Jonathan Pedrone's Blog

Progressive Dialogue

2010-05-25T09:11:00.002-05:00

Six years, over a hundred hours of confusion, and the hit TV show Lost finally came to an end this year. The Internet has been replete with prognosticators attempting to decipher how the show, which confounded many, would end. The show ended with a scene that emphasized the spiritual overtones implicit throughout the shows six year run.

The cast members assemble in a church for the shows climax, and while most fans were busy trying to decipher the meaning of the show which had lead them down so many rabbit trails that all sense of direction had been lost some time ago, my focus was captured by a different theme: pluralism.

For Lost, faith is about simply believing in something. That faith may be in any number of gods, but as long as faith is present, you are on the right track to finding redemption. The church clearly symbolized this pluralistic view of faith, as it was conspicuously a Unitarian church, decked out in the décor of every available religion. The stain glass windows presented to us the enduring symbols of a myriad of religious traditions, from the Christian cross, to the Star of David, to the crescent moon of Islam, this final scene clearly represented the overarching viewpoint of our world that pluralism is now the dominating viewpoint of society.

In today’s pluralistic and fragmented society, tolerance is at an all time high. The public outcry for toleration, and equality among religious preference has constructed a world in which dialogue between individuals of different persuasions is at times non-existent. What we are left with is a bifurcated world where the choice before us is to either ignore differences, hold hands and sing we are the world, or take the dogmatic approach and refuse any sort of dialogue that doesn’t involve a condemnation of the opposing viewpoint and expectation of repentance, and acceptance of our precise system of belief.

Many Christians today suffer from a unique inability to dialogue with those of either differing faith, or no faith at all. Our world is increasingly becoming a place where constructive dialogue is replaced with shouting across lines of division. Christians are convinced of their superior position on matters of faith, because after all, they worship the one true God, and have not been deceived like those pagans who have yet to find the true way to God.

But how can we move to a place where we are able to not only dialogue with those we disagree with, but learn from them? Is it possible to interact with those of differing viewpoints and come away with a greater understanding of truth? Should we for a time being lay aside our suppositions, and consider the viewpoint of the other? How can we engage in dialogue that is productive, listening to the viewpoints of others, while at the same time retaining our unique understanding of what it means to be the people of God, and while continuing to hold on to the convictions that make our faith worthwhile?

Attempts at dialogue across faith lines too often have resulted in an ecumenical movement, which appeals to the lowest common denominator of belief. Participants search high and low to find common ground on which they can claim unity. These practices only succeed in a producing a reductionist portrait of faith, and often times strip Christianity from some of its core convictions. Christians must retain the orthodox faith, while at the same time engaging with those of other faiths.

So how can we dialogue with people of other faiths, or no faith without reducing our claims, and at the same time coming away from the discussion having grown in our own faith?

First, we must rid ourselves of the hubris, which so often soils any attempt to engage with those who disagree with us. Dialogue can only take place when two or more individuals are willing to interact in a constructive manner that includes listening to the viewpoint of the other. Communication involves both speaking and listening, and for too often Christians have all but forgotten about the latter instead preferring to furnish a laundry list of reasons for our opponents ignorance and make attempts to guide them in the right direction. Instead we must learn to hold our convictions with a sense of humility. We know in part. This does not require giving up our convictions, but rather it means that we hold those convictions with humility. If we are able to humble ourselves, and allow ourselves to listen we may just discover new insights from people of other faiths, and those insights may lead us to a greater conviction in our own faith.

Second, we must recognize that all truth belongs to God. Whether that truth comes from the mouth of a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religious affiliation for that matter, as Christians we can take that truth and claim it. God is the creator of all things, and as such has claim over all truth. While we recognize the inherent deficiencies in opposing religions, we can still learn from them, while maintaining our clear distinctive convictions.

Third, a general love for others must be the foundation of all dialogues with those outside of our particular faith affiliation. The temptation to view people of other faiths as potential targets for proselytes, instead of individuals we are called to love is a strong enticement. All dialogue should be founded on the love for others Christians are called to exemplify.

We live in a pluralistic society. The ability to dialogue with people of other faiths is now a requisite for the Christian. If we are able to enter into dialogue with humility, understanding that all truth is God’s truth regardless of the source, and communicate with love we may just be able to navigate our way through the world we find ourselves in. And if we are really honest with ourselves, this world is a lot less confusing than the one we encounter in Lost.

Religion or Science?

2010-04-20T10:48:00.000-05:00

Do you believe in science or religion?

Much ink has been spilled, and many controversial lines have been drawn over the first few chapters of Genesis. The result is that we are left with the bifurcated options of claiming faith in the trustworthiness of the Scriptures and denying all forms of science which seemingly contradict that message, or submitting our rational minds to scientific dogma which declares that the creation of the world is in no way dependent on a divine source.

Left with these dichotomous choices many Christians avoid the story of Genesis altogether. As a result theology suffers. No longer are we able to articulate a theology that adheres to monotheistic creation, while at the same time engaging with the scientific world in explicating the origins of our world.

The science vs. religion debate will continue to wage on as long as there are adherents on both sides who are unwilling to consider the other’s propositions because of the inherent assumptions of their own mode of thinking. But as Christians can we offer a third way forward, one that side steps the pitfalls of the previous positions, and at the same time advances our understanding of the nature of God, and His relationship with the world in which we inhabit?

This third way of reading Scripture emphasizes the theological nature of the creation story in Genesis. Instead of reading the narrative with glasses that seek to comprehend the exact nature of how our world came to be, we begin to read the passage theologically, asking the question: what does this teach us about God? Certainly the age old debate on the origins of our world are important, but when we myopically view the Genesis story through only one lens we miss out on some important aspects of the narrative.

A theological reading of the creation story must begin by understanding the very creative act of God to be one of divine forgiveness. If God reflects perfect justice, where wrongs are accounted for, and given their proper punishment, creation itself must be seen as an act of forgiveness.

We do not have to traverse far into the story of creation to find the failings of man. Indeed the story of Adam and Eve is indicative of every human being. We all lose our way, rebel against God, and with great hubris assume that we are better off on our own.

What was described as “good” quickly becomes tainted by the presence of sin. This sin is not a one-time event, but rather soon becomes the modus operandi of human beings in general. We are not just prone to rebel against God, but we often rebel volitionally. That God does not destroy His creation as a result of this willful consistent disobedience must be seen as an act of forgiveness.

And where does this forgiveness find its genesis? We find the impetus for this forgiveness in the nature of the Triune God, a nature overflowing with love. It is out of the exuberant love of God that creation is not only spared, but the very plan of God is to restore, reclaim, and renew all of His good creation.

The creation story in Genesis should immediately inspire praise and adoration to God not only because of the grandiose nature of his creation, but also because of His plan to redeem everything within that creation. The creative act is borne out of the overflowing love of God, and God’s desire to generate a world and people to reflect His image. Our continued existence is a powerful testimony to the forgiving and loving nature of God.

The Scriptural narrative begins with the good act of creation by God, and ends with the consummation of all things when God returns to restore His good creation. If we are able to read Genesis theologically, we soon find the expansive love of God flowing into the created world through the act of creation. God’s love is not exhausted with sin, but rather sin exposes the full extent of that love. That we are not destroyed because of our sin is a testimony to the forgiving nature of God. That God sends his Son to bear upon His shoulders the disastrous affects of sin on both human beings and the creative order is a testimony to the loving nature of God.

God’s forgiveness and love are brilliantly demonstrated to us in the act of creation.

Forgiveness

2010-04-15T09:03:00.000-05:00

“Those who follow Christ should grieve more over the sin of their offenders than over the loss or offense to themselves. And they do this that they may recall those offenders from their sin rather than avenge the wrongs they themselves have suffered. Therefore they put off the form of their own righteousness and put on the form of those others, praying for their persecutors, blessing those who curse, doing good to the evil-doers, preparing to pay the penalty and make satisfaction for their very enemies that they may be saved. This is the gospel and the example of Christ.”

--Martin Luther
From Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge, 162

Free of Charge

2010-04-12T16:24:00.000-05:00

“If Christians in the United States alone gave 10 percent of their income, the problem of world hunger could be solved. But those of us who have tend to squander and hoard, and what we do pass on is often misappropriated by middlemen. We want God to multiply the loaves and fish to feed the multitudes, as Jesus did in the Gospels. But the Apostle suggested that we’ll be able to feed the multitudes if we’d let God change how we think about the loaves and fish we already have.”

--Miroslav Volf, Free of Charge, page 106.

Book Review -- The Call To Conversion

2010-04-11T13:45:00.000-05:00

In The Call To Conversion Jim Wallis invites his readers to a greater understanding of the meaning, and scope of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. According to Wallis, the Kingdom of God has arrived, and that arrival calls all true Christian believers into a radical change of lifestyle.

Wallis rightly understands repentance as a turning away from an old way of life, priorities, and goals and reorienting ones compass so that the goal becomes a life characterized by the Sermon on the Mount. Wallis contends that America’s individualistic culture has brought us to the point where Christians have relinquished their proper responsibility to share with those in need, and to provide for the needy.

Wallis wrote The Call To Conversion in 1981, but any reader of his more recent and popular work can find the genesis of his thoughts in this book. In this edition, Wallis calls out Christians to re-examine their views on global poverty, war, and community.

Wallis appeals to the early church fathers in his chapter on poverty, and generosity, with quotations that will challenge modern day Christians. In the first few centuries of the church, Christians were known for being a people who shared their belongings with others. They understood the poor to be their responsibility, regardless of their affiliation or proximity to them. A stark contrast is drawn between believers of times gone past, and today’s new batch of Christians. America’s individualism and greed are confronted in this text, and a challenge goes forth to all believers to consider why their faith should never be confined to their private quarters, but must instead reach out and extend to those around them.

This book reads much like Wallis’ later works. Fans of his writing will find this book a helpful basis for his future work. I found The Call To Conversion to be an interesting read, although it clearly does not stack up to Wallis’ later works. The book is well written, but at times simplistic, and it lacks the anecdotal character of some of Wallis’ later work. Overall, it is a worthwhile read, especially for the first time reader of Jim Wallis.

The Early Christians

2010-04-10T11:56:00.002-05:00

“They love one another. They never fail to help widows; they save orphans from those who would hurt them. If they have something they give freely to the man who has nothing; if they see a stranger, they take him home, and are happy, as though he were a real brother. They don’t consider themselves brothers in the usual sense, but brothers instead through the Spirit, in God.”

--Aristides describing Christians to the Roman Emperor Hadrian

John Chrysotom

2010-04-08T08:43:00.000-05:00

“But I’ve never made an idol … nor set up an altar nor sacrificed sheep nor poured libations of wine; no, I come to church, I lift up my hands in prayer to the only-begotten Son of God; I partake of the mysteries, I communicate in prayer and in all other duties of a Christian. How then … can I be a worshiper of idols”?

--John Chrysostom, 4th Century Patriarch of Constantinople

Book Review -- After You Believe

2010-03-31T18:15:00.000-05:00

What is the chief goal of man?

This is the question that prolific scholar N.T. Wright addresses in After You Believe. According to Wright, the goal of human existence is to

“become genuine human beings, reflecting the God in whose image we’re made, and doing so in worship on the one hand and in mission, in its full and large sense, on the other; and that we do this not least by following Jesus.” [Page 26]

After You Believe is the conclusion to the trilogy of Simply Christian and Surprised By Hope. In the preceding works Wright expounded on the subjects of why Christianity made sense, and subsequently on proper Christian hope for the future and afterlife. After You Believe represents the culmination of that series, dealing directly with the issue of putting into proper praxis orthodox Christian faith.

For Wright, the goal is virtue, which comes through a transformation of character. This transformation must be understood in terms of proper understanding of the eschatological nature of the promise and work of God. Through Jesus God has enacted a worldwide redemption plan, which transcends the simplistic, and dualistic understanding of salvation as merely heaven when you die. Wright persistently draws the readers’ attention back to the idea that the work of God is transforming the entire cosmos. This transformation does not lie in the distant future, but rather is has been inaugurated in the life and death of Jesus.

Christians long for the day of glorification, when we shall be released from our bondage to sin and decay, however, it is important to recognize that the transformation process from depravity to glorification has already been enacted. This is the eschatological dimension of Wright’s work. The Christian life is meant to be lived in anticipation of this future event, and evidence of that event is to be manifested in the here and now.

Wright contrasts the Aristotelian goal of virtue, with the Christian goal of virtue. One is accomplished in a Pelagian sort of manner, and leads to active service in ones polis, while the other results in the manifestation of Christian virtues in the life of the Christian results in being formed to more closely reflect the image of God.

The transformation of character, which leads to virtue, is not an instantaneous experience. Rather, it is the long drawn out process of making many small, important decisions about reflecting the image of God which leads those engaged with this process to make the right decision when faced with a crisis.

We are called to be rulers and priests. Wright surveys the vast, but often times overlooked Biblical passages that speak of the human race one-day ruling with Christ. Our calling is one of great privilege and responsibility, to be rulers and priests is a high calling, and one that we should be working out in the present in anticipation of that future vocation.

One of the most brilliant chapters of the book is the section on 1 Corinthians 13. Because of familiarity some passages require a fresh reading with new eyes. We have so often heard the passage read and expounded upon, that we miss the intensity of what love really is. For Wright, love is the chief of all the virtues. Love is not something that can be gained overnight, or that can be exercised without much learning. To obtain the true virtue of love is to partake in the long arduous process of transformation of the mind.

In this book Wright characteristically exegetes Biblical passages, his style is both readable and challenging. Fans of his work will enjoy his characteristic interpretation of the Scriptures. However, what sets this work apart from his voluminous other works is the tying of that exegesis to attainment of virtue, and right Christian action. In this book Wright closes out the circle of his trilogy by taking proper orthodox Christian belief and hope and connecting it with proper Christian praxis.

After You Believe II

2010-03-31T12:03:00.000-05:00

“Liberation theology, as it was then known, wasn’t any longer an abstract exercise, a seemingly exciting, flaky, and slightly dangerous sub-branch of systematic theology created to keep left-wing students from getting bored with the study of ancient dogmas. It was about churches, themselves poor and living among the poor, that were working out from day to day what it meant to call Jesus Lord and to make that lordship a living reality in their wider communities.”

--N.T. Wright, After You Believe, Page 235

“Rodney Stark’s book The Rise Of Christianity is his description of how Christians in ancient Turkey would react when their town was struck by plague. The rich, the well-to-do, and particularly the doctors would gather up family and possessions and leave town. They would flee to the hills, to fresher and less polluted air, or to friends or family in towns some distance away. But the Christians often among the poorest, and many of them slaves would stay and nurse people, including those who were neither Christians, nor their own family members, nor in any other way obviously connected to them. Sometimes such people got well again; not all diseases were necessarily fatal. Sometimes Christians would themselves catch the disease and die from it. But the point was made, graphically and unmistakably: this was a different way to be human. Nobody had ever thought of living like that before. Why were they doing it? And the Christians, called upon to explain the habits of the heart which made it ‘natural’ to do such things, would talk about Jesus, and about the God they had discovered through Jesus the God whose very nature was and is self-giving love. Stark suggests that this kind of behavior was one of many contributory reasons for the rapid spread of Christianity, despite the best efforts of efficient Roman persecutors, leading up to the time when, by the start of the fourth century, nearly half the empire was Christian and the emperors decided it was better to join what seemed to be the winning side.”

--N.T. Wright, After You Believe, Page 237

“The church has been divided between those who cultivate their own personal holiness but do nothing about working for justice in the world and those who are passionate for justice but regard personal holiness as an unnecessary distraction from that task. This division has been solidified by the church’s unfortunate habit of adopting from our surrounding culture the unhelpful packages of ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ prejudices, the former speaking of ‘justice’ and meaning ‘libertarianism’ and the latter speaking of ‘holiness’ and meaning ‘dualism.’ All this must be firmly pushed to one side. What we need is integration.”

--N.T. Wright, After You Believe, Page 247

The End Is Near...

2010-03-30T19:18:00.002-05:00

Apocalyptic fervor seems to be at an all time high. We are on the verge of the conclusion of the Mayan calendar, global warming threatens to drastically change the landscape of our world, and the recent economic crisis has lead many to believe that we are fast approaching the end of days. Frightened readers may find solace in the knowledge that even before the dawning of a new millennium prognosticators predicted the ending of our world. Fortunately to this point every Nostradamus has been incorrect in their predictions.

As Christians we are called to be an eschatological people. For some this means a constant mining of the apocalyptic Scriptures for hidden insights about the coming world catastrophe. These insights are appealing to much of our world, some having so much appeal that their unveiling is the cause for rampant fandom resulting a fervor that distracts many well meaning Christians from the crises on which their attention should fall.

What is the telios of the Christian life? Paul makes it abundantly clear, building upon his understanding of what the atonement accomplishes. Our goal is new creation [2 Corinthians 5:17]. We are to live with the end in mind; our attention should be fixed on the future of God, coming to redeem all things, and to restore all of the created order. What Paul calls us to is a life lived in expectation of that future goal, we are to model new creation in our lives in the here and now.

Unfortunately, we are often distracted from the grandiose nature of that goal. A narrow understanding of what the life and death of Jesus on the cross accomplishes easily distracts us. We want to subsume the work of Jesus into a single narrative that focuses its attention primarily on how we get to heaven when we die. But the atonement accomplishes so much more. In his death and resurrection Jesus says no to the powers of this world, he defeats death, evil, and faithfully does what Israel could never do. This work is based primarily on the faithfulness of God to his covenant with Abraham.

Jesus death on the cross inaugurates a new eschatological reality. We are to live out lives today in anticipation of the future coming of God, the restoration of all things, and the establishment of God’s Kingdom on the earth. Our future goal is not disembodied bliss, but rather a world where God runs the show. In anticipation of that reality, we must begin to ask ourselves some probing questions.

First, what would our family, our neighborhood, our city, our country, and our world look like if God were running the show? Our lives should propel our world in that direction. Our sphere of influence should resemble heaven a little more because we are in it. If there will be peace in heaven, we should be peacemakers in our families. If there will be plenty for all in heaven, we should strive to ensure that no one is without when we have the means to bless them.

Second, we recognize that living out Christian ideals is not a matter of adherence to a list of rules to which we are obligated to follow out of fear of divine retribution. Nor are we simply free to live in a world of grace without consequences because we serve a God who is overflowing with forgiveness. Rather, we understand that our lives are to be lived in anticipation of our redemption. We are an eschatological people, not because we long for the end of time, or the removal of ourselves from this evil world, but rather because we long for the day when God will restore all things. In anticipation of that restoration, our lives serve as glimpses into that future reality. This eschatological anticipation motivates us to live up to the standards of the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7]. We are neither trying to earn God’s favor, nor are we taking advantage of His grace. We are striving towards the goal of completion when we will be made whole.

Finally, because we are an eschatological people we will seek out others who share our convictions and hopes of reaching fulfillment. The path that leads to completion is not to be traveled in seclusion. We are a community of called out people challenged with the task of orienting our lives around the reality of the resurrection. We cannot traverse this path alone, nor were we meant to. Living in anticipation of the end means a radical change in lifestyle, commitments, and values. This transformation is designed to take place within the context of a community of believers who challenge, prod, and dare us to take the next steps toward our goal. We are not meant to walk alone on this road, for God has called out others just like us to be an eschatological people.

After You Believe I

2010-03-29T16:32:00.000-05:00

“Thus in literal historic truth, not simply in theological interpretation, the one bore the sins of the many. Some theories of atonement detach themselves from the actual events and superimpose on (or even substitute for) the gospel narrative a theological scheme of interpretation culled from elsewhere, in order to explain how sinners may ultimately leave this world and go to heaven. Such theories are no better, at the level of a proper theological method, than theories of the kingdom, which ignore the cross. Kingdom and cross belong together. The whole story is the whole story. And it is within that whole story, not within some truncated version, that Jesus’s call to a new-creation kind of virtue makes the sense which it does.”

--N.T. Wright, After You Believe, page 114

Embracing Grace Book Review

2010-03-29T16:26:00.000-05:00

“The Gospel is more like a piece of music to be performed than a list of ideas to endorse.”

With those words Scot McKnight launches the reader in to an extremely helpful and often times much needed reminder of what the Gospel of Jesus Christ actually entails. This book represents a clear synopsis of the overall narrative of Scripture, which allows the reader to make sense the message and actions of Jesus within a context of the developing story.

For McKnight, the Gospel is about the restoration of cracked eikons. McKnight begins with the story of Genesis, which is where any explanation of the Gospel must begin. For too often the Old Testament has been discarded as the history of Israel, containing only archaic laws and commands, which were clearly replaced by the ministry of Jesus. McKnight traces human beings need for the Gospel all the way back to the garden of Eden, where human beings are created in the image of God [Genesis 1], and are subsequently cracked [Genesis 3], and in need of restoration.

Jesus represents the true eikon, the one in whom all things are contained. In Jesus we see a true reflection of what it looks like to be human. From the Genesis story we also see a clear reflection of what the Gospel is all about. The death and resurrection of Jesus provide restoration of not only the cracked eikon, but also of the entire world. The Gospel is bigger and greater than we have made it out to be, involving not just our own personal salvation, but the restoration of the entire world.

The reality of judgment must also be faced when speaking about the restoration of cracked eikons. Exclusion is the way in which McKnight chooses to speak about the reality of judgment for those who choose to reject the restorative power of the Gospel, and instead choose their own path. In the garden Adam and Eve were excluded from fellowship with God, and allowed to pursue their own selfish ambitions, we too face the same sort of choice. We are free to choose our own path apart from God, only to end up excluding ourselves from God’s restorative justice. All of this, McKnight rightly points out, happens in the context of community.

McKnight's chapter on theories of the atonement is worth the price of the entire book. The atonement accomplishes so much that no single theory can possibly contain it. McKnight carefully walks through different theories of the atonement, pointing out the teachings of each one, and the validity each one possesses for a well-rounded theology of the cross. Any student of theology would do well to read McKnight’s chapter on the atonement. If more pastors were to glimpse the broad brush with which McKnight understands the atonement preaching on the Gospel would improve exponentially.

An excellent read, I highly recommend it for any serious student of theology.

Ghandi is Back!

2010-03-26T16:37:00.000-05:00

Funny clip, Brian McLaren recently pointed out how this clip illustrates some of the hazardous ways the second coming of Jesus is read from Scripture. For too long Christians have missed the non-violent message of Jesus from the Gospels.

Why Believe?

2010-03-25T17:14:00.000-05:00

Depsite all the skepticism of today's Western world, there might after all be a God who made the world and who is going to put it right at last. The dreams we have that refuse to die -- dreams of freedom and beauty, of order and love, dreams that we can make a real difference in the world -- come into their own when we put them within a framework of belief in a God who made the world and is going to sort it out once and for all, and wants to involve human beings in that process.

--N.T. Wright, After You Believe page xi

Scot McKnight -- Embracing Grace

2010-03-24T17:34:00.000-05:00

In exclusions most radical form, humans can exclude themselves from God and other so categorically that they can gain a sense -- again only a sense-- that God no longer exists. We call this 'atheism.' But, humans can't really be atheists. Instead, they become individualists; their absorption with an All-consuming Self drowns out their Eikonic sense of God, and, before long, they begin to tell themselves that there is no God and that they are atheists. What they really are is individualists.

--Scot McKnight Embracing Grace, page 132

N.T. Wright

2010-03-23T21:57:00.000-05:00

It isn't that God basically wants to condemn and then finds a way to rescue some from that disaster. It is that God longs to bless lavishly, and so to rescue and bless those in danger of tragedy -- and therefore must curse everything that thwarts and destroys the blessing of his world and his people.

--N.T. Wright. Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, page 52

Genesis III

2010-03-22T15:54:00.000-05:00

Lessons From Genesis:

If we adhere to a reading of Scripture that maintains a focus on the narrative of Scripture and strays from arguments on historicity, and instead narrows our attention to the intent of the author and the lessons to be learned from the passage, what can we expect to find in Genesis?

Genesis clearly expounds the fall of man, and the consequences of that fall from perfect relationship with God. In essence we can all find our story wrapped up on the story of Adam. We have all strayed from God, and sought to live on our own power. We are all prone to wander off in our own direction, seeking a course that seems right in our own eyes. This is exactly what is presented to us in Genesis, the results of straying from the plan and purpose of God.

The result of that sin in the garden is two fold. First, as man is created in the image of God, straying causes that image to be marred. Talk of original sin [something not emphasized in the Genesis story, but rather imported there via Paul], too often misses the point of judgment in the creation story. We are what Scot McKnight calls cracked eikons. We were created to reflect the image of God, our sin causes cracks in that image.

The second result from the sin in the garden is seperation from community with God. Adam and Eve are no longer permitted to remain in the close companionship of their creator. As they move further from God, giving into their own desires and ways, their relationship is damaged. It is not the desire of God for us to live in seperation. Community and relationship are established from the very beginning of the narrative. However, judgment comes when we decide to live in our own way apart from relationship with God.

If we seriously read the first chapters of Genesis as indicative of what all humans go through, and a picture of the relationship that man has with God, it could radically change our view of judgment and the future. Instead of God banishing humans to eternal conscious torment, the loss of relationship, and marred image of humans more clearly represents a Biblical example of future divine punishment.

That punishment in no way diminishes the reality of judgment, but rather as C.S. Lewis so adequately said emphasizes the two paths one can choose: At the end of life, either you say to God: Your will be done. Or God says to you: Your will be done.

The Genesis Story II

2010-03-18T14:40:00.000-05:00

If as I advocated previously, we begin to read the Scriptures in narrative form our priorities and methods of interpreting Scripture will change.

If we start from the beginning, reading the story of the creation of the world, not as a historical manifesto, but rather as an indicative story of the way in which all human beings fall from grace, and are in need of restoration, we will soon find ourselves relieved from the albatross of proof.

Much has been written in recent years about absolute proofs for the historicity of the Bible, and the trustworthiness of its message based on provable facts. And while those apologetic arguments are important [and many of them factual], our postmodern world has freed us to recover the story of Scripture. If we read the Bible as true myth [which in no way denigrates the usefulness, or inspiration of Scripture], we see less need to prove the historicity of the story and can then instead focus our attention on the inherent truths of that story.

Scot McKnight points out in his book Embracing Grace

The gospel is good enough on its own, and it doesn't need to be propped up with proofs. Stories are like that. No one needs to prove that The Adventues of Tom Sawyer or The Lord of the Rings or Charlotte's Web are good stories. Read them and you will be drawn in, just as we can be drawn into the gospel story.

How would our understanding of the Genesis story change if we read it simply as a story without the constant worry about extricating historical truths from its pages, and instead viewed the narrative as the story of how human beings created in the image of God crack that image, and are in need of restoration. I am once again not denying its historicity, or the truth of the story. If anything I would say that this reading makes the story even more truthful [I would like to insert the made up word truthfuller somewhere here]

If the gospel story begins in Genesis 1, maybe we should be reading the Scriptures as a story, and not a contract made between God and man.

Social Justice Distracting?

2010-03-15T14:40:00.001-05:00

Much has been said in recent times about the role that social justice should play in the proclamation of the Gospel. Both sides of the aisle stridently appeal to their understanding of the Gospel, which unfortunately leaves sparring partners in separate corners throwing jabs at their opponent. This is both unhelpful for the cause of Christianity and the Gospel, and a poor understanding of what the Gospel actually is.

How did we arrive at this point?

First, we divorce Jesus from His Old Testament roots. If we were to read the Old Testament, and actually take it seriously, we would find not a story of individuals looking for entrance into a disembodied existence, nor would we find persons striving to obtain individual forgiveness. Instead we find the story of Israel, and God being faithful to His covenant with them [even though they are unfaithful time and time again.] If we divorce Jesus from this story line, we assume that His message is about how to gain entrance into a disembodied existence after you die, which leads us to think that the pain and suffering in the here and now is simply a distraction from that goal.

Second, we divorce Jesus from his primary teaching, which is the Kingdom of God. I cannot imagine how one could read the Gospels and do so, but we forget that Jesus came preaching a message about His coming Kingdom. Even a cursory reading of Luke’s Gospel plunges us into this social message, when Jesus proclaims that he is here to proclaim the year of Jubilation.

Third, we completely miss out on the teachings of the Minor Prophets. This omission is understandable, because most Christians don’t spend much devotional time in the book of Zechariah. However, if we were to divert our attention there for a few moments we would soon find a clear picture of the social message of the prophets of the Old Testament, who emphasize justice, peace, and right living before burnt offerings, and songs of praise.

To divorce the mandate for social justice from the Gospel of Jesus would be akin to removing the cross from the life of Jesus. If someone were to make the statement that: “too many Christians are focused on the cross, and that is taking away our attention from the Gospel”, I am quite sure there would be a resounding answer to that misguided thought. The same must be true for social justice. Our job as Christians is to promote justice, so that God’s Kingdom may come “on earth as it is in heaven” [Matthew 6:10].

The Genesis Story

2010-03-11T11:55:00.002-05:00

Narrative and Myth:

The initial narrative of Scripture rightfully addresses the issue of the origins of the earth and mankind. This particular narrative has come under much scrutiny and study by both those who interpret the passage in a literal sense, and those who view the passage primarily as a literary passage. Endless debate ensues as to the historicity of the story, which normally conjoins itself to a discussion about the reliability, truthfulness, or inerrant nature of the Scriptures.

If we understand the Scriptures as the grand narrative of the working of God in the world throughout history, how are we to understand the Genesis account?

Our cultural/contextual reading of the story of Genesis fundamentally influences the problem of interpretation. When we attempt to conform the story of Genesis into our rational world of historical fact, we import meaning into an ancient text that may not be necessarily the intent of the author. While historicity of the account is certainly a key issue, what if we focus instead on how the narrative of Genesis fits within the grand story of Scripture, informing, shaping, and molding how we read the rest of Scripture.

N.T. Wright has recently said that when we take Genesis out of its ancient Jewish context, we flatten out the story, instead focusing on sidebar issues such as historicity and truthfulness, instead of recognizing the narrative as a true myth, one that informs and capitalizes on human experience, giving humans archetypal origins that transcend beyond the five senses. Wright goes on to say:

“To flatten that [the text of Genesis] out is to almost perversely avoid the real thrust of the narrative … we have to read Genesis for all its worth and to say either history or myth is a way of saying 'I’m not going to read this text for all its worth, I am just going to flatten it out so that it conforms to the cultural questions that my culture today is telling me to ask.”

At its heart the story of Genesis is the typical experience of all human beings. We are all prone to fail, to turn against God. We are all living in exile in this world separated from God because of our insistence to live independent lives. If we continue to read the story of Genesis as the basis of all human experience, and as the beginning of the narrative of Scripture that emphasizes exile and deliverance from that exile, we cease to argue over the historicity of the story, and we begin to ask the question: How would the original hearers have understood this story, and interpreted it in light of their experiences with God.

This way of reading Genesis will almost certainly inspire the question of truthfulness, because we are so informed by a rational understanding of our world where myth = false. But if we are able to suspend those objections for a moment, we will be able to read Genesis in a new light, possibly allowing us to view Scripture in a new way, connecting the story of Genesis to the remainder of Scripture.

Is the narrative of Genesis true? Absolutely, just maybe not the way we think of something being true. If we begin with a reading of Genesis that allows us to move beyond modern questions we may find new connections with the rest of the Scriptural narrative.

Book Review -- A New Kind of Christianity

2010-03-09T10:42:00.003-05:00

I must admit that I approached A New Kind of Christianity with high expectations. The book was able to ascend to the status of book that I bought in a retail store, which normally brings with it an elevated price tag, and this book was no different.

I must admit to having read almost all of Brian McLaren’s books. The Story We Find Ourselves In remains one of my favorite books of all time, and The Last Word and the Word After That is still one of the most challenging and thought provoking books that I have read in recent years. I found myself inspired by the careful consideration that God’s good creation was given in the former book, and angry, frustrated, and by the end rethinking my view on the afterlife in the latter. McLaren’s new book is in many ways an echoing of his recent work. In my mind McLaren has functioned in many ways like a translator of theology for the rest of us. The influences on his writing are clear throughout the book, as he takes the arguments and thoughts of great theologians and translates them into a form that the everyman can understand. This is not an indictment of McLaren for a lack of individual thoughts, but rather he fulfills an important role in the area of progressive theology. As one who considers theology the work of not just the professional, but also the layman, McLaren makes theology accessible for those who have not had the privilege/trial of attending seminary.

In A New Kind of Christianity, McLaren asks ten probing questions. Questions range from unlocking the story of the Bible addressing issues like: The Gospel question, to issues that are facing Christians today, including sexuality, pluralism, and the future. McLaren addresses each issue by providing important insights that will challenge conventional thinking, and seeks to provide a new way forward.

The book is interesting, and easy to read, however, I would strongly recommend following up on the numerous footnotes throughout the book, which provide some of the most interesting and challenging commentary in the book.

While each of the ten questions needs to be adequately discussed, I would like to spend a few moments interacting with a few of the primary issues that are brought to light in the book.

First, McLaren constantly rails against a linear 6 story line reading of Scripture that he claims has been the common reading in Christendom. This story line involves an understanding of the narrative of the Bible that includes an ideal state, followed by the fall of man. This fallen state, is solved through salvation, which provides the path to re-ascension to a platonic future state, those who do not attain salvation are bound to eternal conscious torment.

McLaren utilizes the teaching of the Greek philosophers to delineate where this story line finds its genesis. Plato vs. Aristotle have so highly influenced our reading of the Bible that we must break free from that controlling narrative, and reclaim a narrative of Scripture that rightly focuses on creation, liberation, and restoration.

McLaren advocates an understanding of Scripture that emphasizes the messages of Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah. It is vital according to McLaren to read the Scriptures as a narrative that builds as the story goes along. For too long Christians have read the gospels without considering the foundation that the Old Testament provides, this is one of the most helpful insights in the entire book. If Christians were to understand the Scriptures in story format, with the Old Testament picture of God and His work in the world leading into the story of Jesus, our interpretation of the life and work of Jesus would be significantly impacted.

From this six-line narrative, readers of Scripture have created a god foreign to the Scriptures. McLaren gives this false god the name of Theos, a character that is both controlling, and deterministic. This god is capable of condemning those who do not follow him into eternal conscious torment. McLaren finds this version of god and judgment to be wholly inadequate. In his chapter on the Gospel McLaren expounds:

“In fact, in light of everything we know about Jesus, doesn’t it seem positively ludicrous to imagine him gathering his disciples to announce, ‘Listen guys. Here is my real agenda. We’re going to start a new religion, and we’re going to name it after me. … It’s even more ludicrous to imagine him saying, ‘And we’re going to eternally torture anyone who doesn’t accept this new religion named after me”

(Page 139).

McLaren has previously dealt with the issue of judgment in his book The Last Word and the Word After That, and this book continues along those lines furthering the discussion of what happens to those who do not belong to the Kingdom of God. McLaren here raises some critical questions that need to be addressed by Christians. If one decides to believe in eternal conscious torment, one needs to have thought through the issue, and McLaren calls his readers to just that.

My issue with McLaren’s line of thinking on this particular theme is that while McLaren wants Christians to rethink their version of judgment, he seems to disregard the clear passages in Scripture that talk about the reality of the possibility of being separated from God. I agree with McLaren that passages dealing with the topic of hell in the gospels often times do not conform to our traditional understandings when they are examined in context. However, that being said, I think a total denial of the reality of judgment goes too far in disregarding the punishment that awaits those who disregard the working of God in their lives. N.T. Wright, who McLaren quotes often, has delved into this topic, regarding the ultimate punishment of those who turn away from God as a choice of dehumanization. Less and less they mirror the image of God, and eventually they are turned over to their flesh, and dehumanize themselves to the point that they are no longer welcome in the presence of God. This lack of fellowship and loneliness is the ultimate punishment, the banishment into outer darkness because of a lack of fellowship. At different points in the book it seemed as though McLaren was heading into this sort of direction, but he never really gets there.

McLarens characterization of Theos is certainly a god that we must reject as foreign to the narrative of Scripture. The God of Scripture is not a deterministic God whose future plans for the earth is one of destruction. However, McLaren seems to move in the direction of an open theism view of the future, in which the plans of God are determined by the actions of man. A balance must be found here where responsibility for building the Kingdom of God remains on faithful followers of Christ, while at the same time realizing that it is God who will complete the task.

This book may frustrate the reader, because of the lack of answers provided. I found myself constantly wanting more from each chapter. The themes incorporated are ones that McLaren has dealt with in previous books, often times in more detail. McLaren has attempted to bring a plethora of issues to the forefront of Christian conversation, and has at times left the reader wanting more. That frustration is met with an answer in the closing chapter of the book.

“You will see that I have not tried to answer these questions definitively, but only responded to them provisionally, seeking to open up conversation, not close it down”

(Page 257).

McLaren has accomplished what he set out to do. More questions were raised in my mind as a result of reading this book. I cannot say that I agree with all his assertions. While I agree that a new narrative reading of Scripture is warranted, I cannot completely agree with the openness of McLaren’s reading on the future. I certainly would wish that more space had been devoted to the atonement, and what is accomplished in the death and resurrection of Christ; however, McLaren avoids this conversation in fear that the great crises of our world would be ignored (Page 254).

This book is both challenging and thought provoking. It will not answer all the questions, because it is not meant to. The book has hints of future work from McLaren, where issues that are raised will be delved into in greater detail; I foresee another book that will find itself worthy of the retail price.

Book Review -- The Great Awakening

2010-03-08T11:29:00.003-05:00

The Great Awakening is the companion and follow up to God’s Politics in which Jim Wallis calls for a new sort of politics among Christians, which emphasizes not just a few hot button issues, but rather a policy that addresses the many life threatening issues that we are facing in our world today.

This book echoes the message of God’s Politics, and calls Christians to a new awakening. Wallis is passionate about both Christianity and politics and both shines is this book. Wallis grounds his book in the understanding that the message of Jesus is inherently political; divorcing his message from political undertones strips the message of the gospels of their power. Wallis consistently appeals to the themes of the Kingdom of God, and justice as key characteristics of the message of Jesus. These themes are to be understood by the church as the foundation for Christian’s action in the world.

Wallis continues his book by addressing several hot button issues including racial diversity, a consistent ethic of life, family values, responsible stewardship of creation, and peace. At every turn Wallis calls forth Christians to think and act in a Christian way. For too long Christian politics have been co-opted by the Religious Right, something Wallis continually critiques because of their narrow focus on issues, and blatant disregard for others which Wallis considers to be essential.

The Great Awakening calls Christians to further action, and points to a new way forward. It calls Christians to truly love their neighbor, to fight against the continued racial boundaries that constrain many in America. Wallis pleads with Christians to consider their stewardship over God’s good creation, and our responsibility to care for what God has left us stewards over.

A consistent ethic of life includes not only support for pro-life legislation, but must be expanded from the cradle to the grave. 30,000 people will die today from preventable diseases, a fact which is often lost on Christian conservatives who focus their sole attention on abortion. A holistic Christian is one who fights for the unborn; while at the same time joins the battle to provide medical help for those who so desperately need it.

As with any book, the author does not come to the table without presuppositions, and biases. Wallis is no different. If there is a weakness to his book, it is the perceived hubris that at times comes across in his writing. While the Religious Right certainly damaged both politics, and Christians understanding about their responsibility in the political world, they are not the pariahs that Wallis seems to make them out to be. At times the constant criticism of only one side of the coin makes the book somewhat less believable, and reminds the reader of the constant partisan politics which Washington so frequently falls into, thereby rendering them unable to pass legislation which would make a significant impact on our world.

I recommend this book to anyone interested in a new way forward in politics, Christian or not, this book will be helpful for any reader, and lead them to a greater understanding of the issues which we must be concerned about, and the issues that we must address.

In God's Time Book Review

2010-03-08T10:57:00.002-05:00

Apocalyptic fervor among Christians is reaching an all time high. With the immense popularity of the Left Behind Series, coupled with the imminent end of the world in 2012, the desire for a road map to the future has officially ascended to a level that surpasses anything we have ever seen.

In his excellent book In God’s Time, Craig C. Hill carefully guides us through the many diverse interpretations of apocalyptic literature in the Scriptures, and provides a way forward for Christians who are serious about sound hermeneutics. Hill opens his book by emphasizing that fundamentalism does not own eschatology. This point becomes even more important as you make your way through the book, because it becomes clear that Hill is directly arguing against a hermeneutic of interpreting futuristic passages in Scripture as though they could not possibly have a historical counterpart. Understanding the historical context, and varied nature of historical interpretation of apocalyptic passages in Scripture gives the interpreter a well-rounded view of the possible meanings of passages in question. If
Daniel and Revelation can be read not as guide maps to the future, but rather as carefully crafted literature that speaks to the historical context in which Christians are suffering the interpretation and meaning of those passages could be freed from narrow fundamentalist understandings.

Hill is correct in pointing out that eschatology in Scripture is not always unanimous. Varied positions, and perspectives grounded in historical context should be expected. Hill carefully traces eschatology throughout the Scriptures, and rightly points out that eschatology is not always about the future that cannot be changed, and is most certainly not about some far off distant land, which would be indiscernible to the original hearers.

In this book the reader is given a clear alternative to interpretations of the book of Revelation that rely completely on a futuristic interpretation. Revelation must be read in its proper context as apocalyptic literature, which always functions as the literature of the oppressed. Revelation must be firmly grounded in its historical context in order to be properly understood. Hill is careful to note that the pendulum normally swings between two extremes when interpreting Revelation:

“We are prone to domesticate Revelation in one of two ways. The first is to strip the book of its historical context, decoupling Revelation from the first century and viewing it as a timeless guidebook to the Last Days, which coincidentally happen to be our days… The opposite tack is to limit the book to its Roman context, assuming that to explain Revelation is to be done with Revelation. No enduring insights are met, no ongoing questions entertained. The book is tamed and our world goes happily undisturbed.” (Page 111)

If we are to properly understand apocalyptic literature in Scripture we must ensure that our understandings are firmly grounded in historical context, while at the same time realizing that Revelation has a significant message for us today.

I thoroughly enjoyed Hill’s book, however, as with all works there are inherent weaknesses. I disagree with Hill on some of the stances he takes on Biblical authorship, and his binary understanding between the Gospels, Jesus, and Paul. Christian Eschatology is multifaceted in Scripture, with different authors giving us a different viewpoint to the future. These viewpoints are to be expected, celebrated, and understood as giving us a multi-dimensional look at the future plans of God for our world. God’s kingdom is both here and not yet, causing the tension that we live with in Scripture today. That tension is clear in both the Gospels, and Paul where each author struggles with here and not yet manifestation of the Kingdom of God.

In God’s Time is an excellent book, and I recommend it for any serious student of eschatology.

Humility Starts At The Top

2010-03-02T09:49:00.000-05:00

I can feel all fifteen sets of eyes on me… all waiting for me to respond, looking anxiously because I am assumed to have an answer that will settle all disputes. Humility is often talked about, and frequently held up as a virtue required of all leaders. Some leaders make grand claims to have attained humility and are quick to recount the episodes in their lives that gave them the ability to somehow remain humble in the face of success all around them.

Anyone in a leadership position, especially one that involves teaching can easily fall into the trap of thinking they know more than they really do. The church culture expects answers from their leaders. As a professor at two different colleges, I am constantly faced with questions from eager students who expect me to give them the answers to all the difficult questions in the world. It becomes increasingly easy to operate from a stance of epistemic authority from the position of teacher. Add to that the perceived infallibility that comes from advanced degrees, or special titles, and you have a potent combination that can cause anyone to think more of themselves and their understanding of all things than is really the case.

What would be the response to a pastor on a Sunday morning that admits during the weekly service that he/she has studied the Scripture passage under inspection that week only to discover more questions have risen in his/her mind than answers. Could a pastor really tell his/her congregation that all the answers are not divinely imparted to them during their weekly study? Could the existence of mystery really become not only acceptable, but also expected?

I often times wonder what the response would be in a congregation if a pastor openly admitted to the congregation that “I have been studying this passage all week, and honestly I’m still not quite sure what all the implications of this are.”

“We know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). The apostle Paul rightly understands the incomplete nature of our understanding of the world around us.

Responsible Christian teaching rightly admits the incomplete nature of our comprehension of God. God is beyond our comprehension; any attempt to adequately describe the God of the Bible always falls short of completion. A sense of awe and wonder must always accompany any theological enterprise.

Christian pastors and teachers need to become acutely aware of this limitation, because of temptation to think more of ourselves than we should. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking we have all the answers, which soon leads to dogmatic statements that extend to every area of theology. Certainly there should be some subjects with which we speak with great certitude about, however, in many cases a little epistemic humility would go a long way.

So how can we remain humble in front of others without compromising the imparting of truth, which is the responsibility of Christian teachers?

First, I would extend a call to all teachers, whatever their status to learn three very important words: I don’t know. There is something refreshing about admitting that you do not know something when asked a question. So much pressure is placed on Christian leaders to have all the answers, because they are professional Christian leaders. However, admitting that we are not all knowing relieves us from the pressure of having to be infallible on all things in theology. Pastors admitting that they don’t have all the answers would actually encourage their constituents ensuring them that questions are sometimes ok.

Second, Christian leaders need to approach any teaching with great humility, knowing that anything they begin to say about God will be in part inadequate to fully capture His greatness. Any statement about God in human language falls short of His holiness, His perfection. So we will begin to readily admit that God is bigger, and greater than anything our words can describe.

Finally, pastors, and teachers will understand that sometimes starting the conversation amongst your listeners is actually a greater method of teaching than giving all the answers. The pastor on Sunday morning moves from being the last word on the subject to the first word. The pastor starts a conversation that will continue throughout the week.

Questions are often times better than answers, because through our questions we become seekers after God, searching the Scriptures prayerfully to encounter a God who is both beyond us, and somehow personally attainable through the Scriptures.

Reclaiming a Narrative of Hope

2010-03-02T09:47:00.000-05:00

Reclaiming a narrative of hope.

When I was in the ninth grade a new teacher came to my little school in rural Pennsylvania. Loquacious students quickly spread word about the new style of this particular teacher, with two main points of emphasis coming down the grapevine to my ever interested ears. The school was a buzz about the particularly strange way in which this new teacher utilized a thin pencil to daily draw in a set of eyebrows that had previously been scorched off in some sort of terrible accident with a razor [or so my ninth grade mind thought].

The other piece of news that quickly made its way to my corner of the small school was the religious practices of this teacher. Information was passed along to me that this teacher was a practicing Pentecostal, and as such engaged in all sorts of strange religious practices that were foreign to a good young Baptist as I was. My immediate reaction was to pass judgment on this foreign sect that my teacher participated in, and immediately to judge the validity of her faith. Why was I so quick to pass down judgment? First naïveté, and second because of the narrative in which I was so deeply entrenched.

Everyone is engaged in a controlling narrative that informs his or her lives. While postmodernity would like to cast aside all controlling narratives, it is impossible to do so. We make our decisions based on this narrative, and from the story above, you can see that I made judgments on others based on the narrative in which I lived. From a distance I am able to marvel at how quickly I was willing to judge, and glad to see that the personal narrative in which I live is quite a bit more broad and accepting.

The Christian community in general has been cast into a narrative in which we are often times uncomfortable, but which we are most likely well deserving. The Christian community would be well off to rediscover the narrative that permeates the Scriptures, that narrative of exile and exodus.

Scripture opens with the grand story of Moses and the people of Israel enslaved in a foreign land, the chosen people call upon God to remember his covenant promises and deliver them from bondage. God is faithful to his promises, and delivers his people from their bondage. God brought them from exile to freedom.

Thousands of years later we see this same narrative informing all of our lives. We live exile, longing for our home. This longing is a natural outworking of the experiences we have while separated from the rule of God, but these longings can often times revert our attention from the grand purpose of God, and focus them too narrowly on our personal longings for freedom.

Certainly the promise of freedom as individuals is an important aspect of the narrative of Scripture, but we must remember that what God is doing in our world comprises a narrative that we have nearly forgotten.
So how do we broaden out our perspective in order to fully engage with the overarching narrative of exile and exodus in Scripture?

First, we must begin to recognize that God wants to restore all things in His creation. The sin that befell the physical world in Genesis 3 will soon be overturned with the return of God. This means instead of emphasizing a narrative where the souls of those who are lucky enough to hear a particular message about God and His work head off to disembodied bliss upon death, we would rather begin to expand the controlling narrative in our lives to include the restoration of all creation. This means we would be just as likely to speak about the well being of creation as we would the well being of individual souls.

Second, we realize that in our world there are still many who languish in exile, struggling under the oppressive regimes in our world that control the wealth for themselves, while allowing others to suffer without. Exodus means deliverance from this oppression, and it is the business of the people of God to be concerned about those who are currently suffering this type of persecution. As we begin to recognize that in our flattened world the suffering of others is not only our business but also our responsibility, we will look to spread the gospel of freedom to those that live in a world without freedom. We will begin to use our resources to help those in need, because this becomes a part of our responsibility as the people of God.

Finally, we will see the work of God in the lives of all people, both believers and unbelievers. As a young man I could not fathom that God would be working in the life of someone who was a member of a different denomination than I. My narrative was too small. As the narrative that controls our lives expands and grows, we will begin to realize that God wants to deliver all people from their exile, and we will see that work of God in everyone’s life, regardless of where they are in their particular journey. This saves us from being the judge as to who is in and who is out, and instead calls us to love everyone and join them in the work that God is doing in their lives.

May we all expand the narratives that control our lives until the day when God is “all in all.”

The Problem of Exclusivity 2

2009-01-13T10:40:00.003-05:00

A second problem that I have with hard exclusivism is the reality of hell. This is one of those topics that when brought up to Christians most just assume the reality of a lake of fire in the center of the earth where all the non-chosen will be sent to live in eternal torment. While I disagree with the literalism of many interpretations of hell, I think Christians must deal with the reality of really really believing in hell.

One of the best illustrations that I have come into contact works something like this. In order to really really believe in hell, you would have to foresee a future where you would live in a wonderful mansion on top of a hill. You would live with all the creature comforts that a human can enjoy, every wish and desire is met. The only drawback to the life of bliss that you are living is that there is a concentration camp at the bottom of the hill where your fellow man is being tortured day after day. That doesn't exactly sound like the life of bliss that I look forward to upon my exit from this world.

I am not saying that the existence of hell, or judgment should come under attack. I personally read the Scriptures as having clear indications that a life of rejection of God leads to personal judgment. But what I am saying is that most Christians are too quick to assume that they are in and others are out, and those who have not assented to a specific message are destined for a life of indescribable torture at the hands of God.

Really really believing in hell must bring us face to face with this reality. I wonder how many Christians have really ever thought this one through. I also wonder how many Christians have actually looked up all the references in the Scripture on hell, and asked themselves what the Scriptures actually say.

I have found that too often our visions of hell are more influenced by popular culture than they are by what the Scriptures actually say. None of this means that I don't believe in hell or judgment, but rather I would call all serious Christians to an examination of what the Scriptures actually say. And my challenge is this. To really really believe in hell you have to deal in some way with that concentration camp at the bottom of the hill.

The Problem of Exclusivity

2009-01-10T18:10:00.003-05:00

"There can be no doubt that certain types of evangelical theology have caused considerable anxiety in this respect by their apparent insistence that only those who respond to the explicit verbal proclamation of the gospel will be saved... But this is flawed theology, which limits God's modes of action, disclosure, and saving power."

--Alister McGrath

Most evangelicals consider themselves exclusivists, without ever realizing some of the pitfalls of their position. While conservatives will be willing to defend the hill of exclusivity till death, maybe a softening of the position is long overdue. Hard exclusivism teaches that only a direct response to the verbal proclamation of the gospel is effective in atoning for the sins of the hearer. But I agree with McGrath that this limits the breadth and scope of God's saving power. There are certainly Biblical examples of those outside the line of salvific history that are considered part of the family of God [Melchizedek, Abimelech, etc.]

This is not to say that pluralism should rule as king, or even inclusivism that views all paths as leading to salvation through Christ. We must begin to recognize the saving power of Christ that extends beyond our abilities. The eternal purposes of God will be established. Perhaps a better way forward is to begin to recognize the saving power of God, that can extend beyond an explicit elucidation of the gospel.

Does general revelation take the place of specific revelation? I don't think so personally, but what I do believe is that God will judge each individual on the basis of their knowledge and their personal response to God.

While I am personally not an inclusivist, I am also not a hard exclusivist. I recognize that the work of God is possible outside of my preconceived notions of how a person is to be saved. I do not believe that salvation lies in any religious path to the divine, but I do believe that God will judge all people individually, and he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy

Christians often times become obsessed with creating dividing lines of who is in and who is out. I believe our stance on that particular question should remain a stance of the agnostic. God alone will judge, our time on earth is better spent doing unto others as we would have them do to us, than on deciding who fits into the "in" category. Christians love to draw lines in the sand and defend their territory, but perhaps a better way forward is to first recognize our similarities, and our mutual need for the work of God in our lives.

The Task Of The Community

2008-12-31T16:04:00.002-05:00

"Good theology... is the disciplined and critical reflection of the community of faith upon the gospel entrusted to it. It is reflection carried out within the community of faith, from the standpoint afforded by faith, and for the sake of the community of faith. Christian theology, then, is a pursuit of the church. It is the attempt on the part of those who belong to the church of Christ to explore and to comprehend more fully the shape and structure of the truth which they are called upon to profess and to live out in all its varied aspects."

--Stanley Grenz, Renewing The Center, page 209

Regardless of what some may think, the Bible does not interpret itself, and the task of theology is not confined to those in the hallows of academia. The task of Christian theology remains the task of the community of faith, for the benefit of the community of faith. That task involves contextual interpretation, and subjective application, which is what makes the center of theology always shifting, and moving as the church of Jesus Christ grows, and adapts to it's current context.

Reclaiming theological construction as a key responsibility of the church takes us beyond fundamentalism and it's foundational constructs, and beyond the protestant liberalism of experience claiming the right to be the cornerstone of theology. Rather it acknowledges the shared religious experience of people of faith in Jesus Christ, and rests on the foundation of the faithful interpretation of Scripture by those in the community of faith.

Everyone that claims the name of Christ is a theologian, and as a result must practice their task in the context of their own community of faith.

The End Of Theology

2008-12-29T07:59:00.002-05:00

"In this sense, then, the postmodern turn spells the end of theology. No longer can any one group, tradition, or sub-narrative claim without reservation and qualification that their particular doctrinal perspective determines the whole of evangelicalism. Rather, the ongoing evangelical theological task includes (among other things) a never-ending conversation about the meaning, in the contemporary context, of the symbols that as evangelicals they are committed to maintaining and that form the carriers of meaning for all."

Stanley Grenz, Renewing the Center, pg. 189.

Quote of the Day

2008-12-24T11:35:00.002-05:00

"I approach theology in a spirit of adventure, being always curious about what I may find. For me, theology is like a rich feast, with many dishes to enjoy and delicacies to taste. It is like a centuries-old conversation that I am privileged to take part in, a conversation replete with innumerable voices to listen to.

[I see myself] more like a pilgrim than a settler, I read the path of discovery and do my theology en route.

Being a theological pilgrim involves listening ever more carefully to what the Scriptures actually say and teach and making appropriate course corrections in response."

--Charles Pinnock

Church Advertising

2008-12-22T10:28:00.002-05:00

I work in a church, and live near several "seeker sensitive churches". I am always amazed at how quickly staff members of churches rise up to criticize and tear down their fellow brothers and sisters. While I think most church marketing sucks, there are a few notable exceptions in my area. Churches that seem to be on the cutting edge of marketing, constantly working on new and creative ideas for their church series. I love driving by Flamingo Road Church simply so I can see their enormous billboard out front announcing the next series.

I think the impetus for most of our criticism comes not from some divine mandate that we constantly be on the lookout for those who are "compromising the message", but rather from our own jealousy. I don't really hear much criticism about churches of 20 in the area, but rather only about churches with large membership roles.

Ministry envy seems to be at an all time high, and it's continually frustrating to me to hear people tear down other pastors. My feeling is this: Before you criticize another pastor, or ministry, you should be required to first visit that church, and have lunch with that pastor. You should visit his home, meet his family, and church staff. Find out what they are all about. Walk a mile in their shoes. Only then will you be qualified to criticize, or judge their ministry. Throwing stones from a distance is far too easy.

There are many reasons why I think church marketing sucks, and I'll probably delve into that topic later... I'm continually frustrated that the church is not the hub of creative activity...

Obama and Warren

2008-12-19T15:20:00.003-05:00

Barack Obama recently announced that Pastor Rick Warren from the Saddleback Church in California will give the invocation at his inauguration. This announcement has been met with much criticism from the left and right. I've heard Warren called a hate monger because of his views on homosexual marriage, and an inappropriate pick to give the invocation at one of the most historic moments in our history.

While I certainly don't agree with everything that Warren says or believes, I do agre with Obama on his statement that we need to have a variety of views present at the inauguration. He has defended his pick, saying that Warren represents views that differ from his own, but in those differences America's greatness is represented. We are a country of multiple belief strains, having Warren at his inauguration represents something that I love about Obama, his willingness to have a variety of views represented.

I'm hopeful that Obama will continue this practice throughout his presidency. I'm hopeful that he will lead from a centrist position in the White House. And I also think that many Christians could learn a thing or two from this encounter. Our differences, while they are important to us, are not what should divide us. Conversation amongst people of faith is a good thing. Not so that we may be swayed to another position, but rather so that we are able to hear the viewpoint of the other. So that we can understand the perspective of our brother next to us. And some times, it may be ok for us to be friends even if our belief systems don't match up like a connection on eharmony.

Saddleback Civic Forum

2008-08-19T12:06:00.003-05:00

I finished watching the civil forum from last week at Saddleback Church. A few thoughts on the entire event.

First, this is exactly the kind of event that we need in an election year. A clear discussion with Presidential candidates on issues that matter to people of faith. I concur with Rick Warren when he said that we believe in a separation of church and state, but not with the division between faith and politics. Faith must influence politics, and it is my hope that people of faith will look at the issues facing our country and make the best decision possible when they head into the voting booth in November.

I thought Barack Obama was engaging in his discussion with Rick Warren. It felt like two old friends having a conversation. I loved his comments on the direction of America and Matthew 25: What you have done to the least of these you have done to me. That is the direction that I want to see America head in.

John McCain was also insightful in his comments. He was direct and to the point on issues that matter to Republicans, and particularly the religious right. His direct answers will calm the fears of many on the right who assume that he is a moderate in Republican clothes [which I think he really secretly is].

The issue of abortion always plays an important role in Presidential Elections. The right wants a President who will be stridently pro-life. At times this is the deciding issue for voters. All they want to know is who will be pro-life, and who will stand against gay marriage. I wonder if this will finally be the year when people start to look beyond a couple of issues when voting for President. As time goes on I am not so sure that the abortion issue can or will be solved by a conservative in the White House for another four years. The past eight years have not seen a significant drop in the abortion rate.

While we are distracted by the abortion issue, other issues that should be primary for Christian voters go unnoticed. Let me be clear, I am pro-life. I find abortion to be immoral. But my pro-life stance also requires me to be consistently pro-life. From the cradle to the grave. More people will die today from preventable diseases than died in the 9/11 attacks. Where is the Christian outrage over such a calamity?

I hope this will be the year that Christians across our great country begin to look at all the issues that face our country. I believe that a Christian can be fervently pro-life, and at the same time care about the poor, and support initiatives that will stop the crisis currently decimating our world. I hope for a candidate that can make the bold move forward to being both pro-life, and pro-poor. And I hope that all Christian voters will remember all the issues when casting their vote this November.

A New Option?

2008-08-11T15:36:00.002-05:00

This morning I finished off God's Politics. In the last section of the book, Jim Wallis channels the spirit of Nostradomus to give some predictions for the new millennium. One in particular caught my eye:

15. A new option will emerge: conservative in personal values, radical for social justice. The number of spiritual progressives will grow.

This is what I have been looking for. A way forward between the bifurcation of values. The choice between abandoning either the poor, or abandoning the unborn. Can there not be a middle path in which those of us who bleed purple can navigate?

This sort of understanding is what draws me to the thoughts and writings of Emergent. Particularly the writings of Tony Jones, in his most recent book The New Christians. There is a groundswell of progressive Christians that are prophetically calling us out to care not only about the unborn, and family values, but to also spur us on to care for the environment, the poor, and peace in our fractured world.

I am looking forward to the political circus that will commence at the end of the month with both the Republican and Democratic Conventions. I anticipate spirited debate between the two worthy candidates. And I hope that Washington will soon learn that one can be conservative in personal values, and be stridently for social justice.

McLaren and Obama

2008-08-07T21:11:00.003-05:00

Brian McLaren has recently offered his support of Senator Obama for President.

I'm not sure that I have decided on who my vote will go to, and I'm not sure that it even matters all that much. My position as a pastor influences my decision not to share who I am supporting for political office, or to share with others who I vote for. I keep this information close to the vest, because of my position that a church, nor it's representatives should be in the business of overtly promoting political candidates. Rather I would like to see the church seriously engage in the political issues of our day, beyond the issues of abortion and gay-marriage.

I must say that I am drawn to Obama for several reasons. First he offers a breath of fresh air into the political scene. He's not a Washington insider, having served in the Senate for only 2 years. This may be seen by some as a weakness, his lack of political acumen being a hindrance to his electability, but I see it as someone with fresh eyes coming on the scene.

As a Christian I feel I must be anti-war. I have trouble being a full fledged pacifist, but I'm not on the side that supports the United States being the unilateral keeper of peace and capitalism in the world. I have a hard time supporting a presidential candidate who wants to keep the country in war, especially a war in which the reasons for going into war are spotty at best.

As a Christian I am also pro-poor. I believe that budgets are moral statements. The tax cuts that benefit the rich, while hindering the poor from receiving tax breaks are simply Un-Christian. It's time that Christians in America recognize this fact, and stand up and make their voice heard. We will not continue to support policies that leave the poor without the means to support themselves. Those who work a full time job should be able to support themselves.

Does Obama really represent a more holistic Christian world-view on some of the key issues? That remains to be seen. I am looking for a President who is willing to challenge the current administrations failings, and one that has a clear vision of the future.

This presidential election will be an interesting one, and I'm not sure who I will vote for. Sometimes I think I should just put an "undecided" sign in my yard. But I know this, I am one Christian in America who is calling for a candidate that will hold to policies that are moral across the board. I'm looking for a candidate who will protect the sanctity of life, from the cradle to the grave. I'm looking for a president who will only use war as a last resort. I'm looking for a president who cares about the environment, and our role as the stewards of God's creation. I'm looking for a president who will help the poor, and recognize that it's a sin for Americans to have millions of children starving in their cities. I'm looking for a president who will create a fair tax code that will not benefit the rich, while the poor starve. Is Obama that man? I'm not quite sure yet, and I'm not sure that either candidate will have all the answers, but what I am sure of is that we need a new direction in this country.

Announcing My Candidacy...

2008-07-30T11:42:00.001-05:00

Beyond Foundationalism II

2008-06-05T13:18:00.004-05:00

Theology after Modernity:

The Enlightenment influence on theology is far reaching. One cannot traverse far in the theological landscape without encountering the influences, and constructions of modernity along the way. Foundationalism [the belief that certain assertions receive their support from other beliefs that are more basic or foundational. The goal is to provide the foundation in order to evaluate and determine the veracity of all other beliefs], pervades throughout the belief systems of our churches and forms the very construction and praxis of theology.

How can we make our way forward in this twisting, winding, and sloping landscape that we now find ourselves submersed in? Postmodernity seeks to demolish the former high places that the Enlightenment epistemology erected for our worship and admiration. The era that traverses beyond foundationalism seeks to formulate theology in a non-foundational context. First we must recognize that reason, and objectivity are not only impossible on our part, but that the supposed universal reason we so want to appeal to is actually a construction of our personal and local contexts.

"Reason is not the supposedly neutral medium in which human relfection takes place. Nor is it a purely formal and autonomous given that precedes, and gives shape to, intellectual reflection. Instead, reason is person specific, and situation specific."

Beyond Foundationalism, 41

Our constructions of theology are not objective or neutral, but rather a reflection on the context and situation that we find ourselves in. The very questions we ask in theology are context driven. When we are able to give up our quest for an objective reality, we are then able to move forward in our search for the answers to the questions that our world is asking.

Theology must begin to be seen as a mosaic, comprising the past, present, and future of theology as a unified whole. Theology is the result of the many voices of Christians throughout the centuries. One must be careful to recognize these voices, and be aware of the influencing voices that drive a persons particular theology. Theology then is most properly done in the context of community. The Scriptures call us out as the people of God to speak into reality the kingdom of God. Jesus has established his rule and reign on this earth, and he calls us out to be the eschatological people of God. We are called to participate in the formation of the kingdom of God.

Our language, actions, and theology should reflect the hope of this future world. We make sense out of the world by speaking what shall be. We are an eschatological people not accepting the world as it is, but rather looking forward to the world as it will be.

Beyond Foundationalism I

2008-05-28T13:47:00.003-05:00

We have entered into a strange new world of postmodernity. Putting new wine into old wineskin's is no longer viable. We need a new way forward both in our ecclesiology and our theology. Beyond Foundationalism provides that new way forward.

Over the next few weeks I'd like to try and blog my way through this immensely important book. The theological landscape has changed with the advent of postmodernity, and John Franke, and Stanley Grenz have written a masterful account of where theology has been, and where it must go.

Chapter one recounts the era of transition and ferment that exists in theological discourse due to the collapse of the categories and paradigms constructed in the era of the Enlightenment. With the collapse of Enlightenment epistemology, and the advent of the postmodern critique of modern certitude, theology is undergoing major transitions. We live in a world of fragmentation, where culture is shifting like sand in high swells. New categories, and theological pathways are being cleared by pioneers seeking to elucidate a theology that is both true to the norming norm of Scripture, and current with the changing culture.

In Beyond Foundationalism, Franke, and Grenz steer the ship towards a hope filled future in theology, one that is thoroughly postmodern, while holding on tightly to the truths of Scripture. Any conversation regarding the status of theology in our postmodern culture almost necessitates a defense against the slide into radical pluralism. There are those who view the theological task as a bounded set, and their job as patrolling the borders theology with guns drawn seeking to gun down any intruder. It is their perceived job to protect the interpretations of history as normative for all times and places. [History being almost exclusively a brief period of time in European history during the Reformation].

Franke and Grenz propose a new way forward that views theology not as a bounded set, but rather a centered set. They understand the formulations of past creedal confessions to be fallible much like all other human discourse, and provide the impetus for ongoing evaluation of such creeds. The work of God in the lives of believers takes the place of the doctrinal statements of history as the enduring essence of Christianity. To ask questions, and evaluate past systems of belief is not only Christian, it is a key to orthodoxy. Theology is a human response to the context, and history in which he is engaged. Man seeks to describe God and the work of God in a particular context, and it is for this reason that theology is fluid rather than stagnant.

Theology is a journey, a task to be taken by the faithful adherers of the Christian faith. It is an ongoing local, contextual, second-order task that serious Christians undertake to assist the Christian community of their time. We have neither arrived at the telos of theology, nor are we doomed to plunge into radical relativism. Rather we are on a journey with God in discovering his work in our world.

Mere Discipleship

2008-05-22T13:39:00.002-05:00

In Mere Discipleship grabs Christians by the scruff of the neck and gives them a good shaking. While American Christianity increasingly worships at the altar of convenience and ease, Camp effectively tears down the high places reserved for worship of easy believeism, and Christianity without discipleship.

Being a Christian involves more than a trip to heaven upon death, for real Christianity must move from a personal private spirituality into the realm of the real world where issues, and problems abound. Camp cuts through pop-Christianity, and drives us to a Biblical understanding of what it really means to be a Christian in todays world.

In Part One of his book Camp elucidates what real Christianity looks like. The "Constantinian Cataract" [page 21] that has impacted our view of the world is clearly delineated. Christianity is not a religion for private worship only, but rather realizes that the kingdom of God has broken in to all areas of life, political, social, and religious. As followers of Jesus Christians are pledging allegiance to a new kingdom, not following after the spoils of this world, with its promise that more power, wealth, and social standing equal success. Camp emphasizes that true Christianity is found in radical discipleship, the willingness to give up all and follow after Jesus in building the kingdom of God in our context.

In Part Two, Camp moves on to what disciples believe. With the plethora of Christian literature available today, one would think that orthodoxy would be easily accessible. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. The gospel has been reduced to a fire insurance policy, with no real relevance to life in the here and now. Camp defends the position that the gospel is the coming of the kingdom of God into this Aeon, a new period of history has been inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Jesus. For this reason, the gospel necessitates an orienting of our lives around the way of the cross, an orientation that focuses our attention on the kingdom of God. The power of Christianity is not found in the ways of the world, gaining more power and authority, and climbing the company ladder. Rather we seek to follow in the footsteps of our savior, the way of suffering and the way of love.

Camp is direct on his views of the violence that is often times espoused by "Christian" leaders. America seeks to continue it's domination through colonialism, exporting our religious convictions in a Constantinian paradigm. We have divided the world between the righteous who are with us, and the axis of evil that we must fight against. Camp is at his best when he brings the issue of worship into the conversation. As worshiping Christians we must understand that part of our acceptable form of worship is to choose to love the other in spite of their actions toward us. In this way Camp has captured the heart of Christianity, and what our posture towards the other should be.

In Part Three of his book, Camp concludes with how disciples should behave. As Christians we are to be known by our love. That love should extend to not only those we identify with, but also to those who persecute us. What good is it to love the lovable? Christianity is a radical perspective in regards to those we love. We are to worship our creator, and love both his creation and others. This involves a self sacrifice, and giving of both ourselves and our possessions to those in need.

This book will challenge your mind, and shake the foundations of what you believe real Christianity to be all about. It is an extremely helpful book in an age of easy Christianity without sacrifice.

Why Pray?

2008-05-21T13:00:00.001-05:00

Why pray?

We pray because we long for something better. We recognize that evil is in our world, and we long for the day of restoration. Death, disease, hurt, discouragement, betrayal, hardship, we pray for strength to make it through the difficult times in life, and we long for a day when God will answer our prayers.

Prayers is our connection to God, it is our way of asking God to intercede in our lives. We long for the day of redemption when God will be all in all, when he will restore all things and we live forever with him. Prayer is our longing to God for that day. N.T. Wright said it well:

“Christian prayer is simply in the sense that a small child can pray the prayer Jesus taught. But it is hard in the demands it makes as we go on with it. We are called to live at the overlap both of heaven and earth – the earth that has yet to be fully redeemed as one day it will be – and of God’s future and this world’s present. We are caught in a small island near the point where these tectonic plates, heaven and earth, future and present, are scrunching themselves together.

God’s whole creation is groaning in labor-pains, waiting for the new world to be born from its womb. The church, God’s people in the Messiah, find themselves caught up in this, as we, too, groan in longing for redemption. Christian prayer is at its most characteristic when we find ourselves caught in the overlap of the ages, part of the creation that aches for new birth.” [Wright, 146]

An Evangelical Manifesto

2008-05-17T08:13:00.003-05:00

I read through the recently published Evangelical Manifesto this morning, and decided to post a few thoughts regarding the document.

1. I was glad to see the recognition of global Christianity. A clear understanding is made that we are not the holders of evangelicalism, or Christianity here in America. The document clearly states a recognition of a fresh infusion from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. It also makes me wonder if all these sects of Christianity can indeed be considered "evangelical". If evangelical is to mean a commitment to the teachings and message of Jesus, we can all jump on board, but when the definition constricts to specific theological assumptions and beliefs, we may have a problem on our hands.

2. I appreciated the statement of faith in the manifesto. Broad enough to avoid unnecessary distinctive, and narrow enough to be distinctives to the message of Jesus.

3. The statement is at it's best when recognizing the failures of evangelicals in history. We are not a pure spotless church without the staining of controversy, and behavior that denies the teaching of Jesus.

4. The idea that creeds and tradition are not ultimately decisive is Utopians, but simply untrue when fleshed out. Can evangelicals with any veracity claim that their belief system is not the product of creedal history?

5. Our fight for justice must remain [and in some cases begin] to be a clear demonstration of what being an evangelical is all about.

6. I agree that fundamentalism is deeply sub-Christian in many ways. It's forced interpretation of Scripture, and it's exodus from culture [rather than an engagement to transform it], and its use of labels and divisions are just a few examples of where fundamentalism misses the boat.

7. "Reformers we ourselves need to be reformed. Protestants, we are the ones against whom protest must be made." We need that today more than ever.

8. "All too often we have concentrated on great truths of the Bible, such as the cross of Jesus, but have failed to apply them to other biblical truths, such as creation. In the process we have impoverished ourselves, and supported a culture broadly careless about the stewardship of the earth and negligent of the arts and the creative centers of society." Brilliant.

9. Section 2, in it's recalling of where evangelicals have strayed is by far the most gripping portion of the entire document. An authentic recognition of our failures, and where we need to point our compass to get back on track.

10. The manifesto rightly echoes Greg Boyd by calling evangelicals not to be equated with any political party.

11. The criticism of Constantinian Christianity is wholly accurate, and needs correction. Too many Christians worldview is really the result of a Constantinian Cataract

The manifesto represents a call to a more holistic form of Christianity. It is refreshing to see the honest assessment of American evangelicalism, as well a manifesto for a way forward. A few closing thoughts:

I'm still not sure why some are so persistent to salvage the term evangelical. Would it not be better to drop the label all together, and simply live in the way of Jesus. In an increasingly postmodern society, I think labels will become obsolete.

I worry that the manifesto is a form of colonialism that plagued Christianity in the modern era. Exporting a belief system, or way of Christianity without recognizing the highly contextual nature of the faith can be damaging.

The manifesto only works if we begin to live like Christians, our words on paper will not amount to a hill of beans without the actions to follow them up.

Live by the sword, die by the sword

2008-05-15T10:30:00.003-05:00

"Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle, when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and teh punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs"?

--Tertullian

Questions and Doubts

2008-05-13T17:17:00.002-05:00

I sometimes wonder what questions are out of bounds...

You know, never talk politics and religion, because your only headed for a fight.

I wonder if there are questions we are not permitted to ask God. In my life, I've asked God some difficult questions, and at times doubted His answers.

I always hesitate when sharing my doubts with others, sometimes I worry that my position will cause others to doubt their own faith.

But at the same time, I wonder if expressing your doubts openly and honestly is a way to encourage faith. If faith is a relationship, and the Christian life a journey, then are we not all on that journey, experiencing ups and downs, good times and bad times, times of great faith, and times where our faith is dwarfed by that of a mustard seed.

If faith is a journey, doubts are a necessary junction in that journey. Being free from doubt and questions may mean that your faith is stagnant.

Pray Continually

2008-05-13T17:15:00.000-05:00

“Pray Continually”
1 Thessalonians 5:17

As Paul comes to the end of his book to the Thessalonians he has included for us a few brief phrases that sum up the Christian life:

Be joyful always [vs. 16]
Pray continually [vs. 17]
Give thanks in all circumstances [vs. 18]
Don’t put out the Holy Spirit’s fire [vs. 19]
Don’t treat prophecies with contempt [vs. 20]
Test everything [vs. 21]
Avoid every kind of evil [vs. 22]

These can be seen a short memory tools to help the early Christians remember what they believed, and how they were to act. But what does it mean to pray continually?

A year ago I broke my cell phone. Ok, I really didn’t break it, [I wish I had a story about how I was scaling a massive rock formation, and my phone fell from my pocket as I reached the summit]; actually I accidentally dropped it in a cup of coffee [which apparently is not good for your phone]. I didn’t have a cell phone for about a month after that, and it was a great month.

I’m not a lover of cell phones; we have a love hate relationship. I love them when I really need them, when I’m stranded on the side of the road, or when I need to track someone down at my convenience. I hate them because they make me constantly available to anyone who has my number. Anyone at anytime can call on me with a request. It’s not that I don’t like hearing from people, but sometimes I wish I had a time of quiet without the distraction.

Praying continually means that we have a constant connection with God. We have his personal cell phone number.

The words pray without ceasing actually mean “constantly recurring”. We are not to wander through our day mumbling prayers at all times, but rather what Paul wants us to do is to be constantly in communication with God. We are to go through our day as part of a long conversation with God, who knows our desires and wants to answer our prayers. We are to live with faith believing that God is there and that God is listening to us. So if you in need today, you know whom to call.

The Lord's Prayer

2008-05-04T21:45:00.001-05:00

“This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.” --Matthew 6:9-13

In the ancient world there were many deities to which people would pray. Long complicated prayers were often the norm in an attempt to pacify or persuade some god or goddess to be favorable to them. The problem was that no one knew which deity one might need to pacify on any given day, so the prayers were often repeated over and over again and contained “magic words” used to please the gods.

Prayer today can be seen in two categories. For some it is simply shouting off into the distance to a God who is far away, with the hope that he may arbitrarily act on behalf of the seeker. For others prayer is a powerful experience of the love of God. His presence is palpable and his love surrounds us. For most Christians, the experience is somewhere in the middle.

The Lord’s Prayer is not meant to be recited as some sort of magic prayer, but rather it provides the framework for all our prayers to God. A few things to notice:

First, the prayer is deeply meaningful. It addresses God as Father; it shows that God is involved in our world, and in our lives in a deep and meaningful way. We can speak to God in our normal human language and he listens to us.

Second, God is not some man made idol, or something unknown or inanimate. He is the living God who dwells in heaven. The prayer is not meant to focus on ourselves and our needs, but rather the work of God in this world that we are a part of: “Your kingdom come, you will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Third, we can pray for the things we need on a daily basis, but not only for ourselves, but also for that of the whole world. We pray for our daily bread, but we must also remember to pray for those who are without, those who are in greater need than we are.

Finally, we pray for forgiveness. Many religions assume that evil deeds done on this earth result in eternal consequences. We believe in a God who can and does forgive, and we are to ask for that forgiveness. As we ask for this forgiveness, we are to remember that we should be in the habit of forgiving others so that God can forgive us.

Prayer

2008-05-02T09:33:00.001-05:00

“O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.”
-- Psalm 22:2

Prayer. It’s one of the most mysterious, and difficult of the spiritual disciplines. Ask most Christians what spiritual discipline they struggle the most with, and prayer will be at the top of many of their lists. Distractions, time, lack of clear answers, all of these are stumbling blocks to our communication with God.

Prayer is a strange thing if you think about it. We bring to God some of the most significant events of our lives. Our burdens, our tragedies, our deepest desires; we cry out to God in private giving them over to Him. We ask and sometimes beg for an answer, and yet often times we hear no audible response.

For some prayer is simply an opiate to numb our pain. The weak turn to prayer as a way to deal with their problems, for intelligent people know that prayer really doesn’t change anything, how could it. With so many tragedies in the world, are we really so ignorant to think that God above would hear our insignificant problems, and be interested in our lives?

We pray to a God we cannot see, and we hope for an answer that we cannot hear. Prayer is a mysterious and mystical discipline. And yet, it is a powerful one.

Lives have been changed through prayer, desperate requests have been answered, and guidance has been received. Though we cannot hear an audible voice with an answer, many would testify to the hand of God guiding them through the labyrinth of problems in their lives.

Over the next few days I would like to interact with the idea of prayer from Scripture. We are told to make our requests known to God because he hears our prayers, and answers them according to his will.

Prayer is a mystical experience, an encounter with the divine. It is our direct connection to God.

Where Do We Go From Here?

2008-04-27T17:36:00.001-05:00

So where do we go from here?

How can we transform our Christian lives from private spiritual experiences to a faith that transforms our world?

In today’s world it’s all about getting money, power, and privilege. Those with the gold make the rules. We think if we have the right answers, if we can mine the Bible for the nuggets of truth that will confront and prove wrong our adversaries we are on the right track. If only we could guide America back to the principles of our founders and regain a higher position in society then we could make a real difference.

The life and message of Jesus seems to confront all of these assumptions.

About 100 years after the death of Jesus another “messiah” came on the scene with the same sort of ideals. His name was Simeon Ben Kisoba. He sought validation from the people of Israel by leading a revolt. He minted coins with the picture of the temple on one side [it still lay in ruins, he hoped to gain political power and then rebuild it], and on the other he instituted a new calendar with the year 1 inscribed attempting to claim that history was turning on his rise to power. He wanted to place himself in the long line of the great kings of Israel. He fit perfectly into the mold of what people wanted in a Messiah.

We too fall into the trap of Simeon when we assume that success in our spiritual lives revolves around a rise to power and authority.

Jesus came and pronounced Himself as the leader of a new way, a new kingdom at which He would be the head. The expectation of a king was one that would rule with power and glory over all others. But Jesus doesn’t live by the expectations of the world.

As Christians the surest way to change our world is not by gaining more power, but by giving up that power. Stop chasing money and privilege, and instead begin by giving up that status.

The kingdom of God views power in a subversive way. When we give up power we gain more prestige. It is by sacrificing of ourselves that we are able to be successful. In many ways the kingdom of God operates in stark contradiction to the world in which we live.

So where do we go from here?

Maybe we should first ask in what areas of my life could I give to others. It is only by humbling ourselves that we are able to access the power of God.

The Gospel of Sin Management

2008-04-25T14:49:00.000-05:00

So much of our energy is spent on the avoidance of sin at all costs. We make Christianity about the avoidance of wrong behavior and the breaking of all bad habits.

Is our energy wasted?

The Christian life is not about avoiding that which is evil, but rather grasping for and attaining that which is good.

We are all called to discipleship, a long strenuous process of growth and following our master. We are not called to spend our lives ridding ourselves of individual sins. We are called to something so much greater.

As Christians we need to always be searching after that which is better.

Our call in the here and now is to reflect the image and the glory of God. We look forward to the return of God and the renewal of all things. One day our earth will completely reflect the glory of God and will be rid of the damage and stain of sin.

We reflect the glory of God not by engaging in a private pietistic personal spirituality, but rather by engaging in the world and doing the good work of the kingdom.

A private faith is only beneficial for the individual.

We should certainly flee sin and attempt to live our lives in the way Jesus. But if our faith stops there it does not challenge and change the world we live in.

We are agents in the kingdom of God. God has placed all his eggs in our basket. He has given us the greatest responsibility, to reflect His image for all to see.

Working to live a less sinful life is good, but living out our faith in the public square is far better.

Walking With God

2008-04-24T08:36:00.002-05:00

If your like me, a fan of John Eldredge, as soon as his new book Walking With God was released, you were either on the internet, or in your favorite local bookstore ready to pick up a copy. I've often wondered what it would be like to spend a day, a week, or a month with Eldredge. Canoing the waters of the wild west, leading a cattle drive like the cowboys of yesteryear, or hunting wild elk. His books stir in my soul a yearning for the beauty of God's creation, and a longing to walk with God in deep relationship.

This book represents a unique look into the journal entries of Eldredge over the period of a year. There are no chapter divisions, simply a catalog of the seasons as they come and go. Eldredge invites us to walk with God over the course of a year with him, through the good times, the bad times, and the strange times that life offers up to us.

This book will stir your heart, and challenge your mind. It's narrative is inviting and easy to read, you feel as though you are in deep conversation with a close friend. Eldredge has the ability to share with you his life in an authentic manner without pretense. Eldredge will challenge you to view every event in your life as spiritual, from the moment you wake, until you lay your head on the pillow at night, God is intimately involved in a relationship with you.

Eldredge challenges our assumptions about spirituality, and our view of God in a non threatening way. This book has the ability to stir the deep desires of our hearts, challenge our faulty views of God, and spur us onto living in deeper relationship with God, all in a unique narrative approach.

This book will be a great help to anyone seeking a deeper relationship with God.

The Church

2008-04-24T08:31:00.001-05:00

I attempted today to write about the true purpose of the church. As I wrote I found that I could not do a better job describing the purpose of the church better than my favorite author. So I will let his words speak to us today:

“According to the early Christians, the church doesn’t exist in order to provide a place where people can pursue their private spiritual agendas and develop their own spiritual potential. Nor does it exist in order to provide a safe haven in which people can hide from the wicked world and ensure that they themselves arrive safely at an otherworldly destination. Private spiritual growth, and ultimate salvation, come rather as the by-products of the main, central, overarching purpose for which God has called and is calling us. That purpose is clear, and stated in various places in the New Testament: that through the church God will announce to the wider world that he is indeed its wise, loving and just creator, that through Jesus he has defeated the powers that corrupt and enslave it, and that by his Spirit he is at work to heal and renew it.

The church exists, in other words, for what we sometimes call ‘mission’: to announce to the world that Jesus is Lord. God intends to put the world to rights’ he has dramatically launched this project through Jesus. Those who belong to Jesus are called, here and now, in the power of the Spirit, to be agents of that putting-to-rights purpose.”

--N.T. Wright Simply Christian page 174.

INKA KOLA!!!

2008-04-22T19:29:00.003-05:00

Scripture

2008-04-22T18:49:00.001-05:00

We all long for connection with others. We all long for community. At the very beginning of the story man is alone, and this is not acceptable. God creates for him a helper a companion, someone to share the good times and the bad times with. No one is an island, we all want connection with someone else.

The same is true with our relationship with God. If we are serious about our faith we long for a connection with Him.

The Bible could be simply and accurately described as the story of God and His people. In Scripture we encounter those who encounter God in a deep and intimate way. From burning bushes to fantastic visions the characters of Scripture are profoundly changed in their encounters with God.

So why is that not true for us today?

Why do we have so few mountain top experiences with God?

Unfortunately the Bible has been transformed from a radical narrative of the work of God to an answer book to solve all of life’s problems. It provides “basic instructions before leaving earth”. The problem with this view is that it radically distorts the purpose of the Scripture. The Bible does provide us direction and insight, but it does so much more.

In prayer we find an area where heaven and earth overlap. Where we are in direct work with God in our world, and area where the curtain is lifted and we are able to speak to God face to face. The same is true in Scripture.

For too long we have used Scripture as an elevated sort of answer book, and not the living Word of God. We engage in arguments over the meaning of certain passages and miss the point of the passage.

The Bible is not a deposit of timely truths that we smugly possess. The Bible is the ongoing narrative of how God is working in the world. Reading Scripture is not about mining for devotional truths, but rather about lifting the curtain that divides heaven and earth.

The Bible is there for us to be equipped to join God in His work in the world. When we read its pages we are engaged in the continuing narrative of God’s work with His people. We are a part of a living and active community of God.

So the next time you open up your Bible stop looking for “answers” and start looking for how God is using you in His work in the kingdom.

Prayer

2008-04-21T12:20:00.000-05:00

Prayer is one of the simplest and one of the most difficult of spiritual disciplines. Every Christians knows that he should pray, but implementing that discipline is a constant struggle for many people.

We can easily ascribe the happenings of daily life to chance or even luck.

Prayer cannot be tested or proven. There is no criteria or system to evaluate the effectiveness of our prayers. And yet millions of Christians engage in this ancient practice every day. We have only a few postures to take in referent to prayer, and understanding them may help us in communing with God.

The first posture we can take is that of the pantheist. God is everywhere and in everything. Prayer then is not the practice of engaging with a distant reality, but rather getting in tune with the deepest realities and the world itself. In Pantheism God is near, but He is not distinct. He is in all, and all is God.

A second posture is that of the Deist. This particular view of God is very popular in today’s culture. In this view God is distant. We call across a great void to heaven not knowing if God is really listening or not. This God arbitrarily decides to intervene in the world on different occasions, but shows no consistency. Prayer in this posture is bleak hope.

A third posture can be found in what we refer to as the Lord’s Prayer.

“Your kingdom come, your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.”
Matthew 6:10

In this view Jesus is not off in “heaven” somewhere, distant and detached from the earth. Nor is He completely absorbed in the created world. Rather heaven and earth are overlapping. We stand in a unique place where God is both beyond us, and intimately involved with us.

Prayer then becomes not calling out to a distant God and asking Him to take over while we sit back and relax, but rather us joining in with the work of God in the here and now. In prayer we become part of the work of God in a unique way. There is no great chasm between God and us. In prayer we actively become part of the work of God’s kingdom.

Prayer is not wishful thinking, but rather a joining of forces with God. We are able to join in the kingdom work of God through prayer. As we petition God in prayer, He in turn looks to us as His hands and feet to accomplish His work here on earth.

Worship

2008-04-18T13:37:00.000-05:00

What is at the heart of Christianity?

What practices and beliefs truly set apart followers of Jesus from those who do not believe?

Everyone in the world engages in some sort of worship. Those who are spiritual or religious direct their worship toward a divine being. Those who consider themselves non-spiritual direct their worship to what is most important in their lives. But what is worship all about?

To worship is to acknowledge the worth of something or someone. It means recognizing, and saying, that someone or something is worthy of praise. The book of Revelation gives us a glimpse into true worship.

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty,
Who was, and is, and is to come.”
Revelation 4:8

In this scene the whole creation is worshipping God. Even the animal kingdom recognizes his worth and majesty. God is worthy of our worship because He is greater than us, and in control of our world.

At this point some may want to object to the majesty of God by proclaiming “but our world is a mess! Where is God in the midst of all this suffering?”

We find in Revelation 5 the answer to the problems of our world. We live in a world full of injustice and suffering, but we have hope that there is a Lion of the tribe of Judah that is able to deal with the problems of the world [Revelation 5:5].

God is able to deal with the problems of our world, and in an even more surprising move he has enlisted us as His people to be agents of His good work in this world.

We worship God because we know He is worthy. We worship God because He is in control. And we worship God because we know that He alone can overcome the evil in our world. But as we worship God we must remember that He has enlisted us to be agents of His kingdom in the here and now.

We worship God because the power to change the world comes through Him, and we are enlisted in with God in doing the work of the kingdom.

Being President

2008-03-28T12:28:00.001-05:00

"Being President is easy, you just point the army and shoot."
--Homer Simpson

The New Christians

2008-03-26T13:49:00.002-05:00

Straight from the horses mouth...

I'm not sure when horses began giving the most accurate information on any given subject, but if I were to describe The New Christians by Tony Jones in a single expression I would respond with my quip about the integrity of information that can be gleaned from speaking with horses...

This book represents the most lucid explanation of the Emergent phenomenon to date. Tony is especially qualified to speak to the evolution of the movement, from it's embryonic stages in the late 1990's to the growing and expanding movement that seems to be in the teenage stage today [that stage where you're going through transformation in every part of your being, and most people don't really like you because your moody, but it's not really your fault, because your just learning how to exist in this new strange world].

Tony is neither objective or neutral in his characterization of Emergent [as some have claimed to be], nor would the reader want him to be. He gives an inside, first hand look at the genesis of what has become a major conversation in American Christianity. Tony has been "on the ground" throughout the history of the Emerging church, [and Emergent Village the internet home for all conversations emergent]. As acting coordinator of Emergent Tony is in conversation with churches on both sides of the movement, and has given a clear readable picture of what Emerging churches look like.

This book acts as an oasis in the desert of American Evangelicalism for those of us who are longing for a more meaningful faith that moves beyond the flattened out left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal debate. It provides the impetus for stretching out to a third way of Christianity, one that is true to the historic orthodox faith, and one that has not been abducted by either side of the political and religious landscape.

This book is both theological sturdy, and readable at the same time. Centered around twenty "dispatches, Tony aptly describes the core of the Emerging Church movement. In this book, Tony Jones has taken complex ideas, and translated them into the language of the common man. This book will be a great help for those wanting to understand Emergent, both adherents and critics can glean helpful and accurate information.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone interested in this movement. It has strengthened my faith, and given me hope for the future of Christianity.

VIVA OBAMA!!!

2008-03-24T20:38:00.001-05:00

This is why I'm voting Obama 08!

Easter

2008-03-23T21:18:00.002-05:00

As of right now, there are about 90 minutes left of Easter Sunday, and I am very tired.

Every year it seems to be the same. Easter afternoon is about spending time with family, eating a bit too much, and then crashing on the couch from exhaustion. Our church had 9 services today between three locations. For me personally sometimes Easter becomes less about remembering the hope and significance of the resurrection, and more about the marathon church services that I will be involved in.

So before I lay my head on the pillow tonight, I'll reflect on what N.T. Wright said about Easter:

"Easter is about real life, not escapist fantasy. Easter is about God’s judgment, calling the world to account and setting up his new, glorious creation of freedom and peace, and summoning all people everywhere to live in this new world. Easter is about God’s rich welcome to all humankind."

So Easter is about more than 9,345 services... It's about new life, new hope, God coming to make his dwelling with man.

Sometimes in the midst of my business I forget to reflect on that...

The New Christians

2008-03-20T15:16:00.002-05:00

Tony Jones has written a brilliant summary of the Emergent Church in his new book "The New Christians".

For anyone wanting to learn more about the emergent movement, this is a starting point.

In chapter 1 Tony addresses the bipolar character of contemporary American politics. The left vs. right controversies of the past several years have left me longing for a third way in politics [voting Nader doesn't do it for me].

I'm a registered Republican, but I'm anti-war, pro-poor, pro-environment, etc. I'm some sort of undiscovered hybrid living in a remote area of the jungle of American politics. Tony speaks into that frustration with hope, there are more of my species out there, those who have grown tired of the back and forth liberal vs. conservative fighting with no appreciable results.

Chapter one of The New Christians speaks to that frustration in a lucid and hopeful way. Emergent's look forward to a new reality, a more complex world that moves beyond the simplicity of right vs. left.

So, now who to vote for....

A Community Called Atonement

2008-03-10T12:58:00.002-05:00

Scot McKnight is slowly finding his way to the top of reading lists for many interested in theology, and rightly so [he is quickly gaining ground on my reading list]. "A Community Called Atonement" is both a sweeping overview of the divergent theories of atonement, and a proposal for bringing the divergent views of atonement under a single umbrella of Christ's redeeming work in the world to restore cracked Eikons.

The atonement has too often been squeezed into a one size, one theory fits all box. Often times that box is determined by our denominational influence. McKnight points out that many atonement theories are seriously deficient because they lack any consideration or interaction with Christ's teaching of the Kingdom of God.

"Atonement theories have been shaped by the history of atonement theories, and that history has been dominated by Paul's letter to the Romans so one-sidedly that opening the door to the kingdom upsets the entire conversation." [Page 9]

McKight purports that atonement can only be understood when it is seen through the lens of the work of God to restore cracked Eikons in all interpersonal relations. Atonement must be broadened out from an individual, sin remission only view, to a view that encompasses the work of the entire ecclesiastical community of believers.

Many of our atonement theories capitulate to the very thing that McKnight argues against. We view our problem in the world simply as individual sin. The remedy to this problem is simply an atonement theory that will cover our moral indiscretions, and restore our standing as right moral individuals. Sin however for McKnight goes beyond poor moral decisions. Sin is the "hyperrelational distortion and corruption of hte Eikon's relationship with God and therefore with self, with others, and with the world." [McKnight page 23]

A broad view of the affects of sin will help to broaden out our view of the atonement. If we can move beyond our reformation influenced view of personal sin, we will be able to begin to put our arms around the breadth of the atonement.

McKight offers a view that gathers divergent views of the atonement seeing them as vital parts of the whole. He uses the image of a golf outing. A golfer may have a favorite club, but cannot hope to play a full round of golf with only that club. The same can be said about our views of the atonement. We may have a preferred theory, but our theories in and of themselves cannot fully comprehend the broad scope of the atonement. It takes all the theories together to fully describe the work of Christ on the cross.

McKnight closes his book with an important consideration of the affect of atonement on our praxis as the people of God. Atonement is not simply something that was accomplished 2,000 years ago on the cross, but rather is something that is working its way out through the called out ones. Believers work out the atonement through acts of fellowship, justice, community and prayer. The atonement is not simply an archaic or dusty old theology to be debated and dissected by theologians, but is rather a vibrant and active event that is occurring around us every day.

In short, this book is a brilliant consideration of divergent theories of the atonement, and a great read for both the novice, and advanced student of theology. McKnight has written a classic book on the theory of the atonement.

Salvation

2008-03-06T13:07:00.001-05:00

In the last post I briefly reviewed Surprised by Hope. I found Wright's section on salvation to be particularly enticing and revealing. A few choice quotes...

“As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God’s promised new heavens and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new and gloriously embodied reality — what I have called life after life after death — then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought in consequence.” [Wright, 197.]

“Salvation, then, is not going to heaven but being raised to life in God’s new heaven and new earth. But as soon as we put it like this we realize that the New Testament is full of hints, indications, and downright assertions that this salvation isn’t just something we have to wait for in the long-distance future. We can enjoy it here and now (always partially, of course, since we all still have to die), genuinely anticipating int eh present what is to come in the future.” [Wright page 198.]

“All sorts of things follow from this. We might notice, for instance, that theories of atonement, of the meaning of the cross, are not simply a set of alternative answers to the same question. They give the answers they give because of the question they ask. If the question is, How can I get to heaven despite the sin because of which I deserve to be punished? The answer may well be, because Jesus has been punished in your place. But if the question is, how can God’s plan to rescue and renew the world go ahead despite the corruption and decay that have come about because of human rebellion? The answer may well be because on the cross Jesus defeated the powers of evil, which have enslaved rebel humans and so ensured continuing corruption. Please not, these and other possible questions and answers are not mutually exclusive. My point is that reframing the question will mean rethinking the various answers we might give and the relationship between them.” [Wright, 199.]

Brilliant

I'M BACK!!!

2008-03-05T14:31:00.002-05:00

I'm Back!

After a long hiatus from blogging, I have decided to bless the internet with more of my musings...

Don't know how long this one will last, or how consistent I will be, but here is another attempt at regular writing.

I thought I would start out with a book review [I'm setting a new goal of reviewing every book I read]

N.T. Wright has written another brilliant work echoing he previously published masterpiece on the resurrection. Wright's expounds on a Christian hope firmly rooted in the Biblical narrative that longs for new creation.

In a world where the radio orthodoxy of Christianity espouses a gospel of fire insurance, Wright correctly and articulates a gospel and hope for so much more than disembodied bliss. "God's Kingdom in the preaching of Jesus refers not to postmortem destiny, not to our escape from this world into another one, but to God's sovereign rule coming on earth as it is in heaven".

Our hope according to Wright is not "going to heaven when you die" but rather in life after life after death. We hope not for an escape from this earth, but to the glorious day when God will make all things new.

Readers of this book may find the lack of eschatological certainty within the book frustrating. In a Christian sub-culture where end-times charts and elaborate explanations of the book of Revelation are the norm, Wright is careful to show that Christian eschatology is not about a certitude of specific events yet to come, but rather a hope for a renewed earth. Eschatology must be viewed as sign posts guiding our way through a fog rather than a detailed map.

Wright's comments in chapter 12 on the meaning of salvation are worth the price of the book, and his restatement of the doctrine of hell in chapter 11 is worth twice the price of the book. How we view the gospel, and the death and resurrection of Jesus greatly determines how our definition and the outworking of salvation.

In short, this is N.T. Wright at his best. A foremost expert on the resurrection of Jesus and the implications of Christ's defeat of death on eschatology and future hope, Wright has given us a clear, readable, and deeply Biblical picture of Christian hope.

Next Cohort Meeting

2007-08-30T17:05:00.001-05:00

The Next Cohort meeting is this Saturday September 1, at 10AM at the Starbucks in Miami Lakes.
8012 NW 154th Street.

Hope to see you there.

Dark Knight Pics

2007-08-21T15:40:00.001-05:00

More Dark Knight Pics

The Dark Knight

2007-08-21T15:36:00.000-05:00

Check out these awesome Dark Knight Pics...

The Christian And The Scientist

2007-07-25T14:15:00.000-05:00

The Scientist and the Christian

"We have been told that the scientist thinks it his duty to proportion the strenth of his belief exactly to the evidence; to believe less as there is less evidence and to withdraw belief all together when reliable adverse evidence turns up. We have been told that on the contrary, the Christian Regards it as positively praiseworthy to believe with evidence, or in excess of the evidence, or to maintain his belief unmodified in the teeth of steadily increasing evidence against it. Thus a 'faith that has stood firm,' which appears to mean a belief immune from all assaults of reality, is commended."

-C.S. Lewis, On Obstinacy and Belief

Christians use a scientific mindset to rationalize their belief in God. They tell of the wonders of creation and how if the earth were one millionth of a centimeter this or that way then it would either freeze or burn. They mention how improbable it is that 66 writers authored the Bible without one contradiction. Yet, their bias does not allow any evidence that contends their belief system, evolution, the Jesus tomb, alternative views of miracles, etc.

Christians have confided in science instead of surrendered in trust. Science cannot possibly quiet any Christians doubts successfully because God doesn't fit inside a test tube or under a microscope.

The conclusion must be made that there is no parallel between the scientists and the Christian, because Christians are not conducting an experiment on natural phenomena but reacting to a divine being that they have met.

God is not a specimen that we may test, instead we are at His disposal. The dog must trust the caring human to get him out of the trap and the child must trust the adult to carefully take the thorn out of his/her finger. In that sense, there is no hypothesis to rationalize God but only our finite trust to lay at his feet.

--Adam

Next Cohort Meeting

2007-06-13T16:30:00.000-05:00

The Next Cohort meeting is this Saturday June 16 at 10AM at the Starbucks in Miami Lakes.
8012 NW 154th Street.

We will discuss chapters 1-3 in N.T. Wright's "The Challenge of Jesus".

Hope to see you there!

Books You Should Read

2007-06-13T16:26:00.000-05:00

Since everyone is coming out with lists of music you should listen to, and movies you should see...

Here is my list of my top 10 books I've read in the past year that you should definately read, in no particular order:

1. The Missional Leader [Roxburgh & Romanuk]
2. The Secret Message of Jesus [McLaren]
3. The Character of Theology [Franke]
4. Who's Afraid of Postmodernism [Smith]
5. Velvet Elvis [Bell]
6. Jesus and the Victory of God [Wright]
7. The Coming of God [Moltmann]
8. Truth is Stranger than it used to Be [Walsh & Middleton]
9. Contemplative Youth Ministry [Yaconelli]
10. How (not) to Speak of God [Rollins]

So head on over to Amazon, and get reading!

Next Cohort Meeting

2007-05-21T18:58:00.000-05:00

The Next Cohort meeting is this Saturday May 26th at 10AM at the Starbucks in Miami Lakes.
8012 NW 154th Street.

Hope to see you there.

Wedding Dress

2007-05-10T08:40:00.000-05:00

A post by Adam:

Derek Webb, Wedding Dress

"If you could love me as a wife and for my wedding gift your life
Should that be all I'll ever need or is there more I'm looking for
And should I read between the lines and look for blessings in disguise
to make me handsome, rich and wise Is that really what you want

Could you love this bastard child though I don't trust you to provide
With one hand in a pot of gold and with the other in your side
Cause I am so easily satisfied by the call of lovers so less wild
That I would take just a little cash over your very flesh and blood

Because money cannot buy a husband's jealous eye
when you have knowingly deceived his wife

So I am a whore I do confess I put you on just like a wedding dress and
I run down the aisle
I'm a prodigal with no way home I put you on just like a ring of gold and
I run down the aisle to you"

Why isn't Jesus' ring on our finger enough? Why isn't His mercy and
salvation enough? The prominent message in church is do this and you'll get
that. More specifically, come dressed up on Sunday, put money in the plate,
go to sunday school, later hand out tracks and... God will bless you. By
'God will bless you' we mean you'll get a raise, you'll get a mate, you'll
get a promotion,

(Side note, there are tangible examples of this in our church. remember the
video that we showed where someone gave the church money and she claimed
that she got a raise. Or how many testimonials have we heard of a similiar
nature.)

Back to the ring on our finger. Our marriage to Christ gives us all that
we'll ever need in form of His mercy and salvation. HIS LOVE will compel us
to do His work. HIS LOVE must compel in contrast to a raise, a mate or a
promotion.

--AP

Theology Part IV

2007-05-08T16:23:00.000-05:00

How can we properly speak of God? In the presence of the divine, our humanity is ever before us. We become acutely aware of our inability to properly define the experience of God.

We see the outworking of this in the story of the golden calf in Exodus. While Moses is on the mountain in the presence of God the people become impatient and command Aaron to craft for them a golden calf. At first look it appears that the golden calf is to be a replacement for God, however, upon further inspection we see that the golden calf was meant to be a representation of the one true God [Exodus 32:5].

The reason for the wrath of God being poured out on his people, and the violent reaction of Moses is due to the fact that any human conception cannot adequately describe God. Our richest, and most robust theological statements cannot adequately represent the one and only true God.

Even the name of God, the divine YHWH [pronounced Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh] lacks the proper vowel sounds to be pronounced by humans. The result is a breath like name, one that cannot be pronounced adequately with human language. The message in the divine name of God is clear; God cannot be contained in a name, and even the most personal name that we can attribute to God inevitably falls short of his glory.

But what of the side of God that has been revealed to us? What of the truth statements of the Scriptures that we derive our theological statements from? Are we to completely abandon all hopes of adequately describing God, hence tying our hands from the ability to share the God of our salvation with others?

Karl Barth said that even the revealed side of God is mysterious. That which we know about God cannot be seen clearly. Paul seems to advocate this position in 1 Corinthians 13:12. We currently see only a dim reflection of God, we see through a foggy mirror, the reflection is there, but it is hazy. We cannot comprehend the depth and breadth of God.

We believe in a God who is hyper-present. That is a God who transcends both our cognitive minds, and our experiences. Our experiences of God are only dim reflections of the one true God. Our experiences, and the language we have available to describe those experiences are woefully inadequate.

Does this mean that we rid ourselves of all statements of God? I think that would be to take our inability to an extreme. In Scripture we have a God who comes to live in our neighborhood [John 1:14]. Jesus is the incarnation of God; he comes to our level so that we can glimpse God in some small way.

Theology at the same time must be incarnational. It must seek to take the transcendent God and translate that experience into human words. We must be faithful in describing the experience of God to others. However, by understanding our limited ability both linguistically and experientially, it helps to insulate us from making absolutist and all encompassing statements. This understanding necessitates the whole church contributing to our theology.

Theology Part III

2007-05-07T21:13:00.001-05:00

What is the purpose of theology, what is its telos? Theology is defined as the study of God, and often times reduced to formulating a conceptual understanding of the characteristics of the divine. Proper theology is often times demarcated as that theology which fits into our foundational assumptions.

While our assumptions are global, they are not always recognized. We operate in a world of cognitive dissonance, a world where our understanding is so colored by our context, and yet we are unaware of its influence. Our world is viewed through a set of colored glasses, glasses that change the way we view the world. Over time, and absorption into our particular context we soon become unaware of the affect of those glasses, and progress to the point where we deny the existence of the glasses at all.

This plays directly into the hands of our foundational assumptions. We assume that our beliefs are orthodox, historic, and Biblical. Our glasses have taught us that our particular denomination, or theological school has the truth pinned down. We assume that we have discovered the objective rational perch on which to stand that gives us a birds eye view of all truth. From this perch we are able to avoid the pitfalls of context, background, desire, and assumption.

The affect of the Enlightenment on our theology is abounding. We have valued pure, rational, and absolutist statements about God above all else. We have assumed that we can properly speak of God in a manner that correctly defines both his character, and his work in the world. This assumption however, does not recognize the linguistic barrier between mankind and the divine. Linguistics is the tool we utilize to speak of God, however they are inherently flawed as a methodology to speak of the divine. Language inherently separates us from God. It is a human conception, with human pitfalls, unable to capture the divine.

In the process, many of our theologies abdicated their proper role. With our obsession regarding “right” theology we have ceased to fulfill our mission on the earth. Theology became more about right belief than about right action. The purpose of theology is mission. As Christians we are called to be the representatives of God on earth. We are called to reflect the image of God [the imago dei] on earth.

If our theology ceases to propel us into mission, it ceases to be an effective theology. While right teaching about God is important, and right belief equally necessary, if a theology ceases to send us into the world to accomplish the will of God it becomes a terminal theology.

Theology Part II

2007-05-03T11:15:00.000-05:00

The return to the narrative has been a theme amidst biblical conversation as of late. There are many who advocate seeing the Scriptures as a narrative, and literary composition rather than a systematic and literal encyclopedia. When we encounter the Scriptures we come to them as characters in an ongoing narrative. Everyone involved in Christian faith and praxis finds themselves as characters in an ongoing biblical drama.

N.T. Wright in his excellent article “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative”, presents the idea of Biblical authority like a Shakespearean five act play. What we have before us in the narrative of Scripture is a five-act play, we come to this play having in our possession the first four acts, but as we read through the play we come the disturbing realization that we are missing the fifth act of the play.

What are we to do in this situation? We are to read and understand the first four acts of the play, and act out the fifth act in concordance with the first four acts of the play. We immerse ourselves in the study and understanding of the flow and structure of the play, and we seek to be faithful to the fulfillment of that play. We are not called to regurgitate the previous acts, for they have already been played out through the course of history. Rather we are to faithfully seek to live out the future of that play.

Scripture functions in the same way. We have the first four acts of the drama that is unfolding before us, and we look forward to the eschaton. In the meantime we faithfully live out that play before us.

In viewing Scripture as a narrative, instead of a series of propositions about God, we understand Scripture, and the dealing of God with the world as always evolving. As the story progresses the characters develop, the way in which the play proceeds follows along a path that is both sensitive to history, and fully aware of the path before us.

If we understand that theology is not about a system of beliefs, but rather the working of God in individual lives we adhere to the principle of a changing God. In each situation God’s activity in the lives of individual believers and in communities varies. Every situation calls for a specific response from man to God. If we are living in a narrative, and if God is working in the lives of believers in relationship that relationship is in constant flux, growing, changing, adapting, and changing in distance.

The culture in which we live is in constant flux. Theology is the church’s response to the cultural situations in the world. Throughout time theologians have formulated responses to events. As a result theology has been in constant development throughout the history of the church. As we are faced with new challenges and situations our theologies must adapt, and create answers to those questions. In this way our message is always changing.

As a result we are unable to point to a systematic theological system as THE way of thinking theologically. Rather we can only refer to a system as being apt for a specific time and place. Theological systems that have worked in the past worked in a context and a situation. As the situations change so must the systems. We cannot hold on to our systems of theology as if they were the anchor points for all eternity.

Lewis does it again

2007-05-02T08:54:00.000-05:00

This C.S. Lewis guy keeps coming up with great stuff. Here is a poem entitled the footnote to all prayers:

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow 
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou, 
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart 
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art. 
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme 
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream, 
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address 
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless 
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert 
Our arrows, aimed unskillfully, beyond desert; 
And all men are idolaters, crying unheard 
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, O Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great 
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

--Lewis captures the idea that even our prayers to God fall short of capturing who he is. We shoot arrows to the sky not realizing that we are aiming in the opposite direction of God. And somehow he takes our vain words, hears them, and listens to them.

Theology Part I

2007-05-01T21:57:00.000-05:00

So I've been reading and thinking about some theological issues lately. And I have been really lax on the blog as of late, which is a bummer. So I've decided that all this reading and thinking should be shared with the masses. Today's post is on the idea of a bounded set of theology, and what I hope will follow will continue more theological dialogue [I hope to have some comments, and further ideas to advance what I've written].

This is by no means meant to be final, but rather a starting thought. I hope that some will find it interesting. I'll try and keep these as short as possible, once I start, I tend to go on and on... and that's enough of an introduction.

So here is Part I of my thoughts on theology and the theological method:

In the world of postmodernity where change is the new norm advances in every field of art and science are overtaking our world. In the world of theology revision has become a hot topic issue. How much of our theology is either in need of revision, or open to revision.

I am currently working my way through John Franke’s “The Character of Theology’. In his book he outlines two distinct stances on revision: traditionalists and revisionists. Traditionalists are inherently skeptical of any revisions, or the ongoing process of theological reflection. The creedal formulations of the 16th and 17th centuries remain the bedrock of theological reflection. Theological discourse found its foundation there, and is in no need of revision from contemporary theologians.

This view leads to a bounded set theology. The premise of theological systems is to divide between those who are in and those who are out. Our bounded set of theology sets up a firm and stable fence. This fence serves the dual purpose of keeping those who align with our beliefs in, while keeping those revisionists and “heretics” out. Our theological formulations are the stronghold that we must hold on to in order to save ourselves from being washed away into the evil world of relativism and pluralism.

In the traditionalists view proper elucidation of theology involves the recapitulation of historic dogmatism. Both revision and cultural engagement are red headed stepchildren in this family. What was decided on several hundred years ago remains the foundational premise behind all theology.

The revisionists on the other hand actively engage with culture seeking new ways of appropriating Scripture to everyday lives. Instead of a bounded set, there remains a centered set of primary beliefs around which theology revolves. The coherence of theology is provided through this centered set of beliefs.

The essence of our Christian faith is not to be found in the doctrinal statements of years gone by, but rather in the working of God in individual believers lives. Because we face new contemporary problems, new answers and solutions are needed. Theology is an ever expanding, ever evolving art form. It is not bound by our theological assumptions founded in ancient formulations of belief that were relevant for that time, but are no longer the context and situation in which we find the working of God.

The suggestions laid before us of course beg the criticism of the foundationalists that this sort of theological stance necessitates the questioning of all theological formulations. A revisionist view does not entail the rejection of all propositional statements about God, but rather it recognizes the limitation of those formulations.

We understand that we as humans are neither divine nor perfect. Any idea that we have of God is inherently flawed, as fallen human beings we understand the difference between God and us. Our views and formulations describing the divine inherently fall short. As such they must be under constant reflection and criticism. I would also add that this criticism as such comes under the rule of faith. We are not criticizing, or revising for the sake of revision, rather we are constantly seeking to understand the contextual, and social influences that our theologies are formulated in. There is no promised land of pure objectivity, or a place where we can evaluate our assumptions without outside influence.

At the same time, this view does not preclude our ability to make propositional truth statements. What it does preclude is our making these statements from a position of absolute authority. As humans we understand that the only pure truth is the truth of God Himself. We can point towards that truth, and come into relationship with that truth, but that does not mean that we are the truth, or that we have apprehended.

This sort of thinking stimulates theological exploration into new worlds. There is no end point of theology, no land of arrival where further consideration and study is no longer necessary. Rather we are constantly learning, constantly growing, and constantly learning more about a God who makes Himself known to us.

I'm voting for this guy

2007-04-28T08:12:00.000-05:00

Mike Gravel at the Democratic debate. One of the few candidates that I have seen in a debate who really spoke his mind. He provided a spark at an otherwise mundane debate.

I may not agree with his policy, and there is almost no chance that he will get the nomination, but I will watch every debate that he is in leading up to the election just for the entertainment.

Baby Got Book

2007-04-27T21:04:00.001-05:00

Orthodoxy

2007-04-26T00:13:00.000-05:00

Tony Jones has recently posted about a presentation he did at Wheaton. His presentation elucidated his position on orthodoxy. Jones purports that orthodoxy is an event, not something static and established. People come together at different times and establish what they believe to be orthodox.

I find the entire concept interesting, and challenging. We are constantly claiming orthodoxy in our beliefs as if they are tried and true, grounded and never to be moved. We act as though our creedal formulations of beliefs are so well established that they are without need of adaptation or updating.

If we view orthodoxy not as an established set of rules, but rather as a fluid dynamic process, what is orthodox today, and who is to decide? What determines right belief?

I think theology like all other forms of art and science must be ever evolving. If you stop growing your dead.

Pride

2007-04-23T15:27:00.000-05:00

Posted by Adam:

"You probably think this blog is about you. Don't you?"

"How is it that people who are quite obviously eaten up with Pride can say they believe in God and appear to themselves very religious? I am afraid it means they are worshipping an imaginary God. They theoretically admit themselves to be nothing in the presence of this phantom God, but are really all the time imagining how he approves of them and thinks them far better than ordinary people: that is, they pay a penny worth of imaginary humility to Him and get out of it a pound's worth of Pride toward their fellow men. I suppose it was of those people Christ was thinking when He said that some world preach about Him and cast out devils in His name, only to be told at the end of the world that He had never known them.

And any of us may at any moment may be in this deathtrap. Luckily, we have a test. Whenever we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good- above all, that we are better than someone else - I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not be God, but by the devil. The real test of being in the presence of God is that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget about yourself altogether."

-C.S. Lewis, 'The Chief Cause of Misery'

This hit me hard. How many times a day does my religious life make me feel that I am good, or better than somebody else? This must be one of the chief snares of the devil. God bless my debating and philosophy. Yet, what is my intention? What is my motivation? It is many a time pride that makes me challenge another. God speaks in silence and beauty and no one can hear Him in the noise of debate. Religion can be a funny thing; Man believing in something bigger than himself, yet MAN is the one doing all the speaking and the doing.

--Adam

Tithing

2007-03-26T16:24:00.000-05:00

Another post by GED Nate...

Although I do not totally agree with some of what he says [he seems to skip over some verses in Scripture], I do think he is on the right path in some of his thoughts.

So here we go!

"The consequence of Privileged information."

The Receiving End of Sirens "The Evidence"

It seems to come around every year without fail, stewardship month. A month full of Pastors begging for its members to dedicate X amount of dollars for the year. How much, and how many times are we to give our tithe? But how important is tithing? What about giving to the poor?

First lets get the actual definition of tithing so we are all on the same page: the tenth part of agricultural produce or personal income set apart as an offering to God or for works of mercy.

First, how many times are you to give a tenth of your earnings?

Deuteronomy 26:12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.

Amos 4:3-54 "Go to Bethel and sin;
go to Gilgal and sin yet more.
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
your tithes every three years.

So right from the begging the commandment if for every 3 years during the year of tithe. This is something I have never heard sitting in front of a pulpit. My question is when did it go from a 3-year thing to a year or every month commandment?

Secondly, giving or tithing to the poor.

Acts 10:4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked. The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.

Its seems that when we give to the poor, or are asked to give it is supposed to be an offering above and beyond the tenth that is dedicated to the church. But as this verse clearly states’ giving to the poor is giving to God.

Why does giving to the poor have to be a secondary gift, when we are commanded over and over again to give to the poor? When did we make the distinction of giving to the poor is different from giving to God?

Thirdly, how important is tithing?
Luke 18:9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men robbers, evildoers, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Luke 11:42 "Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. (Also see Matthew 23:23)
When you place such an importance on tithing you are in going against the commandments of Jesus himself. Taking one month out of the year solely to focus on tithing seems to me to be doing just this.

The thing we have to remember is that tithing is not the greatest commandment.

1 Corinthians 13:2-4 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Now I must state that I am not against giving to the church, the church needs money to operate. Tithing is a commandment of God; there is no question of that. My question is how did we get this new definition of tithing. The way the church, or at least every church I have ever been to, speaks about tithing is unbiblical.

Tithing was not established for churches to buy new projectors or a fancy new pulpit, it was meant to benefit the people who attend the church. It is meant to do God's work, which I simply don't think is new comfortable pews for the people to sit in.

Maybe if more Pastors would preach tithing as giving to do the Lords work, and then the people saw the church doing God's work, they would be more interested in giving.

GED Nate

I'm Impressed

2007-03-19T22:27:00.000-05:00

By a comment made by GED Nate...

I just don't see how we can think God created a world, tells us to enjoy the world, died for this world, and yet we are to have nothing to do with it.

I think we need to stop looking up, and start looking around the corner at the people suffering.

We need to see the difference in loving a world of sin, and loving a world of people who sin.

[We may just have to give him back his honorary doctorate]

Hetero?

2007-03-18T13:55:00.000-05:00

School of Hetero

This is a questionnaire that was presented to a middle school sometime last year.

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When did you decided you were heterosexual?

3. For those you have disclosed your heterosexuality, how did they react?

4. How do you know you are not attracted to the same sex if you have never slept with them?

5. Do you think you have simply not met the right same sex partner yet?

Now as humorous or outlandish these questions must seem they prove a valid point. When the word homo is replaced with hetero it shows how foolish the questions must seem to a gay person.

Its basically the "walk a mile in their shoes" theory. I think that everyone especially Christians should do this. Before you write off a homosexual person as an "evil person" or a "fag" think about what they must feel like.

Same with abortion. Now, I am not for abortion, and I do believe homosexuality is wrong, but I think we always have to remeber the greatest commandment. Which is love.

Before you judge, you must first love. Before you correct, you must first love, because love is the greatest comandment.

By Master Nate [He has been upgraded from GED Nate to a Master's of Debating Nate after this interesting post]

More Thoughts On The Future

2007-03-17T11:41:00.000-05:00

Here are a few thoughts on the future by GED Nate:

Apocalypse is not in the Bible, Armegedon is only mentioned once as a place not a time, tribulation mentioned once with no seven year time laps:

Rev. 7:15 And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore, "they are before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple; and he who sits on the throne will spread his tent over them."

The rapture not mentioned, millennium nope, antichrist is only mentioned in 2 John and the verse does not point to one person:

2 John 1:27 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist, as well when it does point towards one person it also points to someone already on earth:

1 John 2:22 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Notice the plural antichrists

By GED NATE
[His doctorate from Oxford was recently revoked]

A More Positive View?

2007-03-16T17:25:00.000-05:00

"Christian eschatology must be broadened out into cosmic eschatology, for otherwise it becomes a Gnostic doctrine of redemption, and is bound to teach, no longer the redemption of the world but a redemption from the world, no longer the redemption of the body but a deliverance of the soul from the body. But men and women are not aspirants for angelic status, whose home is heaven and who feel that on this earth they are in exile. They are creatures of flesh and blood. Their eschatological future is human and earthly future – ‘the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come’.”

--Jurgen Moltmann, The Coming of God

If your like me, a bit slow, you have to read Moltmann twice to really understand what he is saying...

The Most Positive View Of The Future?

2007-03-13T20:52:00.000-05:00

Is dispensationalism the most positive viewpoint for the future of our world?

We get to be raptured and watch all the horrors from the safety of heaven...

Dispensationalists in their own words:

“God will destroy this earth that is so marred and cursed by Satan’s evil. He will include the atmospheric heaven to guarantee that all semblance of evil has been cleared away.”
[Tim LaHaye]

“John was hurtled by God’s Spirit through time up to the end of the twentieth century, shown the actual cataclysmic events of the Tribulation, then returned to the first century and told to write about what he had witnessed”
[Hal Lindsey, The Rapture: Truth or Consequences, 101-102]

“We are seeing in my judgment the birth-pangs that will be called in the future the beginning of the end. I believe in my mind that the Third World War has already begun.”
[John Hagee, BBC Interview]

Rayford Steele, Left Behind’s hero, is given multiple opportunities to thwart or destroy the evil Antichrist early in the series. But he refrains from doing so because he views the Bible as a preset script dictating that the Antichrist “must” live for seven more years.
[From Soul Harvest, The World Takes Sides, Volume 4 in the Left Behind Series]

“Scripture had come to life. This was the Red Horse of the Apocalypse. Next would come more death and famine and plagues until a quarter of the population of the earth that remained after the rapture was wiped out.”
[LaHaye and Jenkins, Nicolae, 108]

“The first time He came to earth, Jesus was the Lamb of God, led in silence to the slaughter. The next time He comes, He will be the Lion of the tribe of Judah who will trample His enemies until their blood stains His garments, and He shall rule with a rod of iron. Even so, come Lord Jesus!”
[John Hagee, Daniel to Doomsday, 239]

“That old curiosity was back. Rayford couldn’t shake it. No way he could be this close to Armageddon—he guessed less than seventy miles—and not do a flyover. It was crazy, he knew. He might find himself in an air traffic jam. But the possibility of seeing an aerial view of what he had been hearing and reading and praying about drew him like an undertow.”
[LaHaye and Jenkins, Armageddon, 234]

The new heavens and new earth won’t waste any space with oceans or mountains or deserts, since such landscapes are uninhabitable for humans and are therefore “worthless.”
[LaHaye]

Adam Threatens To Go America...

2007-03-12T08:43:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Adam threatened to "go America" on me if I didn't give at least a little hint as to my views on eschatology. Since I don't know what "going America" entails, I'm assuming that it's not the least bit pleasant.

So in order to escape my imminent fate, here are a few thoughts [These are taken from a book I am engaging with right now: "The Rapture Exposed" by Barbara Rossing, pg. 41] The book challenges the "dispensational" interpretation of the book of Revelation.

1. There is no mention of a rebuilt Jerusalem temple anywhere in the New Testament, including Revelation
2. Neither Daniel nor Revelation uses the word Antichrist
3. There is no record in Revelation or Daniel o the Antichrist making a covenant with Israel
4. There is no record in Daniel or Revelation of the Antichrist breaking the covenant with Israel
5. There is no mention that Jesus will set up an earthly throne in Jerusalem

I hope these points will be taken into consideration anytime one seeks to properly exegete the book of Revelation.

For Your Enjoyment...

2007-03-07T16:16:00.000-05:00

Romans in a few words...

2007-03-07T09:53:00.000-05:00

This post is borne out of a discussion on the topic of Romans 9 God loving some and hating others...

Here are my brief thoughts on the book of Romans as whole, eventually getting around to Romans 9 and the issue of God's giving mercy to some.

The book of Romans has often been called “Paul’s most systematic theology”. The book is often times divided into neat little divisions, 1-3; 5-8; 9-11; 12-16, and given titles for each section. Often times as readers we approach the book of Romans as if it were several different books with different subheads. I think that reading of Romans is what has lead people to read Romans 9-11 with what I call 21st century glasses, and ignore the overall context, and message of Paul in Romans.

One of the main issues, if not the issue for Paul and the early church was the admission of Gentiles into the people of God. The Jews were the chosen people of God, saw themselves as “in”, and the Gentiles were most certainly out. Throughout the book of Romans Paul addresses this issue.

Romans 1:5 “Through Him and for his name’s sake we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles”
Romans 1:16 “[The gospel] is the power of God first for the Jew and then for the Gentile” [Side note: I don’t think this verse explains the gospel, but rather shows the power of the gospel. Too often people assume that Romans 1:16-17 is Paul’s definition of the gospel, I disagree, but that’s another story for another time]

Paul then goes on to show the sinfulness, and lost ness of every man. Carefully outlining that both Jew and Gentile are sinners in need of God
[1:18-32 — the depravity of all people] [chapter 2 both Gentiles and Jews are sinful. 2:14, 17-29 is especially enlightening]
In fact in chapter 2 Paul goes on to show that just because you are a Jew and have the law it doesn’t mean that you are better than someone else.
3:9 Paul comes to the conclusion that both Jew and Gentile are both under sin.

So we can see here that Paul is weaving this argument throughout the entire book. Jew and Gentile are sinners; neither can claim that they are in because of race alone [nor could they ever do that].

Romans 3:28-29 “Justification by faith” Here is where I follow Wright

Justification in this passage, and the “works of the law” are not referents to the fact that the Jews were trying to earn their salvation by their outward actions. Rather what Paul is referring to here in observing the law is the fact that the Jews believed that their Torah obedience was a badge of membership that set them apart from the Gentiles. It was how you could tell one was a real Jew. Paul challenges them here in this passage stating that God is the God of both Jew and Gentile. Their works of the law were not Pelagian self-righteous works. Once again the Jew/Gentile divide is clear.

Romans 4 — An appeal to Abraham. He was justified before circumcision [Jew vs. Gentile]

Romans 5 — Adam, all are sinners regardless of race. [BTW Romans 5:18 seems to hint at universalism — threw that in there for Nathanael]

Romans 6 — No longer under Law but under grace for all

Romans 8 — The spirit comes to all through faith, not through racial privilege [as if it ever did]

So then we come to Romans 9 [I know this is a real short synopsis of the first 8 chapters, but I don’t want this to go on forever in the hopes that you may actually read it]

We must keep in mind Paul’s central thesis of Jew vs. Gentile [he makes this clear in vs. 7 where not all Jews are Abraham’s descendents]

When we read passages like “Jacob I loved Esau I hated”. Both were Jewish sons of Isaac. Jacob received the promise Esau did not. Is Paul making a referent here to the fact that one was elect and the other not? One was destined for hell and the other not?

I think a better way to read Paul would be to understand that in Romans 9-11 he is outlining his sorrow for the Jewish nation. He wants them to believe in Jesus, he wants to shake them out of the belief that they are on their way simply because they are Jewish [9:1-2; 10:1]. His point is that God has called some who are not Jewish to be a part of his people [9:24-26]. Esau was a Jew, yet he was rejected, the same fate can await you.

He continues in chapter 10 with that thought in 10:11-13 [whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved, Jew or Gentile]

Chapter 11 he continues with the grafting in of the Gentiles into the branch further accentuating the fact that the Gentiles are now apart of the “chosen”.

So when someone comes along and tells me that God elects some for heaven, some for hell, and that Romans 9-11 is a clear example of that, I think they are not reading the entire context, and they most certainly are reading the passage through our 21st century eyes. Just because you are a part of Israel does not mean that you are Jacob, you could be Esau. Israel had hardened their hearts, and needed them to be softened so that they could respond to Paul’s call to salvation.

Well, there in as brief a format as possible is my reading of Romans. I skipped a lot of important info as I’m sure will be pointed out. But I think we have to ground any discussion of election in this argument of Jew vs. Gentile. We often times assume that this was not an issue for Paul, and that has led us astray for the most part in my opinion.

And if you read all of this you get a gold star!

Missional Theology

2007-02-26T13:37:00.000-05:00

John Franke has written a great article on missional theology.

Click on the title to read the article.

Dr. Nate

2007-02-26T08:49:00.000-05:00

I have heard the cries from the wilderness. Nathanael sent me this email a week or so ago, and has since then spent most of his time complaining that I didn't post it...

So here it is:

It’s a question I have heard asked a thousand times. What about the people who live in foreign countries and have never heard the “gospel?” What about the people who don’t know Jesus died for them?

Then you get the response from Romans 1:19-20 “…because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…” and it goes on from there.

But see here is where the problem arises. I have read that passage a number of times and no where do I find a “sinners prayer,” or anything about, Jesus dying for them. But isn’t that the fundamental step into becoming a Christian? The faith in believing Jesus died for them?

And furthermore, what if instead of calling God, God. What if they refer to him as Bobobebo, and worship him for giving them rain and food. What if they praise Bobobebo for killing their enemies, getting their wives pregnant, and instead of a cross they put up as a symbol of their creator, they make a man of wood as an image of God? (not to say they worship the image, but let’s not get side tracked.)

Are they “saved”? Do they get to go to “heaven?”

As far as our American Salvation is concerned, and I mean if you literally base salvation on what a preacher will tell you during the invitation, the answer would be no.

(As well, of course not many people believe that the “sinners prayer,” or as I call it, the “magic prayer,” is all there is to salvation, but almost everyone I talk to they say that it has to be the FOUNDATION for everything else.)

So there is my problem, if the FOUNDATION for becoming a Christian is the “sinners prayer” and what it contains, then there must be a lot of people in “hell” with no idea why.

--Nate

Let me know your thoughts about Nathanael's post!

Karl Barth and Scripture

2007-02-22T17:49:00.000-05:00

My understanding of truth [and Truth] in a postmodern context came into clearer focus today with a discussion on Karl Barth and his view of revelation.

Barth contended that Truth [capital T] was from the Word of God. The Word of God functioned in three ways:

1. Revelation -- Jesus Christ is the revelation of God. Jesus is Truth [capital T]
2. The Bible -- The Bible functions as witness to the revelation of God. The Bible is the Word of God, but since it comes to us in the form of human words it can only contain words about God. It is not the direct revelation of God, it is therefore truth [small t]
3. Proclamation -- Good preaching contains proclamation about God. However, as a human construct, like the Bible, it contains truth [small t]. It is truth to us, but it is not the Truth.

Only God is Truth, but since God is beyond all our understandings, all we have access to is truth [small t]. We access Truth [God] through the Bible, and through proclamation of the Bible. However, we must keep in mind that the closest we can come is truth [small t].

In Scripture God makes Himself cognitively available to us in such a way that we can provide formulations as good as we can make them. And yet even our best formulations remain inadequate in relation to the one whom they bear witness to.

Absolute Truth is only available to God, not to us. The best we can come to is truth [small t again].

So maybe the church's fascination of Absolute Truth is a discussion that we cannot engage in. Even our best constructions and formulations of God fall frustratingly short.

So what do you think? Can we know Absolute Truth?
Is this discussion beyond us?
Should the church purposely get away from Absolute Truth statements?
How much Truth, and truth are contained in other churches, and other religions?
Interested in your thoughts

Refreshing

2007-02-19T19:51:00.000-05:00

"At Biblical the Bible is not under scrutiny, but our interpretations of the Bible are under scrutiny."

--Dr. David Dunbar
President Biblical Seminary

Universalism

2007-02-13T15:12:00.000-05:00

“The doctrine of universal salvation is the expression of a boundless confidence in God: what god wants to do he can do, and will do. If he wants all human beings to be helped, he will ultimately help all human beings. The doctrine of the double outcome of judgment is the expression of a tremendous self-confidence on the part of human beings: if the decision ‘faith or disbelief’ has eternal significance, then eternal destiny, salvation or damnation, lies in the hands of human beings. What will happen to people in eternity really depends on their own behavior. God’s function is reduced to the offer of salvation in the gospel, and to establishing acceptance or rejection at the judgment. Christ becomes a persons savior only when that person has ‘accepted’ him in faith. So it is the acceptance in faith which makes Christ the savior of that man or that woman. But if this is so, do people not really save the damn themselves?

Who makes the decision about the salvation of lost men and women, and where is the decision made?”

Jurgen Moltmann
"The Coming of God"

Women in Ministry

2007-02-12T13:32:00.000-05:00

On Saturday I asked the following question:

Which areas of our theology are in need of further development?

Almost everyone agreed that our view of women in ministry was in need of revision.

Maybe it's time that we admit our errors, and make a 180 degree turn.

More Thoughts On Salvation

2007-02-12T13:14:00.000-05:00

I appreciate the comments on the last post.

A few thoughts on the subject matter of salvation.

I agree with Nathanael when he says that salvation in the Old Testament must include the idea of salvation from exile. Nehemiah 9:36 makes this clear. "We are servants to this day [in our own land]." Isreal viewed themselves as still in a state of spiritual exile. While they had returned to their land geographically, they still remained in a spiritual exile. The parable of the prodigal son is an excellent example of such a belief.

For too long we have viewed the parable as a simple story about the great love of God. But look at the paralells. A son [Israel] tells his father [God] to give him the inheritance [saying in essence that he wishes his father were dead]. He goes off to a far country [exile], and ends up with the most humbling of jobs [feeding pigs for Gentiles]. When he returns the father welcomes him back into the family [God welcoming the sinners, and the nation of Israel back into his family]. It is a picture of the radical forgiveness of God. The wrong people are getting into the kingdom, those who rejected God. The older brother [the Pharisees] cannot comprehend how the father could welcome the son. [He kills a fatted calf, far too much meat for a single family, it was the entire community that would celebrate the return of the son].

So Luke 15 is a beautiful picture of Isreal, exile, and return. Jesus tells the story with these obvious implications.

Evangelicals have wrongly assumed that Christ came to die on the cross for the primary reason of being substitutionary atonement for our sins. While I do agree that Christ's death on the cross does offer a covering for our sins, I also believe that His death is far more well rounded.

The death of Christ on the cross must be seen primarily through the lens of faithfulness to His covenant. In Jesus we have the beginnings of new creation [i.e. John 1, and Genesis 1. See also Luke 24:31, and Genesis 3:7]. Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling the vocation of Isreal [Isaiah 52-53], not simply as a covering for our individual sins.

This understanding of salvation keeps us from a "get out of hell" salvation, and helps move us forward to a more holistic understanding. For the Jews Jesus offered salvation from exile, and restoration. However, it came in a most unusual way. The kingdom was established [Mark 1:15], but it did not look as they imagined it would.

This also leads to our understanding of justification, but more on that at a later date. This is getting long already.

Salvation

2007-02-06T10:48:00.000-05:00

A couple of starting points for discussion from chapter one:

1. Do you agree with McLaren's statement about salvation in the Old Testament:
"It's clear that in these passages [Exodus 15:2; 2 Samuel 22:3; Luke 1:69-73] the speakers aren't talking about being saved from hell. They're talking about being saved from the Egyptians, King Saul, the Romans -- about being liberated from violence and oppression and the distressing fear they engender" [pg. 21]

2. McLaren says that salvation needs to be seen not only as "salvation from hell" but rather "being rescued from fruitless ways of life here and now, to share in God's saving love for all creation, in an adventure called the kingdom of God, the point of which you definitely don't want to miss." [pg. 25]

Interested to hear your thoughts on chapter one. Email me your thoughts and I will post them here so that the conversation can begin!

JP

And Off We Go!

2007-02-05T10:48:00.000-05:00

Hey guys,

Here is the blog that we will use for our conversation. If you want to post a blog, just email me:
JDPedrone@newtestbaptist.org the information, and I will post it for discussion. A couple of ground rules [even though I hate to put restrictions on a conversation]
1. Make sure your posts are well thought out.
2. Make them as concise as possible
3. Don't dominate the conversation [I want everyone to have a chance to post here]
4. Participate

Well, I'll try and post a starter discussion topic later today. For right now, we are blogging about the book "Adventures in Missing the Point".

And off we go!

JP