their limit. And until I hear Rowling name one specifically, with no explicit Christ-figure, I think it is good to look uniquely at characters that we might otherwise overlook for those who seem more obvious because of how central they are to the story of the series.

But it's all speculation. Thanks for the input. Keep reading, keep responding.

The Armchair Theologian.

_______________________________

Last one, let's be quick

Armchair Theologian,
your blog says "Jesus, BASEBALL, and more" yet you're always talking about Jesus and never baseball. Where's the pasttime love?
Tommy

Tommy,

thanks for the reminder to keep up with some of my other passions. I love Jesus, so I spend a lot of time reflecting on him, faith, the church, and scripture. It's also what I'm professionally trained in. So I guess I assume it is where I would be most interesting. You will also notice that since you asked this, I changed the title of the blog for other reasons. But I still keep baseball in the blog explanation. And so in honor of your question, here is a little past time love:

As a follow up to my blog on the MVP, I will make two updates as the race continues. 

1) Ryan Braun went from being someone who deserves to be on the MVP ballot (even if not the MVP) to deserving to seriously be the MVP. He may not win it because the Crew fell short of the playoffs, but the Brewers rose as unlikely last minute contenders, and his great season continued. Really he probably should be MVP, but I would understand why Buster Posey would be MVP as his team are playoff bound, he is coming back from injury, playing in a pitcher park, and playing a more demanding position. So I get it. But If I were to vote, Braun would be #1 on my Ballot, Posey #2.

2) I said I did not feel that Trout should be MVP. I have since changed my position. He is the youngest 30/40 player and just may be one of the few 30/50 players in baseball. He just keeps delivering amazing numbers. So I'm willing to revise my position and accept him as MVP.

There ya go, a little love to the ball fans.Your fellow fan,

The Armchair Theologian

If you have questions, dilemmas, responses to the armchair theologian, leave em in the comment section below and you might just be featured in next week's mailbag.