I recently read Isaiah 1 and in a round-about, blast-from-the-past, mind-bender kind of way was reminded that back in the early 80's I was exploring something fringe, something weird. What was it? Something embarrassingly right wing, something about natural/God's law and... Now I confess that Google and Wikipedia has helped my memory along: what I was reading/exploring was stuff like Reconstructionist Theology with writers like R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North.
The long and short of it was that there was (is) an absolute law (God's) and that we should aggressively recreate our world -- economics, culture, and so on -- accordingly. Their main verse is Genesis 1:26: "Let them have dominion over... the earth...".
I know I'm oversimplifying, but there are two problems with Dominion Theology (Reconstructionism or Kingdom Now Theology): The mandate for dominion -- which is more accurately translated care-taking, I'm told -- was given in a pre-fallen world and Things may have changed, but there seemed to be a serious aggression and lack of humility in the literature surrounding the theology.
As I recall, what didn't sit right with me re. with the whole movement was not necessarily the theology. It kind of makes sense that God's ways would have something to speak into culture and economics. What hit me as off was the emphasis on the Old Testament and the lack of humility. It seems to me that the Old Testament has to be viewed in context with the New. That is, what went on after Adam through to the Judges, Kings and prophets was a reaction to the sin condition and a hardening to how it should be/could be under a new, imminent prophesied new government (kingdom).
So Isaiah 1. As I recall, the poor, the needy, the widow, the orphan, they remain in the margins in some backwards, theological kind of thinking. The argument goes something like this:
SIN ---> FALLEN WORLD --->. THE POOR WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US. ---> THE BEST WE CAN DO IS REDEEM ECONOMICS GOD'S WAY. --->. THEN MAYBE THE POOR CAN HELP THEMSELVES.
The problem with that is that it's clearly not in the spirit of Isaiah 1 and countless other scriptures that. judge the quality of our hearts according to how much we care about the poor.
"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. "When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause. (Isaiah 1:11-17 ESV)
The long and short of it was that there was (is) an absolute law (God's) and that we should aggressively recreate our world -- economics, culture, and so on -- accordingly. Their main verse is Genesis 1:26: "Let them have dominion over... the earth...".
I know I'm oversimplifying, but there are two problems with Dominion Theology (Reconstructionism or Kingdom Now Theology): The mandate for dominion -- which is more accurately translated care-taking, I'm told -- was given in a pre-fallen world and Things may have changed, but there seemed to be a serious aggression and lack of humility in the literature surrounding the theology.
As I recall, what didn't sit right with me re. with the whole movement was not necessarily the theology. It kind of makes sense that God's ways would have something to speak into culture and economics. What hit me as off was the emphasis on the Old Testament and the lack of humility. It seems to me that the Old Testament has to be viewed in context with the New. That is, what went on after Adam through to the Judges, Kings and prophets was a reaction to the sin condition and a hardening to how it should be/could be under a new, imminent prophesied new government (kingdom).
So Isaiah 1. As I recall, the poor, the needy, the widow, the orphan, they remain in the margins in some backwards, theological kind of thinking. The argument goes something like this:
SIN ---> FALLEN WORLD --->. THE POOR WILL ALWAYS BE WITH US. ---> THE BEST WE CAN DO IS REDEEM ECONOMICS GOD'S WAY. --->. THEN MAYBE THE POOR CAN HELP THEMSELVES.
The problem with that is that it's clearly not in the spirit of Isaiah 1 and countless other scriptures that. judge the quality of our hearts according to how much we care about the poor.
"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats. "When you come to appear before me, who has required of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations— I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause. (Isaiah 1:11-17 ESV)
Comments
Post a Comment