Following not dreaming... I hope

Inauthentic Women's Ministry

2011-10-06T00:10:00.000-04:00

Yep, I suck at blogging. Someone give me something to write about. I read a great blog (via thoughts from fabs) about a woman wrestling with the superficiality of women's ministry and want to give a hearty AMEN!!! Being a guy, I don't have much first hand experience of women's ministry but the impressions I've received from most Christian women I've been around affirm the problems pointed out. Honestly, men's ministry doesn't tend to be much better. The Church has got to learn authentic discipleship, community and witness or it will surely not weather post-Christendom well.

Overhaul?

2011-06-11T19:14:00.002-04:00

I think it's past time for this blog to get a makeover. Any and all suggestions on what to change are welcome.

Church-State Separation

2011-05-07T14:02:00.001-04:00

The problem of maintaining church and state separation can not be seen to begin at the governmental level, but must begin at the level of personal identity. If we can not separate our nationality from our religious beliefs then it follows that church and state will not be separated in the neither the life of the nation nor the church.

My Ana/Baptist Dilemma

2011-03-27T03:18:00.001-04:00

NOTE: This is going to be a very long post. For those that are not sure they want to read the whole thing I would recommend skipping or skimming the Introduction and Explanation sections. The Confession and Dilemma sections are the heart of the matter.

WARNING: Never before have I revealed my hand so fully as to some of my particular beliefs. People may be offended by the frankness with which I speak and the level with which I am still comfortable with elements of my fundamentalist upbringing.

Introduction
I'm an Anabaptist, I think. You see, I'm still uncomfortable with self-identifying this way since its contemporary popular expression tends to relate more to a bunch of neo-hippies that hold superstitiously on to Christian language to theologically justify liberal political activism despite having little confessionally in common with the 16th century forebears that had the name forced upon them. I may agree more with such people on some tertiary and secondary issues than I do any other kind of Christian as a whole, but unlike them I'm unwilling to stop making distinctions in what doctrines are truly essential to orthodox faith.

I grew up Southern Baptist. That came with all the politically conservative Republican militarist American nationalist baggage one might stereotypically dump on that label. My church membership still officially lies with the SBC church I grew up in in high school despite spending three years in a charismatic church in college and now almost a year at a Missionary Church in seminary. Not everything is bad about what I got from the SBC, in fact it developed within me a love and appreciation for essentials: love and respect of the Bible, the greatness of God, the love of Jesus, the importance of mission and many other things. I don't care for the vast amount of legalism and hypocrisy in the SBC, but I also realize they can be accused of those things because they care about their faith more than not. Most denominations don't strike me as caring much about their faith to associate so loosely with people and congregations that are polar opposites to their own positions. The SBC is far far far faaaaaaaarrrrrrrr away from perfect, but they can't be accused of not trying unlike most other denominations I encounter. I love the SBC for the foundation it gave my Christian faith and find myself thoroughly frustrated and disappointed with the SBC in almost all other realms of faith.

Since college I've spent much time trying to understand the message of the Bible beyond my American Southern Baptist upbringing. I've tried to notice what I haven't noticed before and think about what those things mean to my theological orientation. I've tried to discover more about what Christian faith has been like in other contexts and other historical periods. My convictions have changed in significant ways since high school. Most notably with regard to the secondary and tertiary issues.* Allow me to confess my current position on some secondary and tertiary issues in no particular order.

Confession
Secondary:

I believe that nonviolence and nonresistance (here on referred to simply as pacifism) are for all Christians and not just those few who feel convicted of it.
I do not believe pacifism is necessary for salvation.
I do believe that as we are discipled into a deeper relationship with Christ pacifism should be a natural fruit of the spirit as we grow to understand and model peace and peacemaking.
I believe that the local congregation is charged with evangelizing unbelievers and discipling believers.
I believe that grace is costly and discipleship should reflect this in part through strong accountability.
I believe that shunning/banning/excommunicating a member is a biblical form of church discipline if the intent is to continue to attempt to rehabilitate wrong or harmful views or actions outside of the fellowship of the local congregation with the hope of reuniting them to the congregation.
I believe that a local congregation is in charge of its own structure and affairs but is not an island unto itself and should seek out accountability and fellowship with likeminded congregations in the essentials and as many of the secondary and tertiary issues as they can bear to be different on but still be in fellowship with.
I believe that generosity with wealth and possessions towards other Christians and the needy is a Biblical expectation.
I do not believe in the taking of oaths that expect one to do anything other than what a Christian should already be doing as a servant of Christ.
I do not believe in the taking of oaths that expect an allegiance to anything or anyone as more important than, as important as or important in anyway that may conflict with living a Christlike life.
I believe the following are the major ordinances: Lord's Supper, baptism, foot washing, matrimony, vows of celibacy, and confirmation of calling (e.g. ordination).
I believe the separation of the church from the state is a necessary precondition for a pure, unhindered, biblical Gospel witness.
I believe baptism is to be reserved for competent believers professing their commitment to the essentials of the faith.

Tertiary:

I believe immersion is the biblical and most faithful mode of baptism.
I believe that all things done by the Body of Christ (aka the invisible Church) are sacramental in some sense.

Explanation
At the moment, these are all of the secondary or tertiary beliefs (that I can think of) of note that I've formulated solid belief in that seem relevant to my current conundrum. One that knows their early modern Christian "dissenter" history well will note the odd assortment of beliefs that seem to come from both Baptist and Anabaptist roots.

1, 6, 9, and 10 are all clearly and most directly of Anabaptist origin. #14 is the only one that is clearly and most directly of Baptist origin and #15 happens to be of Eastern Orthodox origin. 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 13 could all be claimed by the Baptist or Anabaptist tradition. However, in personal preferential practice, 5, 7, 8, 12 and 13 would appear more Anabaptist than Baptist although not wholly so.

This leaves need of explanation for 2, 3, and 11. Those are the ones where compromise between my Baptist and Anabaptist influences leave me not feeling comfortably historically in either camp. The confession of #2, in my reading of historic Anabaptist confessions, would contradict the logical outcome of the Anabaptist peace position coupled with a ban on all civil magistrates as being able to be part of the Church, thus making me a bit more in line with Baptists. However, in #3 I don't give up on the ideal expressed in the Anabaptist confessions. I simply want to allow grace to be first and foremost while still allowing the church to have high expectations and retain separation from the world even if it means compromising temporarily as believers develop spiritually. Furthermore, I leave open the possibility that on occasion (rarer than in our current times) a Christian may legitimately be called to a civil position, but it would be up to the individual to have their calling tested by the congregation and if found legitimate the congregation must be extra careful to keep the individual accountable.

#11 is a combination of Baptist, Anabaptist and high church influences. All of the ordinances memorialize expressions of God's grace, provision and sanctification that are important throughout the Bible. Footwashing is the uniquely Anabaptist contribution. Matrimony is among the high church sacraments. It seemed both biblical and fair to include vows of celibacy not simply as a counterbalance to matrimony but as recognition that the Body of Christ is filled with both types and each represent a form of grace, sanctification and provision. While high church traditions recognize specifically ordination because of the ability of the ordained to give the sacraments, it seems necessary from a free church perspective both to respect the sacramental quality of such an ordinance while expanding its purview to all of the callings of the differing parts of the Body.

Dilemma
The dilemma I find myself in is determining what I am. I feel too Baptist to be Anabaptist and too Anabaptist to really be Baptist. I am not sure how much leniency there really is to both labels and whether I fit in one or can fit in both. What I do know is that despite my discomfort with the larger Baptist tradition I feel closest to pacifist Baptists like Joseph Judson Taylor, Henry Adis and John Smyth (although I know he converted to the Mennonites I still question how Mennonite he really was, since the Baptists are likely part of the reason the Dutch Mennonite groups Hans de Ries had recently brought together split up), while at the same time recognizing that Helwys's (and many proper Baptists well after him) rejection of certain Mennonite positions are not wholly irrational or unbiblical, at least in intention. If I am too Anabaptist to be a proper Baptist then there also seems no place to change my membership to. I find the Mennonite Church in its current state appalling and more unbearable than the SBC. Mennonite Brethren and the Apostolic Christian Church are on my radar as potential closer fits, but I am too unfamiliar with the ways and extent they've compromised from their 16th century ancestors.

Finally, it probably appears that I'm really picky and looking for a perfect church. While I might leap at the opportunity (if God gives it) to help plant a church that seems closer to my doctrinal convictions, I would like to remind people that I've been pretty faithful to attend imperfect churches (esp. ones that do not at all agree with many of these convictions) my whole life. I don't want to become cloistered only among the like minded, but rather do desire the opportunity to challenge peoples views on these things and to continue to be challenged myself. I also feel the need to consider how important it is to find a like-minded enough congregation or tradition to eventually raise a family in.

* - Primary issues are those needed to be believed in order to claim the title Christian. Secondary issues identify one to a local congregation where all hold to the same primary and secondary doctrines. Secondary issues also help to identify individuals and congregations with traditions and denominations. Tertiary issues are those that distinguish an individual believer's views on matters that may cause them to differ with other Christians in their own church without hostility or the breaking of fellowship.

A Simple Dream

2011-02-16T15:31:00.000-05:00

I've been at this Mennonite Seminary for about two and a half years now. I've learned a lot about Mennonites, Anabaptism and their ways of thinking and doing things. And I appreciate all of that. However, I'm beginning to realize that for all the effort I've put into the self-study of my own Baptist tradition it isn't the same as being among Baptists learning about Baptists. I don't really know if I'm figuring out what being Baptist is about since I don't have anyone to compare notes with. The blogosphere is only so useful, but it can't replace the face to face interactions of a people of common confession (if only in name). I'm growing tired of having Mennonites as my primary conversation partners. There are just too many issues where we don't have a common language or experience or even interest in an issue that I can't really think through certain things with them. Or at least, I've thought through as far as I can with them, but am not much closer to understanding the significance of the topic as a Baptist for a Baptist context.

I have a simple dream. I'd like to know what my Baptist peers are learning in their seminaries and institutions of higher education. What are they coming to believe are the strengths and weaknesses of the Baptist experience? What are the solutions they are entertaining? What do they find to be the pressing problems of the Church/society/academia/whatever? What trends do they notice among young Baptist peers as far as theological, historical and biblical research goes? Where do they think Baptists are headed in the future?

I think it would be really nice to have a conference of young Baptists from many seminaries all over the world from the many different Baptist traditions. Not to come together to rehash why we're divided but to simply present to each other where we are at and what we are noticing. I'd really like to attend an event where I can get a sense of what Baptist means to my generation in all its colorful, wonderful, annoying, heretical and God-glorifying forms.

My Greatest Idea Ever

2011-02-02T15:33:00.001-05:00

Weddings have ceased to serve their purpose. They are no longer about the vows and a community coming together to witness them and hold them accountable to their vows. Instead, they have become a cultural event. They are something that is expected. An entire industry exists around it because the wedding event is no more than a commodity. How does one make the event authentic, sincere and meaningful to both the to-be-wed and the witnesses? To be sure, there may be many options. The following is mine.

There are two primary problems with the wedding as I see it. The first is that the witnesses are not there to witness, they are there to spectate. The second problem is that the symbols of traditional weddings have become commodified and have lost their meaning to the consumerism of the to-be-wed. What elements do they want to honor? What colors do they want things to be? How should the food taste? What will the building and dress look like? These are the elements we are, as the to-be-wed and as the spectators, unconsciously submitting ourselves to. We perpetuate the degradation of the meaning of the event by turning every element of the wedding into a question of consumption.

For the audience, they come because they were invited and feel some kind of social obligation to attend. It may not be a negative social obligation, but a positive one where one comes to be a body in a seat "supporting" the couple is still a social obligation even if self-imposed. While the audience sits in their seats they take in the music, colors, decorations, outfits, program and pass judgment on every choice that was made by whoever planned the event. This critical attitude undercuts every ability to be authentic witnesses. Even in more participatory moments like singing or a responsive reading, the critical attitude of the audience does not go away and the words they find themselves speaking more often than not are not meant or ring hollow. Participation in chants and The Wave at a sporting event no more makes the fans witnesses to their favorite team than responsive readings do at a wedding. While all of the elements chosen for the wedding can be done with the best intentions, considerable thought and be very meaningful to the couple, the expectations for the audience are no more than go, sit, eat, give a present. Consumerist mindsets have destroyed the weddings potential to call communities to costly discipleship and real unity.

I propose a solution to this in what follows. First order of business is to cancel the large ceremony. The couple, instead, ought to do something more intimate. They write vows for each other to be taken in turns saying to each other. The initial wedding ceremony should include the couple, the officiator and the few people closest spiritually to the couple that is expected to do the most in the future in keeping in touch and keeping them accountable to their vows. The initial ceremony, in my mind, would on average not run above 10 people in attendance though of course some people are very extroverted and have close communities that number higher. Families should not be traveling for this, unless the family is among those who the couple is spiritually closest to. Fuss over wedding gowns, tuxes or attire for bridesmaids and groomsmen should not be made. Generally, the couple and those in attendance should wear something close to their day to day garb so as to replicate the authenticity of the everyday that will be the foundation of a good marriage rather than the costumes and pageantry of a one time event. However, because it is also a celebration some dressing up is not wholly unreasonable if the couple wishes, but one-time use dresses or suits should be avoided. Decoration should be minimal to nonexistent because its about the authenticity of the day to day rather than the vainglory of a moment. Once again, I don't want to wholly discount the notion of celebration as healthy and worthwhile thing to do throughout one's life so some decoration could be permitted. What I am trying to caution against is the waste of the large, tediously planned performances these events have become and the vices they instill and reinforce in people as a result. The ceremony should above all express the authenticity of worship the couple and their witnesses expect to commit themselves to in their daily lives together.

By this point, the couple would be officially married and may partake in those benefits that go with marriage. However, this is just the beginning. For the next few months to years (depending on their schedules and how they choose to work things) the couple should be traveling to where their communities are that would have been invited to the large traditional wedding to meet individually with friends and family where they are to fellowship and to repeat their vows in front of them. In this way the friends and family that would have spectated at the traditional wedding are confronted with the role of witnessing. There is an intimacy being shared in the setting of repeating the vows in the homes of friends and family. There is also an openness afforded where they can ask questions about convictions, receive advice and worship together. This traveling time can also function as a kind of honeymoon if there is lots of traveling involved.

The final thing to address is the importance of the uniting of communities in the marriage of two people. After the travels are done plans would have been made ahead of time for a wedding reception. Where all of the friends and family of both sides may come together and get to know each other and enjoy each other's company. The reception would hopefully be more effective at bringing the communities together since all had experienced a real witnessing of the commitment of two people coming together.

Threat to the Bible

2010-12-10T01:14:00.001-05:00

For my final Canon and Community class we had to give a short presentation on something we saw as a threat to the Bible or our view of the Bible or something along those lines. The presentations were very interesting. There was a diversity of styles and topics discussed. Our professor will be posting all of them online for us to view. I'm looking forward to reading them more in depth. Almost everyone said something that surprised me or struck me in some way. The following is the text of what I presented.

The number one threat to the Bible is... bears. The Tahoe Daily Tribune reported shortly before Thanksgiving last year a 700 lb bear made a $70,000 path of destruction through a small town in western Nevada which included a local church. The bear destroyed a door to get into the fellowship hall of the church and consumed 22 jars of peanut butter and several containers of frozen orange juice and frozen dinner rolls. This food and much more was waiting to be packed into boxes to be distributed to the needy in their community. Residents of the town had been trying to catch the bear since it broke into more than 40 garages the summer before. One man managed to shoot the bear in the head with a .44 magnum, but the bullet ricocheted off.

A story like this might be part of the inspiration why Bryan Fischer, a spokesperson for the conservative Christian, pro-life, pro-family organization American Family Association and former chaplain to the Idaho State Senate, suggested last month that “grizzlies have to go.” He argued that the existence of such animals attacking humans proves they are a part of the curse of the Fall. To deal with this curse we should “shoot these man-eaters on sight.”

Now obviously, I'm being facetious. In fact, as I've thought about this assignment for some time, I've realized I'm not sure that I believe there is any threat to the Bible. We all come from traditions and theological persuasions that we care deeply about and identify passionately with. Sometimes, our passionate connection to these identities clouds our ability to see the greater picture that's going on around us and before us.

The fact of the matter is that canons have been around throughout all of Christian history. Christian communities have continued to use things on the side of what became the Bible, as well as to ignore things within the Bible. Such things happened during the time of Christ and the apostles. It happened before Constantine. It happened after Constantine. It happened during and after the Reformation. It happens today, and it will happen in post-Christendom as well.

The Bible has managed to make liberal Christians conservative and conservative Christians liberal. It has turned unbelievers into believers and believers into unbelievers. The Church in every form that it has taken throughout time and today continues this same trend. Despite our foibles God has proven himself faithful throughout the ages. The church continues to exist, and continues to be a transformative presence in the world. All along the way, we have had our canons, our canons within the canon and our canons outside of the canon. Every step of this journey we have interpreted our canons to help us continue to be true to God and to each other. Also, these canons have interpreted us in the sense of the Holy Spirit convicting us.

Often I think the things that we perceive as threatening our particular Christian identities and theological persuasions are things that God is using with great effect elsewhere in His plan. And this is really what is being threatened. It is not the Bible being threatened, it is us. If we are honest with ourselves, God is far more creative than our identities and persuasions will allow us to admit. No, I don't think the Bible is threatened. The way things are are how they've always been in some way or another. That fact alone shows that the Bible and the Church have come through a lot and will make it through to the end whatever that may be. These polemics we find ourselves surrounded by and taking part in are evidence of a lack of faith we have in the greater picture. Paradoxically, it seems that this very behavior is what keeps the Church sharp. It keeps us diverse and on task with what God has gifted and called our particular cliques to do.

Constantine, King James, complementarians, egalitarians, liberals, and fundamentalists may be enemies of ours, but they have also helped to create us, sharpen us and focus us. If there is any real threat it is only how worked up we may allow ourselves to become. We should fight our fights but we should also remember to step back and breathe. As the good book says, “For I know the thoughts and plans that I have for you, says the Lord, thoughts and plans for welfare and peace and not for evil, to give you hope in your final outcome. Then you will call upon Me, and you will come and pray to Me, and I will hear and heed you. Then you will seek Me, and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.”

Lawson Stone and Ben Witherington on the Bible, Christians, and Violence

2010-12-02T17:01:00.000-05:00

Ben Witherington III recently relayed to his readers a facebook conversation he had with Lawson Stone, an Old Testament professor at Asbury Theological Seminary. It's a pretty interesting exchange. They aren't able to go much in depth because of the medium, but it gave me some interesting insights into BW3's personal views and how he tackles the pacifism issue from his Methodist perspective. Check it out.

Jesus Freak

2010-10-31T18:44:00.000-04:00

Back in 1995, Christian rap/hip hop group dc Talk released their fourth album Jesus Freak. The album took the Christian world by storm and did not go unnoticed by the secular music industry. I would characterize the release and reception of this album as a major turning point in Christian entertainment culture.

Let's remember the times. Grunge became popular in the early 90s due to the success of bands like Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and the ever famous Nirvana. Lead singer of Nirvana, Kurt Cobain, committed suicide about a year and a half before the release of Jesus Freak. Also by this time in the nineties, hip hop artists were beginning to get regular radio and mainstream success. Later on in 1999, with Columbine and the supposed martyrdom of Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott in the Columbine Massacre the song would become relevant again. And again, after everyone was reminded that America is a "Christian nation" in the wake of 9/11. Within American Christianity in the '90s, the church growth movement was beginning to wane and the church health movement was picking up. This meant American churches were going from focusing on being attractive and members inviting people to becoming more community oriented with emphasis on discipleship.

dc Talk combined the two styles with hard hitting lyrics, conviction and a message of love based in a relationship with Jesus. These elements, and particularly the last one, were not then associated with Christianity because of the right wing politics that had backed two terms for Reagan and one for Bush, Sr., six murders and multiple incidents of assault, threats and arson related to anti-abortion activism, and a whole litany of Christian boycotts. This context made for a ripe environment in which Christians who were tired of the bad image could gather around a more positive one. The song "Jesus Freak" in embracing a kind of persecution and martyr mentality also managed to simultaneously reach out to the kinds of Christians involved in the political sideshow.

The effect of the album was the same no matter what kind of Christian you were. This album was a liberation to be Christian. It managed to fight a common stereotype and provide an anthem for a generation of young Christians that perceived it was not cool to be a Christian at school. The album exhibited a musical creativity not often associated with Christian entertainment that got it notice and wide respect even from secular reviewers.

All of these things considered, Jesus Freak had the right combination at the right time to forever change the place Christian entertainment has in society. dc Talk opened the door for the many Christian pop bands since then to make the in roads they have. A generation of Christians have grown up with this music, the context it came from, and the industry it spawned and wondered when dc Talk would get back together and go back on tour. This is the reason for this out of nowhere post.

Apparently, in June this year, Kevin Max twittered that dc Talk was working on putting a tour together for 2011. Also, earlier this year TobyMac and Michael Tait sang Jesus Freak together with Newsboys at a concert in Nashville.

Considering what I've written and what we've just seen, I can't help but wonder if it's now too late for dc Talk to be as relevant as they once were. The way they dress and moved around on stage just seems silly and out of place today. I think Christian youth culture has passed them by and I'm not sure they're going to do anything but appeal to Gen Xers that are as out of the loop as they are. I've been looking forward for them to retake the world by storm again, but if this is any preview it can only be as embarassing as Favre's career post-Packers.

Professor Timothy Erdel: Anabaptist, Evangelical, Kindred Spirit

2010-10-19T13:55:00.001-04:00

An assignment for a class I'm taking called MA Colloquium (seminary version of Intro to College) required me to interview a person in the field I intend to go into. Since my desire is to eventually get back into Philosophy I thought this would be an excellent opportunity to get to know Professor Timothy Erdel better and finally step foot on Bethel College's campus in Mishawaka.

Earlier this year I decided that God wanted me to be more missional in my choice of church community. I had been driving every Sunday to a good Southern Baptist church in Mishawaka, but began to feel late last year that this wasn't where I belonged. It's hard to really form community with people that don't live near you and I don't know how to minister to a community I'm not a part of. I decided I needed to find a church in the same neighborhood my seminary is in so I could at least be better aware of how to pray for this community.

I decided to start with Zion Missionary Church. I'd never heard of the Missionary Church denomination until I came to Indiana when I met a couple students that belonged to the Missionary Church. They were some of the few other evangelicals at the seminary, so they became friends of a sort. My first Sunday visiting Zion by God's providence happened to also be the first Sunday Professor Erdel was guest teaching a short Sunday School series on bioethics. we happened to meet during worship and chatted for awhile after the service was over. I found myself excited to meet someone who belonged to a conservative evangelical denomination, was committed to his Anabaptist roots, and taught philosophy as a kind of generalist. We chatted a few more times over the next few weeks we were both there and expressed mutual interest in keeping in touch. Several months later I finally contacted him again hoping he would remember me and be willing to do this interview assignment with me. This post is the answer to that question.

Prof. Erdel grew up in Ecuador and spent many years abroad as a missionary before coming back to the US to take up archival duties at Bethel in 1993. While at Bethel and in the midst of his duties as an archivist and theological librarian he continued to do what he did in the mission field which was to teach a miscellany of courses in Church history and other areas he was not specialized in. In Fall 1999, Bethel officially began their philosophy program and Erdel finished his dissertation in Philosophy of Religion at University of Illinois writing on the topic "The Rationality of Christian Faith".

Prof. Erdel's path to philosophy began with being a reflective youth concerned with apologetics. He related a story when during a church prom alternative it was predicted that he would earn a PhD in Philosophy. Erdel didn't remember this event until years later when he was given a copy of the program to that function. He regularly, throughout the interview, went back to how his missionary and apologetic passions and commitment to a Biblical Christianity drive what he does. These same passions and how they've helped him in his journey thus far have also brought him to be more of a generalist than is common among philosophers these days. Erdel humbly admitted that he didn't think he was a very good philosopher and that the best advice he can give to a student wanting to get into philosophy is to not do anything he did.

By his estimation, Prof. Erdel has taught 89 different courses on everything from philosophy to ethics to church history to theology to world religions to literature. He has had a hand in about 300 publications and presentations all as diverse as his interests. The next presentation he will give will be in cooperation with another scholar on nursing history comparing Nazi nurses and Mennonite nurses during World War 2 for a presentation at Baylor. The next presentation more in the field I'm interviewing him about will be about the Sermon on the Mount as a radical critique of Plato's Republic.

Erdel's professional society participation exhibits the same trend. He is connected to about 30 societies and organizations related to library science, archival science, history, biblical studies, theology, philosophy, missions, and missiology among others. Level of involvement in these organizations ranges from a kind of lurker that reads publications and doesn't do anything else with the society to being on executive committees and involved as an editor for the society's journal. When I pinned him down to name a few he's most involved in presently he mentioned the Missionary Church Historical Society, Evangelical Philosophical Society (where he serves on the executive committee and is the book review editor for Philosophia Christi), Evangelical Theological Society and Evangelical Missiological Society. He tries to attend three to four conferences per semester (mostly regional) and reads a large and diverse group of journals including Review of Biblical Literature, Church History, Fide et Historia, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and Faith and Philosophy.

When we discussed philosophical influences there were some that Erdel has spent much time interacting with but none that he would have claimed to be the kind of inspiration that drive a career of exploration like his has been. He mentioned the likes of C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Stanley Hauerwas, John Howard Yoder and Alvin Plantinga as people whose ideas he's regularly interacted with throughout his career, but the real inspiration for Erdel has come from a much more humble place. In the acknowledgements section of his dissertation he named several Ecuadoran Christians that have taught him the life lessons that have been the fuel and guiding wisdom for much of his life. These people he says did not go to college, many never finished high school and some were barely literate, yet these simple, faithful people have demonstrated a profound wisdom for Prof. Erdel.

While it may be true the jack of all trades approach to academia doesn't promise much there were some other bits of wisdom I found helpful in my time with Prof. Erdel. He mentioned the unpredictability of academic interest and how that has affected his ability to publish. He noted that some of the papers that were dearest to his heart and he put the most effort into were never picked up by anyone while some of the papers he thought were unlikely candidates for publication have gone places. To an extent it is probably his wide interests that have sustained him through some of this unpredictability. I found it reassuring to have him mention this because it means that ultimately a good academic keeps his/her nose to the grind stone and doesn't obsess over their own scholarship because what becomes of it isn't necessarily a reflection on their ability as a scholar.

Above is a pretty full summary of the interview I conducted with him. It is a privilege for me to have been granted the opportunity to get to know Brother Tim better. He is truly one of a kind in the field with his Anabaptist and conservative evangelical background. More importantly I find someone who has “made it” and seems in some ways just as uncertain about what to do next as I am. Brother Tim and I share quite a few things in common besides theological commonalities. I've always felt a similar drive to provide a certain kind of unorthodox apologetic for the faith that is rooted in a commitment to the Great Commission. This has driven me to interact with a variety of subdisciplines in my search for a creative answer to theological questions bogged down in tired methodological problems. I've got interests in nonsense literature, logic, philosophy of language, phenomenology, existentialism, philosophy of religion, aesthetics, Church history, Baptist history and theology, Anabaptist history and theology, missiology, theological ethics and probably more I can't think of. There are a number of great Christian minds that have inspired and challenged me including Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer, Yoder, Watchman Nee, Merold Westphal and others, but the ones who challenge me the most are the laity in the pews. I may not always write for their level, but they are constantly in my mind when I write anything. I find Brother Tim's devotion to his denomination encouraging despite disagreement with where it may be going in regard to some of its practices. I have always felt the same combination of hope, frustration, disappointment and anxiousness with regard to my own Southern Baptist upbringing. Brother Tim is a kindred spirit both in his scholarly style and faithfulness to God and the Church and it seems rare any more to get such a great combination of the two commitments.

A Series on Singleness Suffering

2010-08-30T23:28:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Sharon for passing this gem on to her readers. The following are links to a series of blogs on singleness over at thoughts from fabs. Fabs does something similar to Allender and Longman in their book The Cry of the Soul: How Our Emotions Reveal Our Deepest Questions About God. She takes several of the pains connected to being single and shows how they can be used to bless us with a deeper relationship with God. This is highly recommended reading for all Christian singles. She does a great job at putting words to struggles I've been feeling a lot lately and then challenging me to relook at the struggle in a way that reorients me off of myself and back to God. Check them out. I've even included quotes from the posts to whet your appetite.

Some Talk on Singleness

I get nervous talking about singleness because I feel like I’m supposed to not even notice that I’m single because I’m so content in Jesus, right?
And I hate talking about it because too often it contributes to the enemy’s plan to get us to miss the blessings of singleness by wallowing in self-pity or jealousy or bitterness.

Blessings of Singleness #1: Loneliness

Whatever your stage of life – be encouraged when you experience loneliness. Press into it. Learn not to look to your spouse or friends to make this feeling go away – but instead let the pain instruct you to long for what is not yet seen.

Blessings of Singleness #2: The Pain of Freedom

The pain I experience because no one cares where I go on a Friday night doesn’t exist because no one cares where I go on a Friday night. That pain exists because the Person who cares about where I am on a Friday night isn’t as tangible as the person who cares about where my married friend is on a Friday night. I experience pain because I covet instead of trusting that my God has given me what is best.

Blessings of Singleness #3: Losing Control

I can’t change my facebook status to ‘married’ with a little hard work and will power, and each time I remember this there is a sobering pain that teaches me truth...

The pain of losing control reminds me that I actually never had control...

Blessings of Singleness #4: The Pain of Rejection

There is no person on earth that should have the power to speak into us value or worth in such a way that it secures our identity.

Blessings of Singleness #5: Lack of Physical Intimacy

Physical desires seemingly terminate on physical things. And that’s the beauty of fasting. God commands us to fast, not so that He can prove He is as good as a cheeseburger by making our hunger go away. God commands us to fast so that we learn to feel hungry and trust Him in the midst of that gnawing sense of need.

Blessings of Singleness #6: The Pain of Misplaced Shame

There are two types of shame. One is good. It’s shame for something that dishonors God. This shame is the grace of God in our lives that leads us to repentance. But there’s another shame that is misplaced. This is shame for something that we feel dishonors us. Shame for things that bring no dishonor to God. Shame for things like noses that are too big or teeth that aren’t perfectly straight or singleness.

Links about Christian Dating

2010-07-20T14:57:00.002-04:00

A few interesting links popped up on the radar today satirically attacking Christian dating advice. They're pretty good reads and strangely enough its something that's been on my mind the last couple weeks as well. Check them out.

The Good Christian Girl: A Fable by Gina Delfonzo

Seven Conversation Starters: Why are you still single? by Christina Holder

Good Christian Girl, Bad Christian Books by Allen Thornburgh

EDIT: One more - I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Where Did It Go? by Tim Holland

Review of Mere Churchianity

2010-07-18T17:56:00.001-04:00

I didn't plan that my next post would be a review of Michael's new book, it just happened to work out that way. I've just finished reading it and felt it to be the least I could do to honor Michael's memory to offer a review to the few who may read this.

This book, like Michael's little corner on the internet, is a wonderful gem. I honestly can't think of a Christian I wouldn't recommend it to and it has made a place on my elite list of books all Christians should read (the others being Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee and Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard). Michael's book is about Churchianity and how it differs from Christianity and why it's important that we understand the difference between the two. Everyone encounters Christianity through one or multiple Churchianities no matter whether you are high church, low church, liberal, moderate, conservative, liturgical, traditional, contemporary, emerging or even not going to church any more (this is Michael's target audience actually). While the book contains critiques of many prominent Churchianities the point of the book is not the critique itself but rather the search for a "Jesus-shaped spirituality"; a Christianity that has Christ at its center.

Michael does not claim to be the authority on true Christianity as if he were the only one who knew what everyone ought to believe, but he does try to offer some guidelines (a non-definitive list of them) that people may start with to distinguishing the difference between Christianity and Churchianity. Indeed the amount of advice on what Christians should do I felt wanting. For someone that's so good at asking the right questions I kept wishing while reading the book he'd give more answers, but I realized through reading this book how much that desire for someone to give me the answers is a product of my own Churchianity. When it comes down to it the Christian life is a hard road down the narrow path through brokenness and uncertainty. While elements of Churchianities can be helpful on this journey we will find ourselves dehydrated if we depend on them for sustenance over the life giving water of Christ.

I hope all who read this get a copy and look hard and fast at what they've taken for granted as "Christianity". If Christians are going to encounter the culture in the present and future we need to reclaim the center of our tradition, Jesus Christ. This book is an excellent beginning place for re-examining your Christian commitments.

Changes

2010-04-12T22:30:00.001-04:00

Many have memorialized Michael Spencer's passing. I can't add much to what has been said. Despite only having followed him for about a year I realized very quickly that he was one of few kindred spirits in the SBC. He gave me hope that a blog as popular as his meant that some day the SBC might see a brighter and saner future. I cried off and on for a week when I read he was discontinuing chemo. Now that he has passed the world seems a little colder and emptier. I encourage people to go to his site and look through his writings. Chaplain Mike and others have been digging up all variety of his old posts that have meant something to them and I continue to be amazed at the wisdom and grace of Brother Michael when I read many that I hadn't yet seen.

To honor his passing I'm going to change a bit the subjects I blog about. I've tended to shy away from reflective posts like my most recent one in February in favor of more heady subjects. I'll be embracing whatever reflective topics come to mind more often and resisting while not outright ceasing the more academic topics. I'm not going to promise that this will increase my average posts per month, but I hope people will begin to find this blog more helpful than merely interesting. I've updated my blogrolls with current feeds as some of them had switched domains. I've also added a few more blogs to all the blogrolls.

Righteousness for Love's Sake

2010-02-01T10:56:00.001-05:00

The issue of righteousness has been on my mind a lot lately. I've recently come to the realization that we do ourselves a disservice when we talk about struggling with sin. Christ did not come so we could continue to struggle with the same things we did before we knew Him. Christ came so that we would be made righteous. Shouldn't we then be struggling to be righteous? Sin is backwards looking. Righteousness includes not only dealing with sin but obeying the will of God. When we are righteous we are not only not doing the things that hinder us in our relationship with God but we are also doing the things that bring us closer to God.

On a personal note, I've realized too often I've substituted my own knowledge and wisdom for righteousness. That is to say I've not allowed my sins or lack of obedience sufficiently grieve me and thus haven't really repented because I look at how good I'm doing in other areas of my spiritual life. In the end this is still taking advantage of the grace given us by our Savior.

I've entitled this "Righteousness for Love's Sake" to point a few different ways love is tied directly to obedience.

It was because God loved us that He sent his son so that we could be righteous.
It is because of our love of God that we desire to be righteous.
It is because of the love of our brothers and sisters in Christ that we be righteous and keep each other accountable as we seek to be a body devoted to following the will of God.
It is because of the love of our neighbor that we seek righteousness so that our lives may be a testimony to the power and love of God.

As I continue to process and work towards greater righteousness by the grace and strength of God, I would encourage you to really take a deep look at your own practices of faithfulness in your relationship with God both in regards to repentance and obedience. Finally, I'd encourage everyone to check out a sermon series preached by David Platt called "Sin in the Camp." It's one of the most challenging sermon series I've ever heard and I think everyone will benefit from the wisdom Brother David shares.

Journal and update

2010-01-09T15:58:00.004-05:00

First the update. I'm surprised to be reminded that I never posted in December. Things have been very busy with school. I highly recommend staying on top of work because when you let one assignment slide you dig yourself a hole. When you start to address the hole you've just dug you dig another one in time you take to fill up the next. Needless to say things can snowball pretty quickly. I'm currently filling in the holes faster than I'm digging them and I'm nearly all caught up. One of the holes I'm filling is a research paper on the last thirty years of SBC history which I plan to turn into blog articles when I finish. This is the last entry of my Mission and Peace journal that has been going on most recently on this blog so the timing is good. I'm beginning a new journal on early Christian history that I'll also probably convert to blogs. So lots of exciting and interesting history posts to look forward to. Now, without further ado the final entry of my Mission and Peace journal.

Here is what I am responding to in lecture 8:
1.“The goal of mission is peace.”
2.“peacemaking is missional and mission is peacemaking.”
3.“Mission and peace together is a reconciliatory vision: basic to this course – mission and peace. “Blessing the and.””
4.“Peace is what God is doing, what God is moving history towards.”
5.“IF it is true... that God's mission is to bring reconciliation, justice and shalom to all humans and all creation; that we are called to be a church that is both a missional church and a peace church, THEN everything else must be affected [will not retype the following six bullet points]”

I would like to note a passage of scripture that will be the foundation of my critique.

Galatians 5:22-23 NET But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

In this passage we see what the effect of reconciliation with God is. There is no mention of shalom in this verse, but if shalom has a wide enough definition to fit all these things in it then I'm happy to tie mission to shalom. It does not seem possible to tie mission to peace for a few reasons. The first is that the conception of peace in the secular world is far removed from the idea of shalom. To use such words interchangeably, as missio Dei missiologists seem to do, confuses the hearer of the “gospel of peace” since their concept of peace is yet to be transformed by the “peace that surpasses all understanding.”

The second problem with tying mission to peace is that peace is only one fruit of the Spirit. Thus the “gospel of peace” becomes a gospel with one spoke in its wheel. For all the effort and energy put into reading God's mission as peace from the Bible it seems like any dedicated student of the Bible could just as easily say that the peace people are wrong and make a case for mission as joy-making, patience-making, faithfulness-making, etc.

The final problem that I will draw attention to is related to the first problem. Tying mission to peace is inherently not missional. Peace is a symptom of reconciliation with God and reconciliation with God is the mission of God. To give so much attention in word and deed to one aspect of that reconciliation is going to draw in certain people and exclude others who have an inclination toward their understanding of peace. To make mission about peace especially is to emphasize what the Gospel does for us rather than what our response to the Gospel is. People have missed the point if they respond to the gospel of peace because they want peace just as much as they would miss the point of a gospel of joy, love, kindness, etc. However, if we preached a gospel of joy, love, self-control, etc. we would certainly get different groups of people to respond as they are so disposed to do. If we want everyone to know peace or joy or any of the fruits of the Spirit we can only preach one gospel. That gospel is the all inclusive Gospel that calls everyone to repentance and reconciliation with God. This gospel is the one that begins people down a path toward peace and all the fruits of the Spirit as they are reconciled and begin the process of sanctification.

From the above problems I respond thus:
Reply to #1: The goal of mission is not peace. The goal of mission is reconciliation to God (period).

Reply to #2: No it's not. Mission is reconciling people to God. When they are reconciled they begin the process of sanctification in which they develop the fruits of the Spirit. Communities of believers exhibit these fruits to the world as evidence of their reconciliation. Reconciliation to God is central, not peacemaking.

Reply to #3: We cannot bless the 'and' if we are speaking of the mission towards those outside the Body of Christ. Our encounter toward the world hinges on mission communicated by a confessing community that models the fruits of the Spirit. We can bless the 'and' if we are speaking of the accountability within the Body. We encourage each other toward mission and peace and love and joy and patience, etc.

Reply to #4: God is moving history towards reconciliation with Him. When the final judgment has come and those who are reconciled with Him are in the number of those in the New Heaven and New Earth then there will be peace, love, joy, patience, etc. Until that time God reserves the right to “paint with dark colors” if that's what will bring people to seek Him.

Reply to #5: If we believe that in being reconciled to God that we are to develop and model all the fruits of the Spirit then every aspect of mission and community should exhibit the fruits. Worship, ecclesiology, ministry will all be done with a consideration to the encouraging and displaying the fruits of the Spirit. The church will respond to war, injustice, brokenness, depression, mania, unfaithfulness, impatience, unkindness, hate, etc. as a community committed to glorifying God according to the fruits of the Spirit He has given us to exhibit.

Journal

2009-11-25T12:21:00.003-05:00

Response to pages 97-126 in To Live in Peace: Biblical Faith and the Changing Inner City by Mark R. Gornik

Before I get into my analysis of Gornik's thoughts on mission and peace in the inner city I think I need to make some initial comments on where many of my critiques for the material in this course are coming from. Growing up in Southern Baptist churches that had pastors that espoused a theology that would generally be acknowledged as Arminian I've become a part of a growing number of young people dissatisfied with Arminian theology's effect on the SBC. This dissatisfaction has lead to an embrace of a more Reformed/Calvinist leaning theology. Probably the largest reason for this is actually because of the language and emphasis of Reformed theology. With Arminians (that I've encountered) much of the talk centers around the work of humanity and much of the talk about God revolves around what He does for us. What many young Southern Baptists are finding in Reformed theology is an emphasis on the person and work of the Trinity as it glorifies God. There is an immense respect for the sovereignty of God in the language of the Reformed tradition.

The above noted, much of missio Dei missiology strikes me as emphasizing the wrong thing. It generally doesn't seem outright wrong, but emphasizing the wrong thing does mislead. Emphasis is an important part in the conveyance of meaning in communication and it is often overlooked and passively discarded as “semantic differences” when it is noticed. Not addressing the root cause of differences of emphasis is a very good way to effectively trivialize the discussion often for the sake of “getting along.” Because emphasis plays such a large part in conveying meaning when people are saying essentially the same thing, differences need to be vigorously explored and discussed/debated as much as the specific content of the discussion.

What missio Dei emphasizes wrongly, in my opinion, is the mission of God and the work of God and shalom rather than GOD HIMSELF! One of the things I remember being encouraged to seek by a speaker at a convention was “God's face and not His hands.” When we seek God's face we see always His eternal unchanging qualities described in the Bible that testify to everything else. When we seek God's hands we will always be comparing what we think God should be doing to what we perceive He is doing around us. That is NOT true worship or true relationship or even true shalom. To put it another way, one of my favorite Christian bands sings a lyric that goes, “A glass can only spill what it contains.” This is a profound way of looking at the Christian life. If we fill our lives with or our congregations are focused on shalom or the missio Dei then they will not be spilling over something that comes from Christ. Shalom and the missio Dei are fruits of being in relationship with God and must not be confused for God. We fill our lives with the living water offered by Christ as we are in relationship with Him and becoming by His grace faithful followers. Shalom is a symptom of the effect of the spilling out of this relationship between the Christian and God. The difference in these emphases create massive differences in effect in the Church.

Gornik can be good and helpful if he is interpreted in a particular way or if one reads him as emphasizing certain things. However, Gornik is vague enough to create problems for those who read to emphasize something else. One of the things I like in Gornik's writing in this chapter is his idea of what shalom does. He writes:

Shalom not only reconceptualizes the political and social order of the city; it also reverses the everyday and localized effects of a global market economy and a history of discrimination and exclusion. The gospel of peace is a radical alternative for the city. (99)

This is an understanding of the effect of a properly modeled Christian witness that I can get behind. I would however like to make one very fine distinction in the wording so that there is no confusion how I am interpreting this. In the last sentence Gornik notes, “The gospel of peace is a radical alternative for the city.” 'For' can have a couple different meanings. The first may be in the sense that a gift is for someone. In this sense of 'for' it would seem that the gospel of peace may be given from the Church to a secular entity for its own appropriation and use apart from Christ. That sense of 'for' is unacceptable. The second sense of 'for' may be where something is modeled for someone. In this sense the gospel of peace is still confined to the nature and community of the Body of Christ but does not hide itself from the culture around it and so can be demonstrated and modeled for the world as an alternative. This would be an acceptable reading of 'for'. Such a reading is incomplete if we only look at the 'for-ness' of shalom as something statically held within the Church. Like God's love poured out in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, the intent behind the 'for-ness' in shalom is not that the Body would obsess over it, but that it would show it off to the world and invite others to join them and enjoy it as well. Shalom can not be given or received outside of the body of Christ, but we are not to snap whips at any who wish to observe it. The body of Christ flaunts (humbly) shalom to the world for the sake of the world.

Gornik's view of mission to the city is almost right on the money. He writes, “shalom is the end of poverty, injustice, and exclusion, to seek the shalom of the city is to work to reverse the effects of sin and the Fall on the city and to proclaim the news of One who comes in peace” (103). I say it is almost correct because it is too little a deal and too easy to “reverse the effects of sin.” One is never considered properly healed because one took some medications to deal with symptoms. The symptoms can not be confused with the root problem. The root problem is not the effects of sin but rather sin itself. One can not give advice and create programs and therapy groups to deal with effects in the city and expect shalom to come. Things may seem better in the city, but programs and revitalization are no more salvific than the corruption that existed before. Shalom will come when people are exhorted to repent of the actions bringing about such effects and turn towards and serve the “One who comes in peace.”

Another instance where Gornik makes a good point but goes too far in emphasizing a particular distinction is his explanation of the method of peacemaking. He writes:

The goal of urban mission or community ministry is not to obtain power or influence, nor can it ever be to “take over” the neighborhood. Rather, the church's goal is to be God's peace in the broken places and to bear witness to the kingdom of God. It sides not with the privileged and powerful but with those the world counts as nothing. (123-124, my emphasis)

I'd offer a hearty “Amen!” to all but the last sentence. The only side the Church is on is God's. The last statement goes against the idea of their being neither “Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28) or “circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” (Col. 3:11). The Church does not take sides as if it were to judge the world. God is judge and He has already judged the penalties of sin. It is the people, both Greek and Jew, male and female, slave and free, circumcised and uncircumcised and rich and poor that choose to take sides with regard to obeying God. In John 8:3-11, Jesus did not side with the adulterous woman or the Pharisees, He sided with the righteousness of God. He did not address this community problem by railing on the oppressive system the Pharisees had set up or lecturing the woman about the consequences of bad decisions. Jesus addressed the entire situation by drawing everyone's attention to the sin in their individual lives. It was the call to repentance and reconciliation with God that dissolved the problems, not programs. When it comes to rich and poor within the Body of Christ, both are subject to God's will in accordance with His purposes. The resources of the wealthy are to be used as God leads. The abilities of all are for the service of God's kingdom. The rich and poor keep each other accountable to being in relationship to God so that we are doing what He would have us do when He tells us to do it.

Midweek Links

2009-11-19T23:36:00.002-05:00

Dolphin Intelligence - A neat article about the intellectual and creative capabilities of dolphins by Bruce at it seems to me...

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 broke entertainment records for having the biggest first day sales of any game, dvd, movie, cd, gadget ever. As a professed pacifist who also enjoys the occasional first person shooter video game, this record breaking event really has me wondering what kind of impact this has on society. Violent video games selling well is not new. Goldeneye 007 for the N64 revolutionized multiplayer gaming.

Modern Warfare 2 does not appear to have anything revolutionary in its concept, gameplay, mechanics or really anything innovative at all that is reminiscent of the games that had their time in the spotlight for what they were the first to contribute to the genre. The only thing that Modern Warfare 2 has going for it is a level of realism in its graphics here to fore unseen. However, graphics advances hardly ever bring on the kind of response that this one has. Graphics are expected to advance with every system and every game and in my mind the graphics of Modern Warfare 2 are the next logical progression, not further beyond anything expected which might legitimize the unprecedented success of the game.

This is all to say, I don't find this game to be anything special so it's success lies somewhere within a culture that ahs been created to crave new levels of realistic violence. The whole thing has greatly disturbed me and I don't have the first idea what a proper Christian pacifist response should be. Thoughts are welcome in the comment section.

In The New Yorker of all places an interesting (and respectful) article about the pro-life movement has recently appeared talking about the movement, its concerns and various issues surrounding it an audience like The New Yorker's readership might not be expected to understand. Very interesting and well worth the read for the breadth of issues the author takes on in such a short space.

Journal

2009-11-15T14:37:00.003-05:00

I've mentioned before in this journal my opposition to “preaching peace.” I'd like now to expand a bit on this opposition by responding to a quote from the class lecture.

“Call people to faith in Christ, the prince of peace. Invite people confidently, to know “peace with God.””

My opposition to this doesn't stem from a disbelief in its veracity, but from how these methods and terms have been and are regularly abused among “Christians.” These are phrases and methods that seem to be most commonly used by prosperity gospel preachers, liberation theology subscribers, and generally theologically liberal/pluralist/New Age type congregations. Such groups have a significant presence in the Western world and I think it would be more harmful than helpful for the Church to share the language of these groups and emphasize peace similarly to them.

The Church stands first on orthodox confession and then on modeling the “Prince of Peace.” Confession is not more important for any theological reason or reason from tradition, rather it is first in importance for missional purposes. The Church MUST ALWAYS be modeling the Prince of Peace, but people often will not experience our witness in today's individualistic and fast paced world. An orthodox confession of who Christ is and what it means to claim Him as Lord and Savior, regularly proclaimed, is as important as ever in today's society.

Conservative evangelicals (for example) do not need to change their language and their message when it comes to essential doctrines, repentance, salvation and discipleship. Peace language should have no more place of prominence in their sermons than however often it occurs in scripture. Conservative evangelical pastors need to work more on calling their congregations to live a costly discipleship along the lines Bonhoeffer wrote of. That costly discipleship would include greater thought and attention within the congregation to its relationship to politics and government institutions, but their language and message with regard to salvation should remain unchanged. I think in this way Christians would retain their unique orthodox identity, but also take seriously the role of peace in Christian life and witness. Peace is modeled and lived in Christian community, but not given extra special attention from the pulpit and verbal witness.

Midweek Links

2009-11-12T16:38:00.003-05:00

http://www.martyduren.com/ - SBC blogger Marty Duren has a spiffy new website where he'll be doing all his blogging, movie reviews, cd reviews and other things from. Remember to change your link if you were a follower of his.

VBS goes Green - Courtesy of Jonatham Merritt is this interesting note about a new VBS option being offered. Instead of the incredibly corny material kids are put through each year, churches now have an option that is both environmentally friendly and spiritually uplifting. While I can't imagine how kids could be as excited about this as cowboys and safari tourists, its nice to finally see some VBS material with substance.

Are Small Groups Just for White People? - This fascinating article takes a brief stab at answering that question. The answer is more or less a yes. I think it's a very important question for churches to wrestle with. I've gone to predominantly white churches my entire life and it wasn't until college that I realized how much the Church is failing at reaching out to its community when it ends up looking so homogeneous. They neighborhoods the church is in is always more diverse than the church itself which means the building becomes a collection point for a certain kind of people rather than an actual mission to the community it is in. Many churches want to reach their communities and all the different kinds of people in them, but this requires more creativity than the common paradigms of white male middle class thinking. The reward is more than worth it if we'd only put in the effort.

Journal

2009-11-09T10:23:00.001-05:00

Response to chapters 1-6 of What Is Mission? Theological Explorations by J. Andrew Kirk

Kirk does a very admirable job at striking the delicate balance in the debate between the church doing works and having faith. These first six chapters work well as a fuller explication of Bonhoeffer's doctrine of costly discipleship applied to the greater church and missions. The only area where I'm a little uncomfortable with how Kirk words some of his ideas is where the church relates to politics. The relationship between the Church and political confrontation/activism seems to me to be one of the most important questions needing addressed in the Church today. Kirk writes:

“Some may be called to the political task of ensuring the right kind of state provision for the welfare of all. All are responsible for seeing that wealth is so distributed through society that everyone's genuine needs are met.” (Kirk 54)

“[The Christian community] will be involved in grass-roots efforts to build confidence between antagonistic groups, and to restore authentic democratic procedures where there has been a violent seizure of power.” (Kirk 54)

While I empathize with the intent of these political goals, I don't see how the Bible supports any direct call upon the Church to engage in such behavior. In America, if we are called to love all our neighbors and exemplify Christ to them then it would seem we would necessarily alienate conservative voters with the Church demanding welfare and we'd alienate the government workers of the people we're trying to “help.” My concern with an activist church is that we can't help but alienate ourselves from witnessing to large people groups. It seems to me that the Church is called to witness to everyone which means that the Church should not be identified with political movements in any way shape or form. We're not in the world to spread and encourage democracy or to encourage the secular governments and masses to be fair and equitable. We are to exemplify fairness and equality among ourselves and treat others as Christ would. Our witness is not political, but creatively embodies an alternative “third way”.

Midweek Links

2009-11-04T23:51:00.006-05:00

Here's some links I found particularly interesting that I've come across in my journeys around the Internet in the last couple weeks.

Christianity or Americanism? - Great blog at Missioscapes about where our ultimate allegiance lies. This is something I've harped on regularly around the Internet for a few years now. The questions at the bottom I think will be especially damning for some.

A tip of my hat to the Roman Catholic Church. They've made some recent moves to accept disgruntled Anglican priests into their fold because of the current controversies regarding homosexuality in the Anglican tradition. The tip doesn't end there. The Catholic Church has given some Catholic African dictators an ultimatum. They should reform or resign because they're making the Catholic Church look bad. I'm not sure what will happen if they don't do either (as I assume they will ignore the Church). It's probably too much anymore to hope they'll excommunicate them. It's always a good sign that not all hope is lost for Christianity when one of the big dogs like the Roman Catholic Church makes steps to encourage orthodoxy and orthopraxy. [Thanks to Ben Witherington III for pointing out the links.]

Determine Your Ministry Age - Mine is 36 which puts me among the younger generation. It's an interesting article on the different church leadership philosophies of different generations. It's written by an employee of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. That probably explains why the whole thing presents the older generation's philosophies in a less friendly light and why everything is very over-simplified. There were a few questions where I found none of the answers satisfactory or wondered what was so exclusive about pairing different answers in the same question.

Sharon Miller over at She Worships has had a couple of particularly noteworthy posts that have challenged my thinking lately. The first is on how contraceptive technology has destroyed the sanctity of sex in society. The post particularly interested me because of recent conversations I've had with people and research I've done on Philosophy of Technology. Medical technology in the form of medicine and medical procedures seems to me to be a very unexplored area of the philosophy of technology or at least with regard to the theological ramifications. The other post I found interesting contains a quote from Stanley Hauerwas about how people interact when it comes to discussing abortion. We seem to have a tendency to come at it from a point of legalism rather than hope. I'll say no more and encourage you to read the article and Sharon's reflections.

Journal

2009-11-01T20:05:00.003-05:00

This would have been posted yesterday on time if I hadn't worked all day. Wednesday I might even get in a second post for the week. Now for the next journal entry from my Mission and Peace journal.

Seeing mission as an act of God where God does the sending of Christians to the place where He is already at work seems to be a necessary foundation for all thought on missions. God does lots of sending. He sent Noah to save the human race from annihilation, a rainbow as a promise, Abraham to the promised land, Joseph to Egypt, the Israelites out of Egypt, the commandments to the Israelites, the Babylonians to punish Israel and so on. Most important is the Trinity as a “community of love” sent to Earth itself incarnated in Jesus and later the Holy Spirit to the believers.

Alan writes in his lecture notes that missio is a “noncoercive sending.” I doubt this characterization. To proclaim any truth in hope and expectation that people will believe you is necessarily a form of coercion. However, such a definition of coercion is so broad that I expect Alan meant more along the lines of social (through societies, cultures, economies, governments) and violent coercion (military, law, police). Yet, there is still much of the social and violent coercion in the Bible, so I still doubt that missio is a noncoercive sending. When God sent Israel out of Egypt He had to coerce Pharoah to let them go and it came at the cost of many Egyptian lives. God had to coerce Israel to get to the promised land and this cost the lives of the elder generations of Israelites who were disobedient. God “coerced” the people of Jericho to not be in Israel's way by bringing their walls down and humiliating them. God coerced many of Israel's enemies and Israel herself on many occasions to do various things that had very violent effects.

These things in mind, what does this say about the sending of the Son and then of the Church? This seems to be a pretty important question to be able to answer in order to suggest that missio is a “noncoercive sending.” I'd like to say that it is noncoercive as well, but I don't feel that I could give a proper scriptural defense that takes both testaments into account and in harmony to come up with such a view. We see that Christ was not coerced to give His life as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity. In His example we also see that the apostles were not coerced into their service for the Kingdom. They responded out of love for God to accomplish His will. So then why does God seem to work by one method in the Old Testament and another in the New Testament? I don't have an answer for this question.

The last thing I would like to address about this lecture is the “indigenizing principle” and the “pilgrim principle.” For the most part I would reject the indigenizing principle. In the OT foreigners came to God by becoming Jewish and I don't see any indication in the NT that the taking of a new identity or being sanctified into a new identity has changed. To be “in Christ” means to necessarily stand for particular truths and virtues that other cultures may not honor. In doing missions, while it is certainly beneficial to translate the Bible into their language (for example), we do not depend or hope primarily upon such actions to convert them. We depend upon the work of the Holy Spirit who has been at work in them long before any missionaries arrived. We depend on what God is doing as He faithfully exemplifies what He has called us to do before we depend on what we may do. The Body of Christ and the good news it preaches is something that is not of this world and so it will not fully translate to other cultures since all cultures identify with the world. It is the work of God first through His Spirit and then through faithful Christians that the supernatural transformation from worldly mind identified with the world to spiritual mind identified with Christ happens.

Journal

2009-10-24T13:18:00.002-04:00

Yay! A new entry. Despite my apparent inattentiveness to my blog it is often on my mind. It won't be going away anytime soon or dying, so if you're a little tired of physically checking in so often to see if I've updated then I'd recommend subscribing to the RSS feed. On a positive note, at least for a few weeks posts will be coming regularly (read weekly). I've converted what's left of my Mission and Peace journal from last semester into blogs so posting will only be a matter of copy and paste until I run out.

For those of you who are disappointed the "SBC Sucks" series hasn't gone anywhere since part one, the bad news is that it will still be a while in coming and the outline I originally gave will change. I'll be skipping parts two and three because of how my selective use of history looks too much like cherry picking (which it is). This semester I'll be writing a research paper on the last thirty years of SBC history which I'll eventually split up to address the original parts four and five. Then I'll do something to wrap up and talk about what I like about the SBC.

Other school work I'll try to convert is a paper I'll be writing on the origins of some college campus ministries. I'm doing a big research paper on what phenomenology can contribute to authority of scripture arguments. It will be dense so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to reformat it for a blog post but we'll see.

Now on to your regularly scheduled program.

What is the connection between mission, peace and worship? My professor Alan Kreider is coauthoring a book with his wife Eleanor due out soon called Worship and Mission After Christendom.

I agree with Alan's rejection of the conventional views of worship where worship is either 1) an event that revolves around some kind of experience of God but is kept separate from the rest of our life or 2) a part of the church service that is to be changed according to the tastes of whoever one is trying to reach out to. Worship is a way of life that should affect all parts of our life. Worship services in the congregation are to be structured to bring people into the fullest experience of God and theology in worship may not be compromised in selecting a “popular style.”

The charismatic church I attended in college had a sense of worship that was impactful in their worship services. They were the most devout people of prayer in the city and it showed in the many ways they served the community under the radar. They ran a women's shelter, cleaned up drug addicts, healed and cared for the seriously ill and disabled, provided an atheist woman with wood to heat her house through the winter, worked for racial reconciliation and many other things that no one will ever know about. The elders were always busy serving the needy in the community. No one in the community knew of their service unless they had received help because they lived a quiet humility in the community.

Alan puts together a list of distinctions describing proper worship which I affirm. These distinctions include:

God is Lord of all, so worship can't be segregated from life.
Dedicated worship services are necessary.
Worship services glorify God and sanctify humans.
We experience the holy.
Outsiders are present and while some services may be directed to reaching them, the purpose of worship is always to glorify God and not achieve human ends.
The response of the worshipers is more important than the beauty or quality of our worship services.

This certainly isn't an exhaustive list of things that describe proper worship, but they are all important points. One that I think is especially important that many forget is that when we worship we are experiencing God's holiness. Worship should impact us anytime we do it because we are not holy apart from God. It is in relationship with God which is in part developed through our worship that we find the desire and strength to be holy like the One we are imaging.

The point about holiness should be very involved in how we interpret and apply how we come to understand the last two points about contextualization. I think it calls for pastors to really delve much more deeply into analyzing their theology of worship. Most pastors unthinkingly apply one of the first two ideas that Alan and I reject. When they apply primitive views of worship and have no substantial theology of worship their analysis of how their congregations are responding are at best shallow and usually wrong. A congregation enjoying a big praise band every Sunday is not the same thing as encountering God's holiness in worship.

I'll be honest, I don't go to any SBC church anymore with any good expectations for a fruitful worship service. For Southern Baptists their view of worship is either 1) the hymns are what need to be sung because they have the best theology of other song options, 2) the style should be contemporary to attract people outside the church so it doesn't feel staid or 3) some position in between these two poles. This attitude and these possibilities are wholly wrong and stifling of the Holy Spirit.

I'll describe the times and conditions I've actually felt an encounter with God during a worship service. At the charismatic church they had a wonderful praise band that had a very contemporary sound. What made the band special is that the church didn't give them time limits for worship. Sometimes the pastor would scrap preaching the sermon all together because he felt that church was so in need of what they were getting from the worship that it was best to continue worshiping. The worship team didn't plan to play the verse so many times and repeat the chorus this many times and someone needs to do this cool solo during the bridge. They took seriously allowing the Holy Spirit to guide how they played the song. That meant sometimes they would go back and repeat a phrase or verse or chorus to allow it to sink in.

In college the campus ministry praise band made sure to explain why they would do certain songs (often in different languages). This gave the worshipers “one mind” from which to enter into the singing of the song together. I may not have understood the language I was singing but understanding that it was a song that gave glory to God and everyone around me was participating despite being as uncertain as I was makes it all the easier to experience the oneness of the Body in that moment both more apparent and mysterious.

I've come to appreciate the four part harmony a capella singing of the Mennonites I'm around. Besides its natural beauty it reminds me that each person has a necessary part to play in creating this beautiful sound. The beautiful sound is only the result of the work first done by God to bring us together. The feel is as if we play our part, but the resulting full, beautiful sound is wholly God's achievement.

Common issues that pastors would do well to consider in their worship are:

Seriously examine the theology of the song.
Pay close attention to the point of view of the song and what it is saying about the singer (many songs include too many personal pronouns like I, we, us, our, me that the song is more about a consumption of an experience of God than actually putting us in the place to experience God).
It is very possible for bands to be too big (singers singing the same thing or instruments playing similar chords end up covering each other up instead of each instrument and singer presenting an audible contribution to the worship experience).
It is very possible for things to be so well put together that the concert feel makes worship a consuming experience than relational experience.
Worship services with high production value also run the risk of undermining some of the lessons the preacher should be discussing (e.g. When people or instruments mess up or AV equipment malfunctions people begin to throw blame around for messing things up rather than exhibit the grace that should be characterizing the connection one is developing with God in worship).

Blogs

2009-09-06T17:05:00.003-04:00

Hmm... not a good idea to go an entire month with no post. No promises for this month or next since I tend to break them. Who would have thunk being a seminary student could take up so much time? Anyway, here to point out the obvious that I changed the layout a slight bit. Instead of having one really long page from the ever growing list of blogs I figured I'd move my Misc. Christian Blogs blogroll and the Other Blogs blogroll up and to the right of the SBC blogroll so they would both get more visibility and so the page wouldn't have an exceptionally large side scroll bar. The disadvantage is that those of you with smaller screen resolutions than 1280x800 probably also have to deal with a bottom scroll bar now. I assumed (maybe wrongly) that most computers aren't running at that resolution any more so this would benefit more people. On to the blog notes:

First, I just want to let everyone know that Jonathan Merritt moved his blog from blogspot to his own site, so those of you following him will need to update your bookmarks and RSS feeds if you haven't already. His blog is now at: http://jonathanmerritt.com/blogs/

Next, new SBC blogs on my blogroll:
Rethink Mission - This is a new blog on the missional conversation being run by a former elder of The Journey Church in St. Louis which is dually affiliated with the SBC and Acts29.

Think. Laugh. Weep. Worship. - This blog is being run by a unique Southern Baptist woman and mother who will begin studying for a Ph.D. in Theology at the University of Dayton. I note especially her uniqueness for having uncommon reading interests for Southern Baptists (things that are more common among my circles here in Mennonitedom) and also for seeking her degree at a Catholic institution as opposed to the usual Southern Baptist one. I'm looking forward to her reflections on her studies over the course of the year.

Missio Dei - Keith Walters runs this site and posts regular interesting articles related to missions and theology.

Missionscapes - This gem of a blog is a new team blog by many of the original members of a blog called the SBC Outpost. The SBC Outpost in its time was probably the most critical blog of the SBC by Southern Baptists. The guys have gotten back together and this time have vowed not to get into denominational politics and leave their discussion confined to issues of missions. They have recently done a series of articles entitled "If we were the GCR Task Force..." that begins with this post. All of these guys, I've found immensely valuable in the perspectives they've given on a variety of issues on their own blogs and this team blog is already showing how great they are together.

Finally, the new blogs on the Misc. Christian blogroll are:
Levellers - This blog tries to address issues in the spirit of some of my most famous Baptist ancestors, the Levellers. During the English Civil War in the 1600s the Levellers were a radical Baptist group that worked for democracy, religious liberty and social justice.

Jesus Creed - Scot McKnight authors this one. He is a well known authority on the New Testament, early church and historical Jesus. He identifies with the Anabaptist tradition.

Dr. John Stackhouse's Blog - Dr. Stackhouse writes insightful articles on Christianity and culture. He is a Canadian evangelical.

New Blogs for the Blogroll

2009-07-28T19:57:00.003-04:00

I just wanted to highlight a few new blogs I've added to my blogroll that some of you might enjoy.

New to the Southern Baptist Blogs blogroll:
The Edge of the Inside
Integrating Missionally - I found these two courtesy of Alan at DownshoreDrift. Todd and David have recently been asking some intriguing questions about the Great Commission Resurgence. Specifically they have been calling for a Great Commandment Resurgence to precede the Great Commission Resurgence. Until that happens it will be politics as usual. I am definitely on their side in such a call. If a Great Commission Resurgence is to happen then it needs to happen by biblical methods and not the methods that brought along the Conservative Resurgence. The SBC needs a fundamental heart change if there is to be a Great Commission Resurgence. We need to learn to love God and love others and until we do that we are spinning our wheels, losing souls and playing politics.
Jason Morrison - He had some good analysis of the annual meeting. I agreed with much of the positives and negatives he had to say about where the convention is right now.

New to the Misc. Christian Blogs Blogroll are:
cramer comments - D.C. Cramer is a friend of a friend. My buddy Martin introduced me to his blog. Cramer is a part of the Missionary Church denomination and writes on issues of philosophy and religion from that perspective. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading his posts and engaging his thought.
Suzanne's Bookshelf - I found her wonderful little corner of the internet through Wade Burleson's blog. She has lots of very interesting posts on biblical interpretation and gender issues among other things.

Finally, I added a couple philosophy blogs to the Other Blogs blogroll:
Continental Philosophy
anotherheideggerblog
Both of these are good blogs monitoring areas of the continental philosophy scene that are of interest to me.

Baptist21 Panel

2009-07-10T23:56:00.002-04:00

The video from the B21 panel I attended in Louisville has finally been posted at the B21 blog. They couldn't get the video uploaded in one file so it's in two parts. Scroll down to see the first part. This was the highlight of the Annual Meeting for me and I highly recommend all Southern Baptists see this. I really appreciated the frankness and honesty they spoke with.

As a funny/embarrassing aside, after the first few questions President Johnny Hunt arrives and addresses the group. The panel included a meal for those who attended so while President Hunt is talking to the audience off to the left (the camera doesn't pan to him). I'm sitting in an aisle seat not far from where he's standing. I'm scarfing down as quickly as I can the sandwich and drink they gave us. My mouth is full and I've got a drink in one hand, my sandwich in the other with my books at my feet and my meal on my lap. Johnny finishes and as he's leaving he shakes the hands of the two young guys next to me. I nod to him and obviously can't shake his hand or say thanks so he pats me on the knee as he passes me and continues shaking the hands of the others next to me. I felt like a dope.

David Platt is Awesome

2009-07-06T00:59:00.003-04:00

If you are not familiar with Dr. David Platt, he is a 30 year old pastor in Birmingham, AL that loves Jesus a lot. I first learned about him at the SBC Annual Meeting where I had a couple opportunities to hear him speak. He is definitely my favorite preacher in the SBC. I've begun the process of downloading several of his sermon series from his church's website. I probably start going back forth between series from Driscoll and a series from Platt. I highly recommend everyone check him out. He makes the SBC look more hopeful than it otherwise is.

Platt's SBC Theme Interpretation
Platt at the SBC Pastor's Conference
The Church at Brook Hills Media Page

SBC Annual Meeting '09

2009-06-29T23:15:00.003-04:00

I posted my journal from the convention to my Facebook, so even though I promised I'd write something here I think instead I'm just going to direct people to a bunch of blogs and articles about the convention.

Younger ministers flock to Louisville seeking place in SBC
Seminary president calls SBC executive’s comments ‘shameful’
Johnny Hunt & The GCR, Morris Chapman, and Competing Camps in the SBC
SBC motions and Danny Akin, Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer, and Book Banning Dominate the Afternoon at the 2009 SBC Annual Meeting
Conflicts of Interests in the SBC and the Great Commission Resurgence Declaration (and Conflict)
My Thoughts on Today’s Southern Baptist Convention Meeting 6:23:09 by IMonk
Random SBC Observations, Part 2
GCR Task Force Motion Passes: What's Next?
Reflections on My First SBC Annual Meeting: 10 Highlights
SBC 2009 Highlights and Further Discussion

Cults and Conventions

2009-06-16T13:03:00.002-04:00

It's been a crazy month. I'm still working on posts to come eventually. In the mean time I wanted to draw people's attention to a blog being written by a new friend. He spent several months training to be a "missionary" for GoodNews Mission Church which is based in Korea and lead by a guy named Ock Soo Park. The blog is him essentially whistleblowing that this church is a cult. It's worth a read as it's still far enough below the radar that none of the Christian Apologetics sites have written about it.

In other news, I am planning on attending the Southern Baptist Convention's Annual Meeting in Louisville, KY next week. I'll try and update a few times while I'm there to let people know what is going on. I think I've decided to commit five more years to the Southern Baptist Convention and then I'll reevaluate whether I think I should stay in the convention. The SBC has a lot of political and spiritual issues it needs to deal with. I'm hoping at the meeting in Louisville they will begin taking some steps toward addressing those issues. If after five years I don't feel enough has changed or things have gotten worse I'll probably say good riddance. This isn't something I'd do lightly because there are many things I respect about the heart of the SBC and many I respect within the SBC, but the dark side of the convention is very dark indeed. This wouldn't necessarily mean if I left that I'd stop going to an SBC church, but I'd not be one to support much cooperation above the associational level.

Sometimes I wonder if limiting my denomination is akin to limiting what God can ask me to do. I'm not a fan of church hopping, but I believe that if we identify with Christ first then we should think more geographically about church and mission than doctrinally and theologically. To continue to cover my butt, doctrine, theology and tradition are important, but if you're living in an urban or suburban area in America and have to drive more than thirty minutes to attend a church I suspect you're being way too picky about secondary and tertiary issues.

Sorry...

2009-05-03T20:51:00.003-04:00

I know I'm sucking at the regular posting that I've been promising is coming. Stick with me. School is crazy hectic right now and when it's done I will have a wealth of very interesting posts converted from school assignments. ;-) There's also lots of interesting things happening in the SBC and being discussed in the Southern Baptist blogosphere. I highly recommend checking out what's being discussed in the links directly to the right of this post (Southern Baptist Blogs blogroll).

SBC Annual Meeting

2009-04-06T21:51:00.003-04:00

This is a call out to all my fellow Millennials (30 and under) and younger minded friends to attend and if at all possible vote at the SBC Annual Meeting this year in Louisville. The over 60 crowd has steadily grown over the last two decades to make up more and more of the demographic at the Annual Meeting while the under 40 crowd has steadily shrunk.* The younger generation needs to be heard if we care about where the Convention is headed. We need to begin to show our care and commitment to God's work through the SBC and one big way we can do this is to be seen and heard at the annual meeting. Local involvement in our congregations is great, but the things that happen at the national level affect our congregations as well. Please seriously consider attending with people in your local church or association. Registration information may be found here.

One interesting event to entice you, B21, a cool SBC team blog, is hosting a panel discussion at a local church during one of the breaks and it will include Ed Stetzer, Daniel Akin, Daniel Montgomery and other yet to be named cool people. If you're not certain you want to go or need more reasons ask away. The value of the SBC and our place in it is very much worth discussing.

Journal

2009-03-31T01:16:00.002-04:00

Before we get to that I'll note I added a couple more Southern Baptist blogs to the blogroll that are worth checking out. The first is Alvin Reid's blog. The other one is The 9Marks Blog. I found these through the 2009 SBC Voices Blog Madness competition. BTW, I voted for iMonk. I'd encourage people to go vote if you have a favorite. Currently, iMonk is stomping everyone, so if you vote for someone else I won't be worried. Finally, I found out from the SBC site how going to the annual meeting works and am a little disappointed that the way things are designated, I probably won't be able to go. I'd really like to if my summer class isn't happening at the same time, but they allow only one person per 250 people in your congregation or every $250 given to the Convention. Seeing as all the congregations I've been a part of are less than 250 people it would seem that my area churches will only be able to send a delegate or two each (though I have no idea how much they give to the convention). I would encourage all Millennials that can go to go. It's time we begin to make our voices heard. Now for your irregularly scheduled entry.

3/30/09 5:05PM

In Andrew Kirk's What Is Mission? there are many helpful summaries of things the Church needs to consider in mission. There are also many things that Kirk doesn't do so well or takes for granted. I'd especially like to observe his own interest in the use of democracy.

In his chapter on “Overcoming Violence and Building Peace” Kirk suggests that Christian mission is “more easily realisable in a democratic society.” Kirk appreciates the values and virtues of a democratic society as a means to peace and as something the Church should model in certain ways. While he's a long way from advocating any kind of necessary connections or commitments to democracy, it is worth examining some of the problems that can come up when too much credit is given to political systems even as seemingly benign as democracy.

It's no secret how politically invested in America the SBC has been and continues to be. While this has been a recent phenomenon in its current manifestation, the SBC's involvement in political affairs stretches back to the beginning of the Baptist tradition. One would think the doctrine of Believer's Baptism would be the oldest doctrinal distinctive of the tradition, the baptism of children to the point that the current average age of baptism in SBC churches is eight reveals a serious loss of the ideal that we inherited from the Anabaptists. Actually, the oldest doctrinal distinctive of Baptists and also of our own theological creation is a doctrine of religious liberty. The SBC has as a part of its statement of faith that there should be separation between church and state and the state should provide for all people freedom from religious persecution and freedom to worship according to one's wishes. It is my contention that this very doctrine has inspired the political sidetracking that the SBC has engaged in. When a tradition highly values something like religious liberty or democracy one begins to depend on it. This can lead to conflict when one's view of what “religious liberty” or “democracy” is begins to be transformed in the evolution of the culture. So in America we see from the SBC a reaction to culture based on a particular understanding of religious liberty that is taking precedence over the mission of the Church.

In order to stay on task and maintain integrity the Church needs to completely disengage certain areas of secular culture. Politics evolves along with an ever changing culture and it is too easy to get distracted by all the things that can frustrate ones own conceptions of what ought to be. The Church's ideals can't be made the culture's ideals. The Church's political engagement with the world is wholly embodied in the “other way” that it embodies. The Church should never be seen as conservative or liberal. The Church is not an activist for any agenda. The Church is a wholly different culture that represents the coming kingdom of her Savior. The Church is the rock and stands in stark contrast to the sand the culture builds on.

Every individual believer needs to faithfully represent the broad aims and ideals of the Church as they engage in the missional calling God has given them. Individual believers may engage in politics as called by God, but they do so fully realizing that the Church is their home and not the world. They represent only themselves and the secular world they are engaging with in their duties, but never the Church. They represent the Church in taking the opportunity such connections afford them to illuminate the Church's aims and ideals that they are a part of. In this sense, the individual recognizes the two kingdoms of the world and Church in him/herself. Every individual believer is in the world, but not of it and so the Church is in the world but not of it. The Church is made up of people like the worldly, but they are transformed in their desires, attitudes and manners in their relationship with Jesus. So they look like the world until the world looks at them and sees Jesus in them and more importantly in the Church by extension.

Journal

2009-03-18T17:05:00.001-04:00

3/7/09 – 8:50AM

At the end of the fifth lecture Alan drew attention to 1 Peter 2:17 “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” He pointed to this as omnidirectional. It is a verse that speaks to what Christians should do to every different kind of person they may encounter. The first half of the verse is countercultural and the last half is submissive to culture. I like how this gets at the tension that I think pervades all of scripture. When it comes to Christian ethics it isn't about pacifism vs. crusading or pacifism vs. just war. There are very few hard and fast rules in scripture about ethical behavior when it comes to government, politics, war and peace.

An issue I've repeatedly encountered among Mennonites is a desire to make pacifism a fruit of the spirit in the sense that they can use it as an indicator as to who is and is not saved. I've even met a few that will admit that they think one is not and can not be saved in a combat position in the military. I've yet to meet a just war theorist that would suggest their position can be connected in any meaningful way to salvation.

The tensions in the 1 Peter verse highlight the necessity of allowing a vague ethic that is only resolved in the leading of the Holy Spirit. Creating a hard fast rule is easily overcome by scripture, but if we are ambiguous about it and in the same way as scripture then mission is benefited by allowing the greatest number of people to engage the greatest diversity of people possible. The call to mission is clear and the call to peace is clear but when and how these intersect is up to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Not to say that such an intersection is an anomaly and that our main focus should be the doing of one or the other, but there is a separateness that is sometimes present in scripture. Some Christians will need to know how and to what extent they separate a peace witness that will be common to the rest of Christianity in order to bring a “special” peace witness to violent areas.

Militaristic violence is not common in the sense that most people will engage in it in their lifetimes. Soldiers are a small minority of occupations in the world, but they are still ones that share the imago dei and are loved deeply by God. The “contradictions” in the Bible regarding the “God of the OT” and Jesus provide an ambiguous tension that I contend from other places in my journal allow rare exceptional cases of Christians engaging in soldiering duties as a missional calling to bring Jesus to soldiers. Missionaries to soldiers by way of soldiering are still doing a kind of peace work in making known the peace of Christ and counterculturally challenging the motivations the world has embedded into the soldiers. Soldier missionaries would then teach the peace positions of the Church that lives differently and may look down on their calling and would model those teachings in every way that they can short of disobeying (within yet to be determined limits) the orders of their superiors. They won't live the ideal that they proclaim, but no Christian does. The idea is that they give people a vision for the ideal and how the key to living for that ideal is found in Jesus alone. Those soldiers then become Christians and begin the process of discipleship to determine the Holy Spirit's calling on their lives which may include leaving their soldiering career behind or it may mean they stay. Whatever their calling may be they would be content to have faith that God knows best and his grace and mercy are sufficient.

Book Review: Breaking the Discipleship Code

2009-03-10T16:18:00.003-04:00

One of the assignments for my Mission and Peace course was to review a book that discussed Christian mission and how it connects to peace work. I know I said in my first journal post the book I was going to review was Ed Stetzer's new book Lost and Found, however I didn't think it was going to delve much into the relevance of peace witness in its pages. So I grabbed David Putman's new book Breaking the Discipleship Code: Becoming a Missional Follower of Jesus instead. The following is the portion of my review that covers Chapter 10 "What Does a Missional Follower Look Like When it Comes to Politics?" and Chapter 12 "What Does a Missional Follower Look Like on the Battlefield?" and then my concluding paragraph to give a sense of what I thought and hoped for the book as a whole since I was more negative towards those two chapters.

Chapter 10 "What Does a Missional Follower Look Like When it Comes to Politics?"

When Putman gets into the politics is where he begins to lose his luster and not live up to offering the challenges that will really rock the Church. He begins by noting how “nonpolitical” Jesus was and how Jesus' example should lead Christians to “a whole new way of thinking about politics” that transcends Right and Left (129). I find this agreeable, but by the end of the chapter he states that the “bottom line” is “it is our responsibility as missional followers of Jesus to challenge and inform political parties based on the teachings of the gospel and the coming of His kingdom” (132). Challenging and informing political parties based on a particular reading of scripture is not “nonpolitical.” It is very political and very divisive. It will divide Christians based on hermeneutic methods and it will put a barrier between Christians and whichever side of the political spectrum they land on. Christians that try to transcend politics by tackling issues from both sides of the aisle will become mere moderates and not rise above anything at all. If we believe that Christ truly distinguished himself as a model for political (or apolitical as it would seem) engagement then we need to more carefully think about our actions in relation to authority. In the passage of Christ being confronted with whether or not to pay taxes he did not side with the state nor the religious authorities. He managed to side step the whole issue without getting in trouble with either side. Jesus was a servant, not an activist. He cared about the lost, not bureaucracy. He talked about His kingdom, not the kingdoms of this world. To follow Jesus' example would mean Christians are really apolitical, not politically moderate. We need to disengage the government and serve the people directly.

Chapter 12 "What Does a Missional Follower Look Like on the Battlefield?"

When Putman talks about Christians and war he makes the weakest case to be found in the whole book. It is somewhat to be expected considering the audience and publisher. It is also noteworthy that the book is dedicated to his son who at the point of his writing the book is in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne. Some of the actions he encourages in this chapter include: love the whole world, be informed, encourage troops and their families, pray for peace and protection, and accomplish good during war. The advice throughout the chapter feels very conflicting and not well thought through in its consistency. On the positive, Putman encourages people to love and pray for their enemies, pray for both sides of the war and the soldiers and humanitarians, and to be involved in relief work. These actions appear to lose their sincerity in the light of the following kinds of statements:

1. “regardless of whether we think the cause is just, we find ourselves in the middle of it” (148).

2. “The war on terror is exactly what we call it: Global terrorism will bring fear into our lives and take our basic freedoms from us if it is not fought” (148).
“It is our war if we care about the future of our freedom, our children's freedom, and our grandchildren's freedom” (151).

3. “we know that all we have to do for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing” (158).

To respond to the first quote set, Putman uncritically accepts a realist perspective on the matter. He does not seriously consider how the pacifist perspective reflects the example of Jesus. The second quote set grants a very small appreciation for the freedom we find in Christ or the “perfect love that casts out fear” (1 John 4:18). We were never scripturally granted the rights and freedoms we have in this country what we were granted were things like “blessed are the poor” and “blessed are the persecuted.” The rights and freedoms of this country are excesses. We should be content to experience sufficient freedom and comfort in our identification with Christ, not our government. The third category of quote is ironic considering the nature of how we were saved. It is precisely by Christ's nonresistance that sin and death were conquered! How can we be of so little faith that we cannot expect God to be glorified through our own suffering in this world's petty struggles. If Christ can conquer Satan through sacrifice then we should not dare to think we can not manage to change the weak mind's of people through following our Savior's example.

Conclusion

Breaking the Discipleship Code will go a long way to challenge conservative evangelical assumptions about what it means to be a follower of Christ. My only regret is where it interacts with the sensitive areas of peace witness (politics and war) Putman does not fully wrestle with what it means to live, love and leave what Jesus lived, loved and left. I would recommend this to congregations nonetheless for a clear challenge of how to begin thinking in the right direction of being missional in every aspect of our lives. Hopefully, the Spirit will lead many to follow the logic even further than Putman to really wrestle and explore a Christ-glorifying peace witness.

More Blogs

2009-03-02T21:19:00.001-05:00

I'm adding several Baptist blogs to my blogroll that I wanted to draw people's attention to. I've been looking for some of the "sane" voices within the convention and only recently have begun to discover where those people are.

First, some of the ones who have been on my blog roll that I didn't draw attention to when I first added them:

Ed Stetzer - The SBC's resident missiologist. He's good friends with Driscoll and isn't afraid to interact across denominational lines. His blog has got solid analysis of current trends in the SBC and in American Christianity.

iMonk - Run by Michael Spencer in Oneida, KY. He's got great missional musings and identifies with "post-evangelicalism."

Dr. Wyman Richardson - He's an SBC pastor in Georgia that addresses a variety of issues clearly and reasonably.

Now for the new adds. I was going to describe each of them, but that would take too long and some of them are fairly similar in content. I promise they're all interesting though.

Grace and Truth to You by Wade Burleson

Downshore Drift by Alan Cross

12 Witnesses by Art Rogers

Micah Fries - A young "hip" SBC pastor in St. Joseph, MO.

AJ Vanderhorst - Not baptist but a pretty cool conservative evangelical church planter in Kansas City.

Being Dirty and Harry by Clint Clifton

Baptist21 - Baptist21 is a team blog that discusses SBC issues for the 21st century. They are particularly sensitive to the under 40 crowd in the convention. I'd like to point out a neat article I found during my perusing of this blog. It's called "Third Generation Conservatives in the Southern Baptist Convention" Part 1" and Part 2 by SEBTS professor Steve A McKinion. He describes the generational gap in the SBC and what the younger conservative generation desires. I would consider myself a part of this generation and think my SBC friends my age will find some resonance with his description.

ie:missional by Marty Duren

Provocations & Pantings by Timmy Brister

JD Greear

Church Marketing Sucks - a team blog about the pros and cons of church marketing strategies.

Between Two Worlds by Justin Taylor

Joe Thorn

Biblical Foundations by Dr. Andreas Köstenberger

Stand To Reason Blog - a team blog that deals heavily with various apologetic issues.

Founders Ministries Blog by Tom Ascol

Jonathan Merritt

Historia ecclesiastica by Dr. A. G. Haykin

sbcIMPACT - An SBC team blog similar to Baptist 21.

Missions, Misunderstood by Ernest Goodman

Journal

2009-02-23T22:26:00.001-05:00

2/17/09 – 5:14PM

The chapter by Mauser on the concept of shalom was very enlightening. One of the things that stuck out to me is when he said, “We can thus far only say that the word shalom assumes, in certain passages, the meaning of peaceful and healthy conditions between peoples. However, this does not imply the renunciation of martial violence in the pursuit of this peace in accordance with the principles of nonviolent resistance.” This admission by Mauser would seem to show that Kreider's insistence on Christians finding a missional calling without violence is not necessarily in line with how God has worked in the past to establish shalom. Granted this is a rare exception that violence is used to bring about shalom in the Bible, but I think these exceptions must be given considerable note before we start universalizing particular ethical demands.

Here is how I will put myself in the middle of my Baptist tradition and the Mennonites I'm around here at seminary: Pacifism should be the norm and rule of thumb amongst Christians, but I believe God can and does call Christians to serve in the military, police forces and other lawful though violent careers. This is one place where I find Barth useful. Christians have to be able to witness to soldiers, police officers and politicians without throwing God's love at them from a distance. Being missional, to me, must involve relationships like Jesus made where we can come to where they are and love them where we are. If we can't love them where they are it's much more difficult to get them to see how Jesus loves them.

One of my frustrations with fundamentalist culture is their expectation that people come to Christ by them throwing Christ's love at them from a distance or them expecting people to get to a certain moral, political, intellectual, emotional level that they can then feel comfortable stooping down and patting them on the head with Christ's love. Fundamentalist have a serious superiority complex in the way they interact with culture. Christ violated all kinds of cultural norms and expectations by who He encountered and who He touched and allowed to touch Him. This example should bring us to come to people no matter how far away they are from us morally. Now, of course, I don't mean to say or sound like Christians can and should become prostitutes to reach prostitutes. But I would argue that they can be involved in more violent occupations because there is not an explicit Biblical denouncement of such professions when opportunities arise.

Christians that choose to go into the armed forces cannot take lightly what they are participating in. This cannot be just a career. It must be a clear calling on one's life. Christians must recognize the pain and injustices they are helping to perpetuate in the world. It can't be dismissed as lightly as good outweighing bad. When Jesus calls us to be perfect like the Father is perfect it is insolence to think that there is any mixture of evil in God. A soldier's or politicians good intentions will have evil repercussions. What we rely on is God's grace and not our ability to live ethically.

Lots of ethicists both just war and pacifist create continuums of good and bad and all of them disagree (even amongst the pacifists). We all can't help but participate in the degradation of our world. That is the nature of our sinful disposition. When these ethicists claim that causing injustice is bad and go on to describe what we should do to avoid causing them the really “radical” ones might suggest not supporting big chain stores or restaurants. How do they follow that up with how big is too big? If they just support the local businesses that the neighbor runs they must realize that the neighbor is probably supplied or supporting at some level groups or people involved in the very injustices these ethicists would denounce. All of this is to point out that ethical systems are never clear enough to speak to all possible and real situations. There are always situations that can and will happen to break a system.

I see soldiering as existing on these continuums the ethicists make. Even if the majority of the ethicists could agree that soldiering is bad the inherent shortcomings and hypocrisy of their systems relegate such analyses to irrelevance. Ethics needs to be done without appealing to such continuums in order to be useful. I think in this sense the two greatest sources of ethical thought is the Bible and Nietzsche. These seem radically different to most people that have heard something about the two and they are in some respects radically different. I see this in common between the Bible and Nietzsche: they don't prescribe systems of ethics that are open to being nitpicked to death. For Nietzsche ethics was about getting beyond the categories of good and evil. Getting beyond good and evil means the destruction of all such continuums that have forever hampered human attempts at a useful ethic. The Bible on the other hand relies on grace and forgiveness. The Bible distinguishes vaguely between good and evil so we get an idea of what to do and not do without attempting to spell out every possible scenario for us. The important part in the Bible's system is not the ethics it does promote but the acknowledgment that we're going to mess up but we can't merit salvation. God doesn't give us a path to walk to Him. He gives us grace to be with Him. In scripture there is only the children of God and the enemies of God. No continuum exists for us to reach God by our own abilities.

In summary, since the Bible does not explicitly condemn certain violent professions and shalom is still possible in spite of the conditions these create it must be the case that it isn't we who create shalom but God according to his will and plan. Shalom may have outward signs such as some form of peace or prosperity but it is not necessarily the case so it must not be definitively connected with such ideas. Christians in the armed forces need to be aware of the unfortunate state of affairs they are in and participating with. However, just like no one person can reach everyone for Christ and there are bound to be things about the person that may push people away from Christ however unintentional, so also we must recognize the mysterious ability of God to work through a variety of means and people to bring people into relationship with Him. Thus it should not be expected that Christian soldiers should even be able to witness effectively to their enemies or the people in the territories they occupy. They should be an effective witness to fellow soldiers. Also, in keeping with Jesus advice to the soldiers who asked Him what they should do, soldiers should cause no more pain or distress to the people they are against than is possible and do whatever they can to remedy and distance themselves from any thoughts of retribution, vengeance, hatred, etc. within themselves and as a testimony to the oppressed around them that they are not doing this for a paycheck or any kind of nationalist or patriotic feeling. Christian soldiers should always demonstrate to others whether fellow soldiers, enemies or occupied peoples that this is a calling that they have assumed with humility. They must keep in front of their mind that every person they kill as an image of God and dearly loved by Him. The fact that the world has come to a place where people are compelled to do this should grieve them greatly and bring them to their knees in desperation praying for God's intervention. Christian soldiers should always be praying, like Christ did on the cross, that God would have mercy on the souls of their enemies. They should be at peace about the fact that God may take their life from them just as swiftly as He has used them to take the lives of others. When not in battle or called to arms they should be Christlike servants to the people around them enduring all verbal and physical punishment as Christ did. A Christian veteran should return home and exhibit a Christlikeness that inspires awe even in the pacifist. Their experience has granted them the tools to connect with other veterans and soldiers for the special purpose to lead them to shalom found in Jesus. Christian soldiers and veterans should be able to help other soldiers get beyond bitterness, bigotry and nationalism and embrace them with Christ's love which has no room for such trivialities.

To try and get closer to the Mauser text I'll remind you that the first thing I noticed about shalom was that it is not necessarily a renunciation of violence. The other thing I am curious about is whether shalom really has as much meaning as people suggest it does. The variety of contexts and connotations it has in scripture makes me wonder why it shouldn't be seen as meaningless a word as “good” or “well.” If we think about all the ways we use good or well we don't say that they have a very complex meaning. What about the use of shalom merits it having a complex meaning that allows it to be a special word as opposed to a word with little meaning that just gets tossed around even if it has preferential uses?

Journal

2009-02-17T17:24:00.002-05:00

2/16/09 – 8:20PM

In chapters two and three from Kreider's forthcoming Worship and Mission I find myself still a little edgy about the relationship between mission and peace being proposed. Kreider suggests that the purpose of mission is for God to bring “all things into shalom, all-comprehending wholeness – right relations between God and humans; right relations between humans and other humans; right relations between humans and the created order.” What doesn't bother me about this is his admission that “It does not follow that something is an expression of the missio dei simply because it is novel and politically potent.” Nor does it bother me when he states, “it does not follow that something is an expression of God's mission simply because it calls itself “Christian”.” Here he is more or less referring to the viral imperialistic evangelism engaged in by the more conservative traditions. I would agree with these. What bothers me is the lack of a clearly defined expression of when peace or mission cease to be a part of the missio dei.

He sets forth three criteria: 1) compatibility with the life and work of Jesus, 2) the consistency with the metanarrative of God's work in human history and 3) how it relates to God's actions in conflict with false powers. My first issue with these criteria is that, Kreider defines them, they are too conditioned by an Anabaptist vision and tradition. This is a common critique for me towards anything Anabaptist I'm coming to find out. The amount of peace language and idea of how it's embodied according to Anabaptists smells far too much like eisegesis than honest exegesis to me. The commitment to peace and nonviolence always seems to come before God's self revelation in the actions and ideas of Anabaptists. Jesus had His own mission from God that shares parallels with the rest of the Church but can not and should not be claimed as fully ours also. Jesus was a Jew that lived according to Jewish customs and did all that he did with the understanding that He was to be sacrificed. We can't all say the same things about ourselves and the mission God has given us. This means that we can find Jesus to be a valuable role model in some facets but in others the context curbs the amount of meaning to be gleaned. It seems more important that we should look to the Apostles and their writings for a better understanding of what it meant for them to translate Jesus's life to the callings God gave them.

The other issue I have with the criteria involves specifically the third one. Kreider writes, “As people who want to discern God's missional activity so we can be useful participants in God's mission, we will ask where God is unmasking and undoing the “benefactors,” the inevitable sensibilities and structures which “for our own good” - and even for the gospel – shackle people, prevent reconciliation and pervert shalom.” The problem is that someone has to interpret what this means and Christians will disagree. What bothers me is that the definition is vague enough that the prosperity gospel of someone like Joel Osteen is an as acceptable form of the missio dei as the efforts of the neo-monastics, CPTers or Acts 29/Sovereign Grace church planters. The issue that Kreider is not addressing that would be helpful to address is how does being in difficult and broken circumstances enable one to do the mission of God?

I can't accept any kind of missiology that has as a stated goal to make wrongs right wherever it is applied. I think some unfortunate circumstances are being used by God to accomplish His mission. I think Job and Ecclesiastes speak most clearly to the nature of the world and God's ability to use every kind of circumstance to bring glory to himself. Maybe in this sense I don't believe it is our place to bring shalom, but that that is reserved for Christ to do at His return. If shalom includes a right ordering of relationships so that we become middle class citizens of Heaven then I would suspect we are seeking comfort and not God. This reminds of something I read in a book about prayer once. The author stated something to the extent of “we should seek God's face and not his hands.” I'm not interested in bringing the world into an actual peace. It is God's business to bring about peace lest I think I can actually accomplish something of my own accord (even if it was Him working through me). I think an inner peace should accompany all Christians in all circumstances and that inner peace should reveal itself in ways that witness to others, but that is all despite external circumstances and not because of them.

The SBC Sucks Part 1

2009-02-16T14:43:00.006-05:00

A day later than promised, but better late than never. The Southern Baptists are descended from a group called the General Baptists. The General Baptists were formed theologically in the the early 1600s in Amsterdam and England. Before we get to that we need some background.

The genesis of the Baptists begins in the Church of England and particularly of the Puritans that intended to reform it. The Church in England separated from the Roman Catholic church in 1534 when King Henry VIII rejected papal authority over Christianity in England and made himself the supreme authority instead. The Puritans were a Reformed group within Anglicanism that wanted to purify the Church of England of its Catholic influence. The Puritans stressed personal piety, the purity of the church and the authority of scripture. The lengths to which various leaders within Puritanism took their movement created multiple factions within Puritanism including the Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Separatists.

John Smyth, the spiritual father of Baptists, was raised in the tradition of Puritanism. As he took various pastor and lecturer positions in churches he was reprimanded by Puritan groups for some of his views. These reprimands pushed him farther towards the Separatist position which he came to embrace in 1607. The persecution of his church really heated up at this point and Smyth and his congregation migrated to Amsterdam between late 1607 and early 1608. Once in Amsterdam they came in contact with other faith groups including other Puritans, Separatists, Congregationalists, Mennonites and Reformed. Before they had migrated Smyth had published a work that displayed the elder led convictions of the Separatist church they had covenanted. Soon after arriving in Amsterdam, Smyth published another work that shifts from elder led convictions to congregational convictions.

The diversity of views around them and the need of the congregation to find jobs to support them probably put Smyth in indirect contact with Mennonites through his congregation. However the change occurred Smyth and his followers came to reject infant baptism for believer's baptism in early 1609. Smyth baptized himself and then the others. This created a big uproar around them amongst their Puritan and Puritan-descended brethren. They were criticized for rejecting infant baptism from all sides. Being ostracized from the other English in the country for their radical practice caused them to begin to look for companionship where they could find it. This lead Smyth's congregation into close fellowship with the Mennonites. Under the Mennonite influence they became more reliant on the New Testament, less Reformed and more concerned about justice.

It should be noted that before coming over Smyth and his congregation were adamantly anti-Anabaptist (Anabaptist means rebaptizer and is the general umbrella movement the Mennonites are connected with). After the baptism of the congregation Smyth published a defense of the practice. One of the critiques leveled at the defense was that baptizing oneself is not biblical and separates them from the great tradition of Christianity as born through the succession of baptisms since the Apostolic church of the New Testament. This is a critique that Smyth took to heart and brought him and many of his congregation to seek to join with the Mennonites. At this point, a small group of about ten people split from Smyth's congregation lead by Thomas Helwys. This group had reservations with some of the doctrines held in the more traditional lines of the Mennonite faith and didn't find the self baptism critique convincing.

At this point Smyth ceases to be the ecclesial father of the Baptist tradition and is replaced by Helwys. Helwys and his group are distraught by this change of events and petition the Mennonites not to admit Smyth's group. These petitions ultimately fall on deaf ears. Smyth joined the Waterlander Mennonites who were much more tolerant of doctrinal differences amongst their ranks than more traditional Mennonites. The admittance of Smyth's group in the end caused the Mennonites to fracture more relationships because of the excessive tolerance of the Waterlanders.

Helwys's group, having nothing more they could do in Amsterdam, were convicted for the lost and mislead in England and so returned in 1612. Shortly after returning, Helwys published a more than 200 page work describing his theological convictions. This work also included the first and most thorough defense of the concept of religious liberty yet published on English soil. He sent a signed copy to King James and was promptly arrested. Helwys would end up being the first Baptist martyr a few years later. When Helwys was arrested John Murton took over the leadership of the congregation. He was arrested shortly after assuming leadership, but managed to lead the congregation from his prison cell for about a decade through the smuggling of notes to them. Murton's works were very similar in content and ideas to Helwys and solidified the identity of General Baptists.

This is a very brief summary of the origins of General Baptists. Through traditions we pass on convictions and beliefs. Looking at the history of a group like Smyth and Helwys's groups reveal the beginnings of some of the unhealthy aspects of contemporary Baptist practices. In this summary there are a few things I'd like to bring people's attention to. First, Smyth and Helwys like many other Reformation groups were intent upon discovering the one right combination of doctrines so that they could call themselves the True Church. This commitment to perfect orthodoxy came at the expense of Christian unity and perfect love. It is not hard to see how this lives on in the SBC with the conservative resurgence, unwillingness to associate with the World Council of Churches, leaving the Baptist World Alliance amongst other things on the lower levels of SBC structure.

The next issue that we can see from our formations is the commitment to misunderstand and marginalize people based on who they associate with. John Smyth never accepted many of the problematic doctrines that Helwys disliked. In fact the leaders of the Waterlanders didn't accept many of those doctrines. This did not stop Helwys from asserting they believed such things based on the fact that their congregations contained people that held such doctrines. A penchant for prideful misunderstandings has been the bane of numerous church splits.

The final issue I'll touch on will be one that will come up often and will be the most divisive between myself and people committed to "Baptist ideals." Arguably, the most consistent doctrinal trait in Baptist tradition has been a commitment to religious liberty. I say arguably because I would argue that the rise of child baptisms and lowering age of average baptism is a sign that we've either given up on or have a very distorted view of believer's baptism.

The commitment to religious liberty is the area which has brought the most trouble to the SBC. By committing ourselves to a political ideal throughout our whole history we involve ourselves in politics to the detriment of the gospel. First, religious liberty is not a right nor a command according to the Bible. We are given no guarantees in this life about how we should expect to be treated. The only thing we are given is instructions on how to treat others. We must not confuse proclaiming an ethic with proclaiming the gospel. Second, the Beattitudes say blessed are the persecuted, not blessed are the comfortable. Have we forgotten how the early church grew despite persecution? Have we forgotten how it corrupted after Europe became Christian?

The SBC's commitment to political agendas has made us into the Tridentine Roman Catholic Church of Protestant America. Religious liberty has become a mask for pursuing our own political agendas at the expense of our Christian witness. It has become a mask for nationalism as our churches have set aside the cross and picked up the flag. There is no biblical precedent for Christians to be as nationalistic as they've become in this country in this age. We will continue to see our influence, marginalization and "persecution" increase in this country so long as we carry something other than the cross. There will not be another great awakening in this country until we straighten out our priorities again and truly proclaim nothing but "Christ and Him crucified." We need to toughen up and quit moaning about prayer in schools, evolution, etc. and realize that Christ has set our agenda in His life and death. Our yoke is Christ's and not society's.

That's the end of part one. Discussion is welcome. Journal entries will be shortly forthcoming (tomorrow?). For more information on the beginnings of the Baptists check out:

John Smyth's Congregation: English Separatism, Mennonite Influence, and the Elect Nation by James Coggins

The Theology of John Smyth: Puritan, Separatist, Baptist, Mennonite by Jason K. Lee

A History of the English Baptists by A.C. Underwood

Journal

2009-02-07T14:10:00.003-05:00

2/7/09 – 8:53AM

To begin this journal I should introduce the subject that will be writing these responses and critiques. I'll try to be as transparent as I can manage. I'll give you a brief autobiography, my current theological and missiological convictions and an explanation of my prejudices (the philosophical kind not the bigoted kind).

I was born in Omaha, NE in 1985 and moved to Sioux City, IA in 1989. I went to elementary and middle school in Sioux City before we moved to Rochester, MN in 1999. I went to high school in Rochester and graduated in 2003. I went to college at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville. When I got there I had intended to study electrical engineering because I had always had an interest in technology and science since I was a kid. After a year I realized that my mind was not quite cut out for that kind of thinking. I took a semester to explore other options and became a philosophy major my fourth semester. I finished my studies at UWP in May 2008 and enrolled at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Elkhart, IN where I'm currently studying.

As far as spiritual history goes, my parents are both Southern Baptist so I was raised in that tradition. I prayed a prayer to get out of hell on January 31, 1995. My dad says I was saved then, I'm not sure if I was or not. In high school I met other Christian youth that took their faith seriously at a youth camp. They challenged many assumptions I had lived with and this began a time of me being at least superficially interested in the deeper things of the Christian life. When I went to college I met a variety of Christians from all denominations working together to minister to my college campus in the InterVarsity chapter there. These brothers and sisters pushed me to deepen and expand my vision of the Kingdom of God, the mission of God and the will of God far beyond what I had ever got before. At college I was discipled into my current Christian passions: prayer, ecumenism and seeing lost souls saved. During college I stopped attending the Southern Baptist church in town (though I retained my membership) and for three years I attended a charismatic (not pentecostal) Assemblies of God Church. Now I'm at seminary experiencing a kind of Christian culture shock (the Mennonites aren't what I thought they'd be). I believe God has much he'll show me and develop me while here and there are ways I see the Holy Spirit in motion around me and in me.

Before I get into my convictions and prejudices I should mention briefly about how my mind works. I'm very introverted and I don't think quickly. I need a lot more time to process than any professor is willing to give, but I can promise my thoughts or at least the discussion that will ensue is worthwhile. I'm a very systematic thinker. I would describe myself as German (for those who know what that means). I like things well ordered with relatively clearly defined functions and relations. This does not mean that if I can't define it I can't comprehend it. I have a great and growing appreciation for mystery, nonsense and absurdity and these themes permeate my theology and philosophy. For example, one of my favorite things to discuss in philosophy is the limits of reason and scientific thinking and the place of absurdity in our finite world. I'm very passionate about truth, as all Southern Baptists are. My commitment to truth, however, forces me to engage all views rather than shun them. If it seems like I'm shunning a view, which I will appear to do often, it's because I'm already aware of irreconcilable foundational differences in commitments. This brings up the fact that I hate having my time wasted. I waste my time not other people. This isn't a comprehensive view of how I work or how my ideas interrelate. For now, you'll only figure that out by asking the right questions and paying close attention to how I live.

In SBC circles I'm the most liberal person in the room both theologically and politically. Here at AMBS I'm the most conservative person in the room theologically. Here are some labels that I would allow myself to be associated with insofar as I understand their meanings: neo-orthodox, conservative (theologically), evangelical, apolitical, missional, charismatic, and critical modern. The Christian thinkers and preachers that have most influenced my spiritual life are: Soren Kierkegaard, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Watchman Nee, Charles Finney, Mark Driscoll, Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, and Charles Spurgeon. The philosophers I study or intend to study, at least circumspectly, are: Socrates/Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Maimonides, Aquinas, Pascal, Descartes, Hobbes, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Marcel, Gadamer, Ricouer, Habermas, Adorno, Benjamin, Gödel, Camus, Marcuse, Levinas, Wittgenstein, and Lonergan. Contemporary (read “not dead”) philosophers I study or intend to study are Douglas Hofstadter, Daniel Dennett, Alvin Plantinga, Merold Westphal, Jean-Luc Marion, Alisdair MacIntyre, Hubert Dreyfus, Stephen Palmquist, Noam Chomsky, and Lambert Zuidervaart. Theologians I study or intend to study are: Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, Hubmaier, Marpeck, E.Y. Mullins, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr, Nee, Chambers, Tillich, Rahner, Küng, Lonergan, Yoder, Bultmann, Schaeffer, and Ellul. Contemporary theologians/Christian thinkers I study or intend to study are: Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer, Alan Hirsch, Jean-Luc Marion, Merald Westphal, Stanley Hauerwas, Graeme Goldsworthy, and Shane Claiborne. These are as comprehensive lists as I can manage at the moment.

I believe in the infallibility of the Bible. I believe the Bible is mostly inerrant (98-99%) and what is in error is irrelevant to the parts that need to be infallible. I don't know where these errors are and don't care. I hold this view of the Bible partly out of a commitment to reduce dogmatism as a philosophical critique of man's ability to reason authoritatively. What this means is I will be almost as dogmatic and unmoving as any other fundamentalist, but not wholly as ungraceful.

As already noted, I have a passion for ecumenism. Ecumenism for me is not about coming to a one world religion, watering down the gospel or pushing a social program. Ecumenism for me is a response to Christ's command to love and be unified with all of the Body of Christ despite my ability to be sure of their salvation. It is a way for me to refine my ability to express my theological and doctrinal convictions and an attempt to provide other Christians the opportunity to see the strengths and pitfalls of their own convictions. Ecumenism is how the visible body of Christ is oiled (if imagined as a giant mechanical robot) so it functions more smoothly in expanding, refining and strengthening the invisible body. Ecumenism is a necessary part of a functional and effective evangelistic missional outreach

My understanding of missiology is very malleable right now as it isn't something I've thought much about until the last year. Here is where I stand. Missions is about people coming to love Jesus as Savior and Lord. First, I must explain this from my conservative leanings (I.e. Reacting against my liberal peers). Results are important. Very very very important. Some people think the numbers mean nothing, that their for people to pat themselves on their backs. Some people think numbers mean nothing, because no relationship was built. It's as if they think someone's wandering around with a bull horn, Bible and tally pad. Every single one of those numbers is infinitely valuable to God. While admittedly I'm not saying we have to be so naïve to believe that 100% of all those converted are going to Heaven we can't dismiss the entire work as something God couldn't or didn't use. Jesus must be preached and if we are not seeing people converted then we are wasting time with an interesting but ineffective idea.

Now, to turn on the conservatives and speak “liberal-like.” Conversion is followed by discipleship. We can't act so virally as to convert people to spread a grassroots marketing tactic. We convert people to make Jesus their Lord and disciple them to be like Jesus. Being like Jesus means being really peaceable, loving, gracious, merciful, etc. and not praying about it as an afterthought between gorging ourselves at McDonald's and putting bumper stickers on our vehicles supporting whatever idiot will take us into the next war. Being a follower of Jesus is costly. It costs us, not society. If we're not discipling people to be like Christ as revealed in the Gospels then the only thing we are spreading is an empty idolatry that will be appropriated for political and social agendas.

To be clear, we preach Jesus and disciple people to be like Him. Discipling people to be like Him means we have to wrestle with the ethics He represented. I am absolutely against preaching peace. Preaching a peace disconnected from Christ is a false human creation. I am also absolutely against works righteousness or merit based salvation. But these terms can't become scare words for not taking up the cross. Do I know where costly discipleship ends and works righteousness begins? I don't have the faintest idea and trying to draw a line will certainly be futile. Our ability to consistently be frustrated with our line drawing should show us of all things that we need to depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit more than our own ability to think out an answer.

Well I think this has been a sufficient introduction to this journal writer. Questions and critiques are always welcome. One last thing, I will be very critical of almost everything. I will critique things based on my assumptions of what is meant. In that sense I will probably fight several strawmen. That is fine because it helps me articulate my views and because it forces others to clarify their own, in a sense, to be more systematic. One who is considerate and careful to investigate and promote truth will naturally hold very complicated views. Oversimplification and misunderstanding is natural to coming to truer knowledge. I hold no misunderstandings of my own position against anyone, unless someone keeps doing it on the same point as if they weren't even paying attention. I hope and expect that I will demonstrate the same honesty, humility and intentionality towards those who are trying to explain their own views. I'm not going to say I will act humble always. My German-ness will always come through as tenacious in the argument, but when the argument is over I will leave what was said and done on the field of debate recognizing that life and relationships are more than a single area of interaction. That's all. God bless.

Update

2009-02-06T23:19:00.003-05:00

There are going to be some good changes to this blog very shortly forthcoming. I think you few who read this will be very interested. My classes this semester are amazing. I'm actually kind of sad that this is certainly going to be the best semester of my seminary career. I have essentially three classes: Systematic Theology, Cultural Hermeneutics, and Mission and Peace. I get to read and write about topics I'm very interested in and hope to make a career out of studying and teaching.

With regard to the soon changes, my assignment load for Mission and Peace is to keep a journal of my reflections on the coursework, lectures and class discussions. I wanted this option because I thought it would do well to double as blog posts. This means if I'm doing my homework like I should I'll be posting a few times a week and maybe as often as a couple times in a single day. Since you don't have the readings it will also force me to summarize things helping me to retain it and you to see what I'm reacting to.

I think you'll find the topics very interesting. It will be a lot of writing about missiology, peace witness in mission, various denominations take on missions, and Ed Stetzer. One of the things I've been doing while at the seminary is taking advantage of assignments to learn about the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist tradition. I've got a couple of assignments outside of the journal: a book review and a short paper on something related to the course work.

I'm planning on reviewing Ed Stetzer's latest book Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches that Reach Them. My short paper will be on Ed Stetzer as I also have a couple of his other books and several blog posts I've saved for an opportunity like this to do some in depth reading. I'm a big fan of his, though admittedly I've never read anything by him except for his blog over the last few months. I'm excited for the opportunity to get intimately acquainted with his thought and see where we align in our ideas of the priorities of the church and even more excited to hash out where we are different.

As far as the SBC Sucks series goes, I promise it is not going to be postponed much longer. I am expecting at the latest I will begin that next weekend. I have no idea how often it will get new posts. That will depend on my workload. My coursework should make it possible for me to put a new part out every two to three weeks. The series and rough content of the posts is already in my head it just needs to get some final research to solidify various points and then written. I'll tempt you with a tentative outline:

Part 1: I'll go back to the very beginnings of the Baptist tradition and look at how the influences of some Puritan Separatists, Anabaptists and Jacob Arminius affected who we've become.

Part 2: Skip ahead a couple hundred years to discuss William Carey, a missionary before the SBC existed but a major influence on how we've done missions.

Part 3: Edgar Young Mullins is the most formative influence on the theological and doctrinal development of the SBC. We'll look at what he's contributed to some of the mess we've become.

Part 4: This may be broken up to multiple parts because it will be about the Conservative Resurgence, but I'll just say it's one part even if it takes multiple posts.

Part 5: Today's SBC - my perception of our seminaries, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (I'll probably have a whole post just on the BFM), leaving the Baptist World Alliance, the current state of our ecumenical relationships, and our engagement with government. Those and maybe some other topics if I think of them will be covered in Part 5 probably through multiple posts.

Part 6: Just in case you're completely depressed by the time I'm through all this and wondering why I'm still in the SBC I'll take parts 6-? discussing why I still have hope in the SBC. To some extent I'll probably go back over the previous topics in the SBC Sucks and explain the parts that are good.

So that's what's up with me and the blog. Make sure to begin to check in regularly. I need to begin my journal tonight but probably won't post what I write until tomorrow or Sunday as I get caught up on the readings. God bless.

Prayer Request

2009-01-18T00:51:00.002-05:00

Just a quick prayer request. The church I've been attending while at seminary had a fire break out in the attic area yesterday. No one was hurt and the building is fine for the most part, but we'll be meeting elsewhere for the next couple weeks.

Oak Creek Community Church is one of the reasons I'm still in the convention. I only initially checked it out because I felt obligated, being from the SBC. But I discovered very quickly they are a church that is growing and developing sincere relationships with people. So I (or more likely other SBC people) have my church family there to thank for my not leaving the SBC yet. There is still hope when I see churches like them thriving despite the mess the convention is in. So if the Spirit leads you say a quick prayer for Oak Creek and that this won't be a costly and difficult mess. Thanks.

Update

2009-01-12T16:47:00.002-05:00

I know I haven't posted for awhile. I just want to let people know that the SBC series is still planned and another post on some cool quotes I found. Right now my interterm course is kicking my butt, so these might not happen til late January or into February. God bless.

The Southern Baptist Convention Sucks

2008-12-18T01:33:00.002-05:00

More on that later. I hoped to make this a fairly upbeat blog trying not to offend any particular group of Christians because I really do value Christian fellowship and community. I've worked hard so far trying to bring about Christian unity wherever I find myself. However, sometimes when you care about a group of people you have to be able to tell them to stop being stupid. Over the next few weeks I'm going to start a series of posts on what's been going on in the convention and what my reactions are. As you can tell the Carebears aren't sticking around for this one.

"And Now for Something Completely Different..."

2008-11-28T13:45:00.004-05:00

Just a semi-serious entry today. I read Boyd's latest post about a debate he was in about Open Theism and was reminded of how pointless such discussions are.

Critique of Pure Theology

It's too abstract to do anyone any good. Much time is spent trying to answer questions that can't be answered and have no practical implications on what is presented as the essential elements of a life giving faith to those seeking it.

Critique of Practical Theology

Theology that goes over things like grace and faith and works is useful. I'd also include studies of the trinity (how the three persons of the Trinity are related and one), Christology (who is Christ?), Pneumatology (what is the Holy Spirit?), Soteriology (how are we saved?), Ecclesiology (what is the Church?) and Missiology (what is the Christian mission?) under the category of practical theology. The answers we provide to these subjects directly affect how we do church and live our faith. These subjects get discussed from the pulpit and in bible studies.

Critique of Christian Judgment

How we live, or are orthopraxy, is also a very relevant issue. From our actions we reap fruit or thorns. This is usually (but not always!) the evidence of good orthodoxy (right thinking).

Some preachers put things in terms of first hand and second hand issues. First hand are things that are essential to the faith. Disagreement with first hand issues is akin to heresy. Second hand issues are ones that we may disagree on because they have no direct impact on our salvation. Within "practical theology" and "Christian judgment" there exist all the first and second hand issues. "Pure theology" however is certainly not a first hand issue and while it may be a second hand issue it isn't a second hand issue that has practical implications to the actual work and experience of the Church. It's a second hand issue that is purely abstract and can only divide the Church.

Some may say that it is useful for apologetic arguments. To this I would answer that such arguments have no existential import. To explain, Kierkegaard talked about finding "a truth that is true for me." Not a subjective truth but a truth that makes a demand on me to live, think and act authentically. A truth that changes how I exist, so to speak. Arguments about how God knows does not have any impact on how one lives. The various theories of knowledge surrounding God's knowledge are all responsible to live themselves out according to the works of God presented in the Bible. This means Boyd and the others can nuance however they want how God's mind works but his actions are clear and our response to those actions is not dependent on any understanding of God's knowledge.

Internet Culture

2008-11-21T14:23:00.003-05:00

A Portal to Media Literacy

An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube

A friend turned me on to these videos through his blog. These videos are presentations made by Professor Michael Wesch from Kansas State University about the anthropology and sociology of Internet culture. The speed at which the internet is changing the way we process information and network with each other has created a need to reconsider how we think about and do almost everything. The first video specifically talks about how the Internet has outdated our methods of education. Wesch goes over how he's experimented with a variety of Internet services to engage his classes in their coursework. The second video goes over how and why things are changing and introduces the questions we need to begin to think through in a culture being brought up on this kind of technology. Both videos are an hour long, but well worth watching as they are easy to follow and very fascinating.

The church especially needs to think about some of these questions and how it has answered them before and whether those answers change and if so how. Some of the questions I have that I won't attempt to answer right now are:

Internet culture is basically anarchic in how it structures itself and processes what is on the internet. So, what does it mean to grow up in such a culture and relate to God and other believers?
How do we discern how we are the image of God?
How does this influence our ecclesiology and missiology?

If you have thoughts on these questions or want to bring up other questions leave a comment. These are questions that need to be thought about and discussed in community as we all take stock on the possibilities and hindrances that come with this technology.

2008-11-11T18:08:00.003-05:00

My Internet Tracks:
1. Architecture of the Post-Modern Mind
> Part 1
> Part 2
> Part 3
> Part 4
2. Poetic Musings at AAR
3. Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way
4. When Kingdoms Collide
5. A Primer on Today's Missional Church

Before I talk about the Internet Tracks a quick Driscoll Cliffnotes update. As popular as Driscoll's series on the Song of Solomon has been on iTunes lately, I'm not at a place in life where I care much about the topic so that's why I haven't been regularly talking about Driscoll lately. He did blog this week about how risque his most recent sermon is so I've been listening to it and might blog about that one in the series whenever I manage to finish it. Hopefully the cliffnotes will pick up again when he does the next topic.

The links in category 1 are an interesting read on how cultural interactions and expressions of faith have changed in this "post-modern" era. It's a long read, but informative and thought provoking for those who haven't spent much time with the subject.

Link 2 is an interesting little poem James K. A. Smith wrote while listening to some boring paper at the most recent American Academy of Religion meeting in Chicago. His sentiments I think are very applicable to all of academia.

Links 3 and 4 are recent posts on David D. Flowers' blog The Centrality and Supremacy of Christ. Link 3 is an interesting book review that makes some points that are relevant critiques of common arguments one would hear from fans of John Howard Yoder and Jacques Ellul. Link 4 is a long post about the conflict between the politics of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World. He has a lot of good points in there that I think I will reference in an upcoming revision on my Christianity and politics paper that I've been writing and rewriting for the last four years.

Link 5 is an amazing collection of missiology internet sources that JR Woodward put together. There are over 200 links there on missiology and the missional church and many of them are from respected scholars on the subject. This is something that I have no doubt will use often in the coming semesters of seminary.

So that's what I've been up to. I hope you may find some of these links as useful or challenging as I have. God bless.

Luke 22:35-38 - My take on the mess

2008-10-26T03:18:00.007-04:00

Another cheat blog as I convert an assignment into an entry. Sorry, but this will be long and denser than usual despite my best efforts to make it easier to understand than my original paper.

Generally there are four ways scholars have interpreted Jesus' command to the disciples to buy swords found in Luke 22:35-38. The first three are common and the fourth I've only recently stumbled upon and have not found any other versions of it by more than the original scholar. The first one I will call the peripetatic (from peripeteia which means "a sudden turn of events or unexpected reversal" I can't actually find an adjectival rendering for this noun so I'm claiming this is it and don't confuse it with the Aristotelian Peripatetics) interpretation. This interpretation suggests that Jesus recognizes a change in circumstances for the disciples that warrants that they do something differently than what they've done before. Because Jesus is leaving the disciples they will need to act differently than they have while with Him. These scholars generally go on to suggest that Jesus meant that the change has to do with attutide rather than action. Before, the disciples were taken care of by God in Jesus' presence, but now tough times are coming in which it won't be as obvious that God has their back. Thus these scholars argue that Christ was not really contradicting Himself from how He's lived and taught them before. They relegate his commands to prepare to hyperbole contending Jesus is being merely ironic (FYI this is also the argument commentator Matthew Henry used).

There are a couple of weaknesses in this interpretation. The first is that it only takes the "but now" in verse 36 half seriously. Luke uses the phrase "but now" only two other times in his writings both of which appear earlier on in Luke. The first occurrence is in 16:25 in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish" (NET, my emphasis). The second occurrence is in 19:42 when Jesus is weeping over Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41-44 (41) Now when Jesus approached and saw the city, he wept over it, (42) saying, "If you had only known on this day, even you, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. (43) For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side. (44) They will demolish you — you and your children within your walls — and they will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God." (NET, my emphasis)

In both of these occasions we notice that there is a very real break in circumstances that the characters involved are forced to deal with in a real and literal fashion. Lazarus and the rich man trade places in the afterlife and both must deal with their new realities. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem because He recognizes His time has come and so has Jerusalem's with the judgement they will soon impose on Him. Israel has a history of missing the point when it God sends someone to make it and this time it will cost them more dearly than ever before. Luke 20:9-19 (the parable of the tenants is more than a simple parable. The Pharisees were threatened by it because it represented how Christ saw the history of Israel. Jesus weeps because the reality that must be contended with by a people he identifies with and loves deeply is one of utter destruction.

The second weakness is that it doesn't take seriously what Christ is going through at this time. How often do any of us communicate ironically when under great distress. When we know we are between a rock and a hard place and the pressure is only getting worse do we tend to communicate in a way that forces people to interpret or do we speak plainly? Maybe it's just me, but when I really want and need people to understand I just tell them what's up so they aren't off doing something other than what I want or need them to do. Because the peripetatic interpretation doesn't take seriously enough the "but now" or Christ's distress it too rashly dismisses the weight of Christ's words.

Scholarly interpretation version two I will call the instructional interpretation. By this interpretation Jesus commands they have swords so that He can show them their disobedience later on. Jesus tricks the disciples to show what is lacking in them so they can be taught what is right. This interpretation also sometimes is connected with an assertion that Jesus is working to fulfill prophecy. Whether it be the need to appear to look like a revolutionary as pretext to get arrested or making the disciples to look like the "lawless" it was prophesied he would be surrounded by "the lawless" (Isaiah 53:12).

The issue with this interpretation is that it would be the only place in scripture where Jesus uses this method to teach making it inconsistent not only with Christ's character but with his manner of doing things. Besides, the disciples will already show themselves a mess in Peter's denials and their disbelief on the day of the resurrection. It seems pointless and redundant for Luke to provide this for the sole purpose of showing further the inadequacies of the disciples. Jesus manufacturing the context for his death cheapens His work because it implies that there still may have been enough hope within humanity and Israel that things could have happened another way.

The third common interpretation is one that I will call the revolutionary interpretation. This interpretation was put forth by John Howard Yoder amongst others. In this version the command to buy swords and Christ's rebuke in Matthew's gospel about being able to command "twelve legions of angels" to rescue him signifies that Christ was wrestling with His call to be "the lamb lead to the slaughter." Some suggest that Christ was being tempted by Satan to install His kingdom in the fashion of the Zealots while others suggest Christ was contemplating becoming the divine warrior personified from the Old Testament.

The problem with this interpretation is that it seems fairly clear that Christ knows and has known at least all throughout his ministry what will happen in the end. If that is true then it doesn't make sense that anything in these regards would present a real temptation to Him. I would also have a problem (that others might not share) in regard to how such a view lessens the importance of penal substitution. It's one thing for Jesus to setup His own death belittling in our minds the importance of penal substitution as was the case in the instructional interpretation. It's a whole other ball game to suggest that Christ himself thought so little of penal substitution that he could have seriously considered a different route.

The fourth and final interpretation is what I'll simply call Bartsch's interpretation since he is the only person I'm aware that's looked at the passage this way. (For all the students and scholars out there the particular article you'll want to look for is called "The Sword - Word of Jesus" in Brethren Life and Thought vol. 19 (Summer 1974): 149-155.) Bartsch combines the peripetatic and revolutionary interpretations to come up with something that I feel is logically more consistent, but will probably make a lot of pacifists nervous (myself included). To begin, Bartsch assumes that Luke is writing his gospel after the first Jewish Roman War has happened when the temple was destroyed and many Jews and (Bartsch suspects) Christians as well. Luke is writing specifically in response to the early believers who found themselves in difficult situations. The believers wanted to know whether they were justified in their actions whether it was retreating from Jerusalem or defending it. Luke is applying the words of Jesus to a context to help teach the early Christians.

Bartsch believes that the first Jewish Roman War is the back drop for Christ's weeping over Jerusalem. Bartsch notes that Josephus called the Zealots "robbers." When Christ questions the priests who come to arrest Him in the garden He asks them if they came as if they were coming "as against a robber." Christ is crucified between two robbers. To make clear the point Bartsch is getting at, he thinks that Jesus identified in the end with the Zealots. The command to buy a sword was not meant for the immediate moment in which Peter used it rather it was meant for Christians during the first Jewish Roman War that would soon be upon them. Now before everyone starts accusing Bartsch of heresy for saying that Christ was promoting violence, I'd beg their attention for a little longer.

Bartsch recognizes that early Christians were very diverse. Clearly there were Christians who were quite wealthy although these were very few. Most Christians were poor slaves or former slaves. To up and move and retreat from the siege of Jerusalem, Bartsch believes was a luxury only the richer Christians could afford. The poorer Christians were stuck with the choice to sit in Jerusalem and die or defend the city. Bartsch claims that Christ by dying as one identified with the Zealots does not justify violence, but the violent Christian may be assured that Christ is in solidarity with them as He was in solidarity with the Zealots at His arrest and crucifixion. It is in this sense that Christ is understanding when we are sometimes forced to take sides on things. Two important points that I'll directly quote Bartsch on are:

(1) Jesus does not justify violence or the use of arms, because he reckons the bearer of a sword, the "have-not," to the transgressors of Isaiah 53:12. There is no justification of killing a human being by any national or revolutionary war. Therefore we must be aware that our participating in the activities of a liberation movement by our support means participating in transgression of the Law.
(2) Jesus takes sides with the Zealots by saying that he himself will be reckoned with the outlaws, the criminals, the transgressors (the many possibilities of translations of the Greek word!). And he wanted to be reckoned among them, because this was the will of his Father. Therefore we must not be afraid to become involved in the activities of the liberation movements as we have to be afraid to be already involved in the oppression of these peoples and partly also in the war waged against them. We have to take sides as Jesus did.

The connection to the Jewish Roman War is a crucial and meaningful one that is insightful to the controversial command being investigated in these interpretations. The social power dynamics of the time between early Christians has been taken for granted and Bartsch remedies that by calling us to consider the how social standing limited the options of response for different groups of Christians. However, I think that Bartsch comes on too strong for Jesus' identification with the Zealots. Jesus associated with a variety of people: a centurion, soldiers, the rich young ruler, pharisees(11:37, 14:1), tax collectors (Matthew and Zacchaeus), zealots (Simon), skeptics (Thomas), charismatics (Peter), children, the poor, the disabled, women, and maybe more I'm not recalling. While it is certainly helpful and needed for Christians today to think what it means for Christ to have associated with such a diverse population of people, Bartsch is going too far in this particular connection. Christ condones thoughtless zealous violence when he rebukes Peter's use of the sword and earlier when he rebukes the disciples for wanting to destroy a town (9:51). Christ was given other opportunities when He could have taken a more directly Zealous stance if that was who He intended to identify with. Specifically, one would think that if Christ wanted to associate with the Zealots then the Pharisee's question about paying taxes should have succeeded in trapping Him.

Where I stand on this passage considering all of these views I'm not very certain of. Bartsch succeeds in many areas where the others fall short, but I don't agree with the aggressiveness to which He wants to identify Christ with the Zealots. I think that Bartsch's interpretation provides another significant obstacle for those who maintain that Christ was nonviolent and/or pacifist. I don't think that Christ came to model a definite alternative way of living. Too many people no matter where they lie politically have tried to use Christ to speak for their system. Christ's nonviolent temperament has important ethical implications for Christians that Christians need to take seriously even if that nonviolence is not presented consistently in Scripture. I want to treat pacifistic and nonviolent trends in Christ's life like Barth treats the Bible: it's very very very important and deserves great and deep respect, but one can not take it as the last word or else it replaces God and God must be able to speak new and fresh to every context which may sometimes appear to contradict whatever we hold to be sacrosanct. I say this gritting my teeth very aware of the tendency people have to impose upon it some postmodern meaning that frees them from responsibility for misbehavior, so I must stand by that view as a mystery to be contended with in my relationship with God, the Church and my neighbor.

New Blogs and Cool Articles

2008-10-21T01:57:00.004-04:00

My Internet Tracks:
1. What they REALLY mean...
2. Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours?
3. The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church: And the Causes Which Hinder It
4. The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ
5. Dr. Stephanie Bennett's Blog
6. Under the Grace

Link 1 is courtesy of Jacob's Well on Campus. It's something Nate posted a while back that I knew I wanted to pass on, but didn't have enough to say about it. It's a clever and convicting article on church politics. I know I've been on both sides of that article and God has convicted me about letting Him work while I follow.

Links 2 and 3 were posted in a recent entry in Alan Hirsch's blog. I haven't had time to read the books those links go to, but I trust Hirsch and am always up for books written by dead guys especially when the books are so old that they're in the public domain. That's a good sign it's a classic and well worth reading.

Links 4-6 are some blogs I've recently discovered that I've added to my blogroll. From skimming the content they look to be very solid and challenging. I'm looking forward to following them and encourage others to check them out.

That's all for now. I'll probably have another post this weekendish as I'll be turning in a paper this week that I will probably try and mine a post out of.

Driscoll Cliffnotes #5: Jonah 4

2008-10-13T10:46:00.003-04:00

I listened to this one that I downloaded a long time ago. The audio for this sermon is no longer available. Driscoll's original sermon series on Jonah was preached during August and September of 2002. I assume they took it down when the campus pastors repreached Jonah this year. I haven't listened to those ones yet, but from looking at the sermon titles I assume they are not much different in content from the 2002 series.

In classic Driscoll fashion, Pastor Mark reveals a great amount of humor in Jonah Chapter 4. Jonah is the fundie preacher of all fundie preachers. He's self-righteous, knows God's mercy and gets mad at God for being merciful, and he's racist. For some reason God knowing Job's character decides to use Jonah (this mind boggling considering Jonah's about as far from the most effective messenger imaginable) to bring a message of coming condemnation to the Ninevites (sp?). So Jonah is you basic fire and brimstone fundie street preacher that is completely uninterested in allowing God to show mercy to a nation he thinks needs to be blotted off the face of the planet for the betterment of the whole world.

Knowing how God ends up saving the Ninevites and confronting Jonah about his attitude reveals a lot about the character of God. God is more merciful and loving than we could possibly imagine. He is more gracious than we could ever deserve. God is a great Father to all of us children despite our very childish behavior. Read Jonah 4 and check out one of the new sermons on it. God bless.

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

2008-10-11T09:10:00.004-04:00

[I'm cheating once again and using a reformatted version of an assignment as a blog post. Nonetheless, enjoy!]

“I believe... in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” This part of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed seems to me, through a survey of Christian history, able to provide a model for the Church's understanding of itself through time. Despite the many splits that have happened since the time of the apostles even the split off portions maintain to some extent this view of themselves. Each Christian body that separates themselves from the whole body of believers agrees with the parts about being “One, Holy and Catholic.” They disagree on what it means to be “Apostolic.”

Christians throughout the ages have agreed that there is one Church. There is one Christ and Christ is head over one body. In the Gospel of John, John records a prayer of Jesus' for believers everywhere asking that the believers may be “one just as We are one” (Joh. 17:22-23). Before Constantine that body was for the most part visible and after Constantine it became invisible as Christian identity became a matter of Roman identity. If one was Roman then one was Christian. Christians after Constantine had to take it on faith that there was one body being worked through. Nonetheless, this has always been (so far as we've studied) an uncontroversial doctrine throughout Christian history.

The Church is holy. Not only did Jesus give us an example to follow and that the disciples called the church to live by, but the authors of the New Testament gave instructions on what kind of behavior can be tolerated and what kinds of behavior is not tolerated. There is an ethical code that goes along with identifying oneself as a follower of Christ. John in Revelation writes to the church in Ephesus how it is good that they hate the practices of the Nicolaitians. The Nicolaitians are what we might today call “grace freeloaders.” The Nicolaitians believed that because Christ died for all sin it gave them a license to do whatever they wanted. There are many groups that are like this in practice if not also in word and yet they still would hold that the Church is holy by the merit of Christ's work on the cross. The early church had a Christian ethic that we would consider today to be legalistic. The early church fathers and church orders give evidence of a strong sense of duty to following the teachings of Christ often well beyond what we would consider Biblical. How holy is defined and what it takes to be holy has been an issue, but generally not that the church is called to be holy.

The Church is catholic (catholic meaning universal not Roman Catholic). This doctrine goes hand in hand with the church is one. Twice does John in Revelation mention the population of Heaven including “every, tribe, people, and language” (Rev. 5:9 and 7:9). The new testament notes that the gospel will be proclaimed to “every, tribe, people and language” (Mat. 28:19; Mar. 16:15,20; Luk. 24:47; Joh. 17:18; Rev. 14:6). Paul proclaims to the Galatians that there is “neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female — for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). The Church has tried hard to recognize this even in the midst of division. The Eastern Church did not agree with the writings of St. Augustine. They didn't appreciate the addition of filioque and many other parts of later creeds nevertheless they persisted with the Western Church for a millenium before the Great Schism finally took place. When the Protestant Reformation took place Luther still considered himself Catholic. There were stages in expecting that the Reformation split could be healed, that Lutherans/Zwinglians/Genevans could reach agreements. In our current postmodern age ecumenism is once again a part of the vision being striven for by many Christians from many churches and denominations. The body of Christ transcends physical, geographical, and political boundaries.

The Church is apostolic. The apostolic nature of the church is where the main conflict within the Church has resided. A subtle shift over time occurred from apostolic as signifying the missionary impulse to apostolicity of doctrine. By apostolicity of doctrine I mean the handing down of doctrine becomes the tradition through popes and church leaders. Hans Küng (a Roman Catholic church historian and theologian) thinks continuity and change while being contradictory in the Church is also mutually affirming. While there is much continuity in being “one, holy and catholic,” what one means by being apostolic necessarily changes as the Holy Spirit leads.

Splits in the church often revolved around some person or group getting what they may have perceived to be a fresh look at what the Church's apostolic nature was supposed to look like. These splits involved orthodoxical and orthopraxical differences. That is to say they believed different things and lived different ways according to their perceptions. However, the continuity of the Church, on both sides of the split, maintaining it's own apostolic identity betrays the apparent split. Reformers do not have the “right” view of the Church or the mission of the Church in an exclusive sense, rather they have the view that the Holy Spirit has impressed upon them. They leave behind, in their new endeavors, many Christians that are legitimately apart of expressing the apostolic mission of the Church as it remains without them. To some extent the variety of beliefs and practices within the Church reflect the health of the Church. As Paul described it, “But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? So now there are many members, but one body” (1 Cor. 12:18-20). The apostolic nature of the Church should present many different faces because there are many different functions the body must perform.

The Church cannot afford to allow apostolic differences reflect into beliefs about the natures of the Church being one, holy and catholic. While the one, holy and catholic natures are essentials to be agreed upon by all Christians because of their scriptural and historical truth, the truth of the apostolic nature lies in its ability to be manifested in diverse ways. So as for myself, “I believe... in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

Driscoll Cliffnotes #4: The Peasant Princess #1

2008-09-25T23:40:00.003-04:00

So, this will be out of order. I did see Pray Like Jesus Part 4: The High Priestly Prayer Pt. 1, while it was great and recommended to watch I just didn't have anything to say about it beyond that. I haven't watched Part 2 of the High Priestly Prayer, but I do have it on my computer so maybe I'll get to it this weekend.

This last Sunday Pastor Mark began the new series on The Song of Solomon. It's definitely one of his funniest sermons because he really likes to talk about sexual issues in the context of the Bible. As someone who has read many books on the subject as a youth none of it was very new or even a good reminder for me, but I'd still recommend people see it. I wanted to make sure I caught it more than anything because early last week he blogged about having his wife Grace with him on stage. This was the first time I'd seen her and I thought it was cool to see the "suitable helper" that's "one flesh" with my favorite preacher. They are an absolutely adorable couple. They took some questions at the end that might especially be helpful to some people dealing with some tough issues. God bless.

Gospel, Mission and Church

2008-09-14T18:03:00.005-04:00

Hope Like Mad posted a couple of links to some articles from Christianity Today in his most recent blog entry. The one that really interested me is entitled Missional Misstep by David Fitch. In it Fitch discusses how we can tend to grow and shrink the gospel relative to what we want our audience to believe. By grow and shrink I mean that a big gospel includes varying levels of commitment to social justice issues, ecumenism, and other Christ-like scriptural things that aren't explicitly tied to the crucifixion. Small gospel is the bare bones, credal Christianity that speaks about sin and personal salvation. Big gospel is attractive to people that want things fixed in their own lives or to help fix things in peoples lives and can take away from the centrality of Christ in the gospel. Small gospel is abstract and doesn't connect repentence and salvation in a way that delivers people from sin.

A lot of emerging churches are emphasizing big gospel to the detriment of solidly connecting people with the Savior whom they're modelling. However, the emergent movement has come about in some part as a response to traditional mainline churches and denominations that are only concerned with the small gospel. Fitch's article interested me because he argues that we can and should preach the small gospel and let the big gospel be evident in our church and mission.

The picture displayed at the top of this post is one that will appear familiar to many evangelicals. It's a simple diagram used to explain man's relation to God as a way to present the gospel. Fitch points out that the diagram is missing some very key elements. He states:

We have not yet pinpointed what a four spiritual laws diagram or bridge illustration (in which Christ "bridges" the chasm between man and God) might look like for our missional community. Nonetheless, after many conversations, I believe any such tool must accomplish at least two things. First, such an evangelistic tool must lead the new believer in the back-and-forth motion between the bigness of God's salvation for the world and what he wants to do "for us": forgive our sins and shape us in the image of his Son. In other words, such a tool should begin with 2 Corinthians 5:19 ("that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them"), move to the personal John 3:16, and go back again...

Second, this evangelistic tool must function from within the context of the community's life, because it is only here that the words and pictures we share take on flesh and make sense. In post-Christendom settings in which people have no language to comprehend the gospel, an evangelistic tool can make the gospel seem like another lofty idea for achieving a better life. The gospel therefore should not be separated from real lives engaged in living the mission. It is the community that translates the mission of God, through tiny acts of loving one another and the world around us. The community becomes a necessary part of "the bridge."

The diagram is missing where the church and the mission of the church connect to God's redemptive purposes. One who comes to Christ on the pitch of personal salvation does not get shown the necessity of being a part of the Body of Christ which is manifested to some extent in the visible Church. It is Christ who forgive and redeems and the church provides the context for recognizing and working one's salvation out as a part of the whole body engaged in the same activity. We can do the faux pious bit about "everyone is a sinner in need of a savior including myself," but if that isn't accompanied with real accountability and honesty about the spiritual mess that we are then we're preaching an abstract, individualistic, selfish, unhelpful gospel. The big gospel meets the small gospel in affirming the hard and politically incorrect truths of the New Testament while living the example of Christ and the apostles.

Band of Brothers

2008-09-03T19:17:00.003-04:00

This will not be a movie review. The following has been on my heart for awhile and I haven't determined to put it into writing until now.

Military metaphors are used in the New Testament on more than one occassion. Paul talks about the "armor of God" in Ephesians 6. There are many references to "spiritual warfare" throughout the New Testament and Revelation is filled with war imagery. When Paul and the other writers of the New Testament invoked war imagery it was a powerful lesson for the early believers. The early church was often persecuted by the Romans for not paying tribute to the Roman deities or to Caesar. So the early believers were familiar with the might of the Roman war machine.

Invoking this kind of imagery was a radically creative way of "turning the other cheek." These metaphors took something bad and, correctly applied by the faithful, it turned the table on those who wished them harm, resulting in a testament to the higher way of the Gospel. It got people to focus on how the Church could be an effective tool for God in their development of the spiritual disciplines God uses to accomplish His work through human vessels. When one thinks about soldiers and warfare, one thinks about national pride, self-discipline, courage, the heat of battle, one group conquering another, etc. These draw our attention to the realities of the spiritual warfare going on all around us all the time. The same spiritual warfare we are involved in everyday. Here I want to discuss another metaphor that I hope convicts the Church to act and address another problem.

There is something that the armed forces do better than the Church, in my opinion. During training camp the armed forces learn to trust each other and put their differences aside for the duty to their country. They learn to trust each other so well and appreciate each other so much that it isn't uncommon that when one soldier is injured or killed in battle others will risk their own lives to bring them to safety to be treated or buried. The armed forces call this policy "No man left behind."

The Church does not have a policy of "No man left behind," in fact, we often intentionally involve ourselves in lethal friendly fire. We've grown to care so much about truth that we've managed to mortally wound grace so it stays hospitalized when we're out rampaging about. The grace is still there we claim, but it's a weak grace that doesn't ever reflect the saving grace we share in. How can we really reach out to the world when we don't have a clue how to exhibit the grace that Christ modelled? I've asked many conservative pastors things like, "Do you believe there are Christian Catholics?" I've yet to find one that doesn't believe you can believe differently than them and still be a Christian. Now, I expect there are quite a few pastors out there that are so full of truth and so empty on grace that they could draw for everyone the doctrinal lines God uses to write names into the "Lamb's Book of Life." But for the majority of even conservative Christians it seems that there exist Christians outside of their theological convictions.

How one responds to the Gospel is the only Biblical requirement for being in the body of Christ that I'm aware of. Still, many of us have more interest in drawing lines in the sand and shoving brothers and sisters past the line than realizing the lines we draw only corner ourselves in. God doesn't care about our line drawing. He knows how everything works out and how He designed the Body of Christ to function. I'm not saying don't bother to be convicted of certain doctrines or theologies, but realize that the majority of issues one decides on have nothing to do with the Gospel. No individual, church or denomination can be the Body of Christ alone. Reaching the world for Christ, we have to realize that there are people we won't connect with. That might just be because we aren't the part of the Body that they were meant to interact with. However, if we admit denominations we have very little in common with are being at least a little effective in the Great Commission then how dare we bad mouth them to the other parts of the Body or, even worse, the world. "A house divided can not stand." We SHOULD be amazed when anyone comes to Christ because it IS a sure sign that it is Christ's work and no one else's. His Body, the Church, is too much a mess to do anything productive.

I'm not asking for tolerance. Tolerance is not love. Real love for our brothers and sisters with different theological preferences exhibits grace. It demonstrates faith in the One who has ordered His Body. We can't merely tolerate each other. That would mean we are not really committed to loving them and laboring with them as a part of the Body of Christ. The world can distinguish between tolerance and a love so powerful that unites the un-uniteable.

A lot of us will be very ashamed when we get to a Heaven so much bigger and more diverse than we imagined. Instead of cutting each other to ribbons with our idea of truth, how about we realize how simple the Gospel is and start living a grace that transcends superficial soteriological distinctions. When the world sees an embodied grace and love pouring forth like they've only heard about in our own scriptures, could they really fail to notice who the true Head of this Body is? I think it highly unlikely.

God may we be one Body that leaves no one behind. Reveal to us the blinders we've attached and help us take them off to see Your great and glorious work. Break our hearts for our pitiable state and the terrible state the world is in. Forgive us for how we've grieved You. Forgive us for ignoring the great love You have showed the world. Forgive us for not being the transformative power in this world You've called us to be. May we come with humble hearts confessing to each other our wrongs, reconciling our wretched pasts, and moving forth in grace and love. Remind us of the example of truth and grace that Your Son is to us. May we strive to be like Him individually and corporately. Amen.

God bless.

mewithoutYou Lyrics Part 1

2008-08-22T13:40:00.003-04:00

Album: Brother, Sister
Song: A Glass Can Only Spill What it Contains

I promised in my initial post to get around to reflecting on lyrics that I liked. While I've had many ideas for posts I just haven't been in the mood to hammer any of them out. Now seemed as good a time as any to begin lyrical reflections.

This is one of my favorite mewithoutYou songs because it's always challenging to me. The song begins:

a cat came drifting onto my porch from the outside cold and with eyes closed, drinking warm milk from my bowl, thought:

"nobody hears me!
nobody hears me!
I crept in so soft!
and nobody sees me!
nobody sees me!"

as I watched six steps off

like the peacock wandering the walkways of the zoo who have twice the autonomy the giraffes and the tigers do, saying:

"no one can stop me,
no one can stop me,
no one clips my claws!
now everyone watch me
everyone watch me
scale these outside walls!"

These simple oft ignored traits and actions of animals put in this context really bring to light the silliness of our own actions. When we are like the cat thinking that we are able to provide for ourselves or get away with things without the knowledge of others we must remember that there is a Heavenly Father standing "six feet off" watching the whole thing. Or if we are like the proud peacock we would do well to be reminded of our very finite state. We can't scale the walls of our world. Our cleverness and beauty does not impress God. He created us. We are the mark of something so much greater and more beautiful than ourselves. He continues to love and support us even when we do not give Him the credit for His great kindness and grace.

The lyrics continue:

Oh, you pious and profane put away your praise and blame
"a glass can only spill what it contains"
To the perpetually plain and the incurably inane a glass can only spill what it contains

Whether we are filled with piety or profanity, whether we exhibhit the status quo or something more radical it hardly matters when these things are our own creations. "A glass can only spill what it contains." If we are filled with ourselves, however simple or complex we may be, we will only be able to exhibit our own brokenness painted to be something pretty. As Christ said,

Matthew 23:27 "Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean.
NET Bible

what new mystery is this?
what blessed backwardness??
the Immeasurable One is held and does not resist!
struck by wicked words and foolish fists of seneseless men the Almighty One does not defend!

If we really think about the title and main lyric of the song then what should we learn from it considering what was in Christ's glass? This question is stunning in its forcefulness! Christ didn't strut his stuff when he was in great trouble and despair. He took it humbly and meekly "like a lamb to the slaughter." If He is our Savior and the Head of the Church what should that mean for what it looks like when the contents of our and the Chruch's glass spill forth?

I was halfway listening to what she thinks she knows
We're like children dressing in our parents' clothes, saying:

I really like the "parents' clothes" line. Too often we pretend to be something that we're not imagining we are much greater than we really are. And when we imagine how great it is to be so much bigger than we are it is always uninformed. We think of the happy things and good things, but rarely do we consider the struggle and pain that it takes to get that far in life. I especially like how this connects to how we so often are ready to think of ourselves as God. We don't usually if ever intentionally do it, but God is so much more than we imagine. We can dream and think of ourselves as powerful and in control, but absolute power, absolute control, perfect love, and so many of God's other attributes have great personal cost to Him. We are lucky to have a God that is everything that He is and that went to the lengths He did to reconcile His creation because His wrath is very justified. I can't imagine even the most care free hippy not being able to restrain the kind of anger that our constant betrayal and ungratefulness toward God would stir up in anyone less than God.

"Nobody knows me,
nobody knows me,
no one knows my name,
nobody knows me,
nobody knows me,
nobody knows me

I half heartedly explained but gave up peacefully ashamed
a glass can only spill what it contains
we went to Portugal and Spain and in her mind the entire time it rained!
a glass can only spill what it contains

Even our ability to mope and be depressed is something that comes out of our glass. Just like the cat, the one who knows us fully is right there. We say that no one knows us like we expect someone to have as good a grasp of ourselves as God does or even we do. We think we know so much about ourselves and so our identity becomes a source of pride. We look just as silly as the peacock. If our identity is in Christ then we have no pride. It is Christ's identity and His only to be proud of. Give people a break. We are all alike. We all are broken and none of us are going to know the other as well as we might wish they would. Jesus befriended people He knew would betray Him. What spilled out of His glass was a love that was bigger than the sin He would encounter. There is no sin that can come against us that the Spirit cannot equip us to answer overwhelmingly in love. We have nothing to fear in this world when we are a part of Christ because He fills us up with enough to deal with what we will encounter.

what new mystery is this? in overflowing emptiness the Invisible is seen among the shadows and the mist, before my doubting eyes the Infinite appears in time - the Unquestionable is questioned but makes no reply!

what new mystery is this?!
"my Rabbi!"
my lips betray with a kiss

what new mystery is this?

If we do not realize how Jesus is so much more than a moral teacher then we do betray Him. Yet, I think this is exactly what the majority of those who claim to be Christians think He is: just a good moral teacher. The lesson in this song is going to be a new mystery because those who claim to follow Him do not contain the same thing that Jesus did. It is a new mystery because the Church, for many of us, has not mirrored Jesus as it is supposed to. We are left to figure out for ourselves, individually and as the Church, this very old mystery in a new way. "A glass can only spill what it contains." How do we model Jesus? What does it mean to model Jesus? What does it mean to be a follower of Him? What does it mean that He is the head and we are the body? The answer will trouble us initially until our identity rests solely in Him instead of us trying to pridefully claim some portion of ourselves for ourselves. After that we will know true freedom and love. Then we will really see the power of the Cross. God bless.

Augustine on Free Will

2008-08-12T22:29:00.004-04:00

Sorry, couple days late of my normal update time. Don't have a lot of time to spend hammering out thoughts as school gets closer and crunch time sets in to get prepared. For me mostly this means getting paper extensions finished before I'm completely crushed by seminary work. So I'm kind of cheating on this entry. A paper I recently finished compared ideas about free will between the Stoics and St. Augustine. This is a portion of the paper I wrote. I was actually surprised at how it turned out because I've never considered myself to be a huge fan of Augustine (nothing against him, just not a fan). Anyways, I thought initially the paper would turn out with me showing how Augustine didn't fully logically show how foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. Instead, I discovered that the pieces are in his writings to come up with a more solid argument for the coexistence of the two than I had previously expected.

As a caveat, this is not any endorsement on my part of Arminian theology just because I'm emphasizing the free will aspect. I consider myself as reformed as Mark Driscoll who in his talk about predestination referred to Augustine's brand that paradoxically allows for God's election and mankind's free will. This might help clear up a little how the two are possible if taken into consideration Driscoll's point about God electing those who chose Him. His sermon on the issue may be found here. Finally, if any Augustine scholars happen to read this and want to correct anything or everything they are more than welcome. I'm always a student even of the things I think I know. Now for Augustine.

St. Augustine addressed many Stoic and Stoic inspired ideas in his writings including their cosmology. Here discussion will be strictly limited to his view of free will. Augustine had a different view of free will that walks a fine line in attempting to balance apparent paradoxical attributes of God. Augustine wrote in On Christian Doctrine what maybe could be considered a proto-ontological argument for God’s existence that underscores what Augustine considered God to be. He states:

For when the one supreme God of gods is thought of, even by those who believe that there are other gods, and who call them by that name, and worship them as gods, their thought takes the form of an endeavor to reach the conception of a nature, than which nothing more excellent or more exalted exists… Or if they think that there is no one God supreme above the rest, but that there are many or even innumerable gods of equal rank, still these too they conceive as possessed of shape and form, according to what each man thinks the pattern of excellence… All, however, strive emulously to exalt the excellence of God: nor could any one be found to believe that any being to whom there exists a superior is God. And so all concur in believing that God is that which excels in dignity all other objects (Schaff 1092).

St. Augustine’s view of God is very different from the Stoics. Where the Stoics see God as the rational principle that orders the universe, Augustine sees God as the greatest imaginable being who cares deeply about His creation. Augustine lists throughout many of his works the various attributes of God some of which appear contradictory. For example in his Confessions he talks about God being, “ever active and ever at rest” (Augustine 45). The specific attribute that is relevant to Augustine’s view of free will is God’s omniscience.

God’s omniscience implies foreknowledge. That is, God by knowing everything, also knows what will happen to everyone and everything. The trouble with granting God foreknowledge is that our free will only becomes apparently so and not really free. It also begets many questions about God’s relationship with evil in the world, punishment, and salvation.

Understanding Augustine’s view of free will begins with determining what he thought to be the various causes in the universe. Augustine describes three different kinds of causes which all stem from various wills: fortuitous, material, and voluntary. Fortuitous is equivalent to what we would call luck. Augustine attributes the fortuitous cause to the will of God or spirits (angels and demons). The material cause is things that happen by the laws of nature. These are attributed to God’s will who ordered nature and gave it the laws He did. The cause that is most important for dealing with foreknowledge is the voluntary cause. Voluntary cause is determined by things with wills. A will wills something to happen, thus it is voluntarily caused by the originating will. These can be attributed to the will of God, spirits, men, and animals.

One might think it necessary that God’s foreknowledge means that the voluntary cause is really only attributable to God and not to man. As Augustine put it:

It is not the case, therefore, that because God foreknew what would be in the power of our wills, there is for that reason nothing in the power of our wills. For he who foreknew this did not foreknow nothing. Moreover, if He who foreknew what would be in the power of our wills did not foreknow nothing, but something, assuredly, even though He did foreknow, there is something in the power of our wills. Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of future things, which is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully and sincerely confess both (Schaff 212-213).

Augustine, recognizing man’s will as a cause, argues that God’s foreknowledge knows the causes of all things and thus knows how man’s will causes things. God’s foreknowledge does not interfere with man’s ability to will it is merely certain of how individuals will exercise their will. Earlier in the same passage Augustine says,

But assuredly He is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent (Schaff 212).

Using that same line of reasoning Augustine could have continued to make the case for the freedom of the will by stating that His justice is based on what He wills and not on what He merely tolerates. God tolerates men who do wrong and unjust things because it is according to the will of men that those things are done. God’s perfect justice occurs in how He responds to the wills of men. If men’s wills were really devoid of freedom and determined to do as God had created them to do then God could not be just or gracious because His response to men would be itself according to a plan and not His own will. Willing something implies creative action that affects the world. One does not say that a bowling ball wills pins to fall down when it hits them, but one does say that the bowler wills the throwing of the bowling ball. God’s will must reflect his love and justice as the bowler hurling the ball not as a ball hitting the pins. Thus, God’s foreknowledge really is simply knowledge and can not also be a “fore-will” that unjustly determines every choice men make because then God could not be called many of the other attributes He claims according to scripture.

Bibliography

Augustine. Confessions. Trans. John K. Ryan. New York: Doubleday, 1960.

Augustine. “On Christian Doctrine.” Schaff. Trans. J. F. Shaw. 1078-1249.

Augustine. “The City of God.” Schaff. Trans. Marcus Dods. 8-1077.

Schaff, Philip, ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Ser. 1. Vol. 2. Albany, NY: AGES Software, 1997.

Driscoll Cliffnotes #3: Pray Like Jesus Part 3

2008-08-04T19:09:00.005-04:00

Pray Like Jesus: The Gethsemane Prayer Video
He covers a variety of things one can learn from Jesus's prayer at Gethsemane and summarizes them well at the end with some questions. Here, I will discuss some of those questions.

Do you pray to get from God or to get God?
Do you pray to move God or for God to move you?
Do you pray to get out of pain or through it?
Do you courageously punctuate your prayers with “your will be done”?

One of the things that he discussed from last time was reemphasized here. Pagans pray in a way that treats God like the servant and they are God. I recently heard a quote by Voltaire that I think expresses this idea exactly, "If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor." If we are praying only to have God do things for us then we are not praying rightly and do not have a right relationship with God. God will do His will and we can choose to be a part of it in a way that recognizes his sovereignty or not. If we are not recognizing His sovereignty in the way we pray and the way we expect an answer and the way prayer transforms us then we are going to be in place that feels like God is against us.

One of the quotes that Pastor Mark said that really stuck out to me was (paraphrased), "Christianity doesn't guarantee that everything will be great from here on out. What it guarantees is that you won't be alone from here on out." With Christ beside us we have an intercessor that understands all of our problems and will walk with us through everything. Christ Himself had a will that was apparently different than God's, but because He was always submitted to the Father's will Christ and the Father acted of one will to accomplish the glorious purposes of the Father's plan for humanity's redemption. It is very important for our relationship with God to pray "your will be done" and mean it because that is Christlike prayer.

Do you ask your friends to pray for you even if you know they will fail?

One thing he emphasized is how important it is to practice asking for prayer nonetheless. He said something that was particularly meaningful to me about why should expect our friends to always have our back spiritually when we don't? I and others I've met have really high standards for what counts as a friend and because of these high standards and the often disappointing nature of friendships we feel alone a lot. If I'm honest with myself I realize I've dropped the ball my fair share as well. Jesus was disappointed by the people who were closest to Him, so when our friends do that to us we have a Savior who understands better than we can imagine. When our friends disappoint, we need to have grace and continue to be encouraging because that's what Jesus did and does today.

Do you know that knowing God’s will is far easier than walking in it?

This is the last question I'll address from his sermon. This question speaks exactly to the title of this blog and the theme I want to impress to my readers and myself. It's easy to dream big for God and it's easy to know the right answers. It's easy to know hard truths and know the path God has laid before you, but none of this compares to the difficulty of living what you know. There are books and Christian books for every topic, problem, idea, etc. under the sun and as much as we read about those things and study those things, none of that compares to knowledge gained through experience. It's one thing to counsel someone who's depressed and another to go through that and be able to help from experience. It's one thing to talk about racial reconciliation and entirely another to have friends of different ethnicities pushing through the awkward and difficult moments when something that seems so small suddenly seems like a whole other world. I still dream and study a lot and am not as bold as Paul yet to ask people to model me, but by God's grace I hope some day to be able to be as confident as Paul in my relationship with God and Christlikeness. God bless.

Shane Claiborne on Jesus's Radical Love

2008-08-03T13:22:00.007-04:00

My Internet Tracks
1: How to Tell People They Sound Racist Video
2: Comic about the History of Black-White Race Relations
3: Ghandi was Wrong

Before we get to Shane, I wanted to make sure I shared links one and two because I think they do a good job of briefly summarizing some important and not often thought of problems regarding race issues. I'll let them speak for themselves. Thanks to eliacin for posting those.

Now for Shane (link 3 will be discussed further down).

Shane Claiborne is unfortunately one of the few Christians I see or hear talk and am immediately reminded of Christ. This video is a sermon he gave where he shares lots of little stories that will make great illustrations for any pastors out there that want them. More importantly, the insight Shane has into some of the less noticed parts of the Gospel is great.

For example, in Matthew 17:24-27 the temple priests come to collect the temple tax. Christ notes that only foreigners pay taxes not the children of the ones collecting the taxes. He notes this to Peter because He and Peter know that Jesus is the Son of God who the Temple is meant to honor. The Priests don't understand this, of course, but Christ foregoes his own right not to pay it so as not to bother the locals and give people more reason to dislike Him. Instead, he tells Peter to go catch a fish and it will have the appropriate coin in its mouth. How cool is this? He could have had Judas pay for it from the purse, but he didn't want to burden the community for this simple thing. He could have had an angel bring him the tax or enough money for everyone. He doesn't do any of that. Having Peter fish the coin out of a fish is Christ showing himself as God. The priests can have their man made coin and Christ will get the man made coin from his God-made fish!

One more example, remember how Christ heals the blind man? He spits on the ground, makes some mud and smears it over the guys eyes. How wild is that? Who would ever think to do that? When God says he can raise up followers from stones, He's not kidding. But don't we take it too lightly God's ability to do the very thing? Christ demonstrates His ability to do amazing things with the lowliest and simplest things when He heals the blind man. God really is very creative; not only in the sense of having the power to create, but in making some of the most harebrained ideas work.

Check out the video. Shane Claiborne is a delight to listen to and God is workign through him in a mighty way.

One of the things that Shane mentions and one often hears from the Emergent crowd is Gandhi's advice, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Link 3 had a great little analysis of this comment from a Christian ethical perspective. To sum it up, Gandhi was wrong. He was wrong because that comment focuses on the individual (you) determining subjectively how the world should look and being stubborn about living out your ideals. As Christians, the focus is not supposed to be on us as a foundation for anything, rather God should be the foundation for our actions. Brandon Rhodes in his article argues that for Christians it should be, "Be the change God will work in the world."

Early next week, as always, expect a review of the most recent Driscoll sermon and God bless.

Driscoll Cliffnotes #2: Pray Like Jesus Part 2

2008-07-29T01:52:00.004-04:00

Pray Like Jesus: The Lord's Prayer Video
Pastor Mark continued the sermon series on prayer this week. Much of the sermon reemphasized the importance of seeing God as our Father. he went through the Lord's Prayer step by step to explain the importance of each part and how it reflects an important part of our relationship with "Dad." Much of the sermon reminded me of a quote by E.M. Bounds:

Prayer is not me getting God to do what I want. Nor is prayer God getting me to do what He wants. Prayer is me getting God to do what He wants.

When we are in relationship with a Father whom we love and who loves us prayer does not work like a competition between our will and His. Rather, prayer is a loving child being faithfully obedient to a loving Father. The will of the one praying becomes aligned with the Father's will out of trust and humility. In true prayer we're searching for what God would have us pray and not what we want to pray for. This is the difference between being in the spirit instead of the flesh. If we pray for what we deem to be important then we have not disposed ourselves to the Holy Spirit and our being fleshly. Only until we surrender ourselves to the Holy Spirit do we pray correctly and grow in relationship with our Heavenly Father.

Things That Inspire

2008-07-27T18:36:00.002-04:00

In the youth group I'm helping with on Sunday mornings we're taking time these next few weeks to share with each other the various things that inspire us. We began today so last night I tried to think of what inspired me. I discovered there are four basic categories of things I find inspirational and all of them remind of what is right about Christianity. By that I mean it either reminds me of how the Church can and should be or it reminds me of Christ.

First, any large group of people of one mind. For example an auditorium or field filled with thousands of fans chanting during a concert. Or pit of a few hundred people demolishing each other at a metal concert. Maybe a stadium filled with fans and all you can see everywhere is a sea of one color anticipating a win. It doesn't matter what they're doing whether its constructive like singing praise songs or destructive like mauling each other in a pit. I find it inspirational because every individual in that crowd is displaying their ability to be focused on one thing. It reminds me of the great potential in every person to worship Jesus and forces me to imagine a world that one day will do just that. It inspires me to be a light around me and show more people the Cross. It gives me certainty that Heaven will be unimaginably awesome.

Second, any person that in a moment displays great passion that you can tell is taking up their whole mind and soul really inspires me. Some examples of this are metal screamers that put everything into the song. Maybe an amazing sports performance. I'm reminded of the game Brett Favre played after his father died and being in awe at how into that he was. These passionate moments remind me of my Savior who was passionate about truth, love, grace, justice, mercy, about His creation, His people, and about glorifying His Father. Jesus was so passionately in love with me that He died on a cross to save me. Remembering this I'm inspired to be more like Him no matter how dirty and broken I am.

Third, any person that displays great humility inspires me. When I see secular or religious leaders who are in a position to pass the blame or make excuses or pick a fight and instead they choose to submit to the criticism and ask for forgiveness that reminds me of the great humility of Jesus. When I see people like Shane Claiborne or Aaron Weiss of mewithoutYou humility is such a part of their demeanor that I can't help being reminded of Jesus. Jesus is the ultimate example of humility and serving others. I'm reminded when I see these people and instances how important it is to come to serve rather than be served as is much easier and more natural to me.

Finally, someone persevering against great odds and at great cost. The movie Rudy is a good example. Most superhero and serious sports movies find a way to catch this dynamic. There's also the famous video clips you'll see at church or Promise Keepers of the guy running and the Olympics and messes up his leg to finish with his Dad's help or the Dad that runs marathons and triathelons with his handicapped son. These remind of a Savior that persevered through great temptation and great emotional and physical pain to give man a way that doesn't lead to eternal death. It reminds of a church history that has seen millions persevere for Christ's name through martyrdom for His glory. I am challenged to persevere and take up my cross and follow Christ every day.

All of these things that inspire me speak of some great truths. The first truth I am reminded of is that every person on this planet is an image bearer of God. God created everyone in His image and so we often can't help but act like Him whether we are glorifying Him or rejecting Him. Second, is that Jesus is awesome. Who could dream of a more perfect savior? I can't imagine what anyone more perfect than Jesus would be like. Finally, God wants and deserves all the glory due Him. It's not enough to dream about how the church might be different or how we might bring the world to Christ. There must be action. We can't dream as big as God can. Our best thoughts are not as great as God's plans. God wants people that follow Him. Take inspiration from the broken world around you and let that inspire you all the more on the path God has placed before you to tread. God bless.

Driscoll Cliffnotes #1: Pray Like Jesus Part 1

2008-07-21T18:31:00.003-04:00

Pray Like Jesus Part 1 Video
The new sermon series has begun! For the next three weeks (four part series) Pastor Mark will be preaching on prayer and how Christ modelled prayer. One of the things that I was reminded of in this sermon is the Father-son dynamic in prayer. God is our Father. He loves us very very much. He is the perfect Father. He knows everything that's going on in our lives and wants us to include him in every part so He may help us get through things and grow closer to Him at the same time. He wants to hear every little thing that's on our minds. Especially the little things because the little things turn into the big things. We shouldn't be afraid of talking to God or that we need to measure up before talking to Him. It's hard to build a relationship with someone you don't need anything from other than approval.

This is something I'm going to try very hard to keep in mind this week. What does it mean for God to be my Father? It means I can and should talk to Him always about everything. It means that I need to take time to listen to Him. It means I need to pray the prayers that feel insincere because those prayers show that I at least have that relationship and conversation with Him on my mind.

Pastor Mark also described some of what happened on his recent travels. One of the things he did was to talk to a large group of pastors that came from over 50 nations around the world. I was thinking what that experience would be like and I'm fairly certain I wouldn't be able to do it. I would be in such awe about seeing such an amazing representation of Christ's Body I'd probably break down and cry. That room represents people from every background that claim Christ as Savior. That room represents the work of God going on around the world. That room represents the plan of God to bring more people into his body. WOW!

Listen to the sermon if you can. Pastor Mark doesn't disappoint. God is awesome.

Miscellany

2008-07-20T22:03:00.004-04:00

My Internet Tracks:

1) Frank Schaeffer's Protest Against Protestantism: A Protestant Response
2) Christian Thinking
3) Preaching: God's Way to Reformation and Revival
4) Early Christians and the Military (forum thread)
5) The Early Christian Attitude to War by C. John Cadoux
6) Bonhoeffer? (forum thread)
7) Karl Barth and his value to conservative thought (forum thread)
8) Chad Hall's Review of The New Christians and Vintage Jesus
9) Tony Jones's response to Hall's review
10) Mark Driscoll's response to Hall's review

This really will be a miscellany of thoughts. Not to worry though, Driscoll preached his first sermon in his new series "Praying like Jesus" today so that will get posted to Mars Hill Church's website and I intend to watch it and let you how awesome it was. Now for the miscellany.

The Resurgence Blog has tons of great articles on all kinds of topics and a lot of the articles aren't even pansy 2 page short thoughts on stuff type articles. Link #1 is an interesting article about why Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis Schaeffer) left Protestantism for Eastern Orthodoxy and a Protestant response to some of his reasons. Very interesting for me as Eastern Orthodoxy is not commonly discussed amongst Protestants when we talk about non-Protestant denominations. I've been studying the Eastern Orthodox church a lot lately and have been very impressed with some of their theology and writing. Some of their theologians' writings almost feel like you're reading scripture. This isn't a glowing endorsement of the Eastern Orthodox Church because there are many points I find in complete disagreement about, but there is much we could learn from them as well. In the article linked there are some interesting scriptural arguments for Protestantism I've never encountered before that were encouraging.

Links 2-3: John Armstrong is one of the big guys in the Christian unity movements I blogged about last time. I discovered that he has several things he's written from the last 10+ years posted on The Resurgence Blog. These two articles were written by him and are great short reads. I passed them on to my dad and wish more Protestants and especially Protestant pastors would take their challenges to heart.

In Christian Thinking, Armstrong discusses the anti-intellectuallism pervading the church and makes a case for taking more seriously the place of reason in our faith. Reason shouldn't be the antithesis of faith. In a bunch of reading I did recently regarding the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I stumbled upon a great deal of writing that encouraged the Church to use their reasoning in the application of what they've been taught and in evangelizing. The Early Church was very diverse much like the church today, but the Early Church didn't seem to fear hard questions and hard truths like many Christians today.

In the Preaching article, Armstrong digs into the way sermons are delivered today. In seminaries and bible college the courses you take to learn to preach are more like rhetoric and speech classes. These classes are very practical and pragmatic and because of their practical nature many pastors end up turning to most amazing truths of our faith into weekly reminders we throw off once we're out the door. Sermons really have gotten too gimicky. The dramatic pauses, structure, illustrations, humor, etc. are becoming too much a hindrance to what are supposed to be transformative truths. Pastors need to learn to go back to Paul and speak the truth without "fancy and persuasive words." When was the last time you heard a dangerous sermon? Don't most sermons come across as gentle reminders anymore? Transformative sermons speak to the power of God to change our lives by showing with no pretty terms the depth of our depravity and need for Him and what He offers.

Links 4-5: Early Christian attitudes toward war is a very challenging and complex topic. Non-Anabaptists (everyone but Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, etc.) have little idea how much they take for granted their views about war and military service. I'm not going to say the early church was wholly devoted to pacifism because the jury is still out for me. There is very little amongst the early church fathers that is directly said about military service and war. All of what is said is against it. More importantly though, the rest of the church fathers that don't directly address it speak so much of peace and love you'd think you were talking to a Mennonite anyways. The evidence is much in favor of early church pacifism, but there are still some significant holes that need filled in that I haven't found in the arguments of Christian pacifists. Those that engage in studying this issue will find themselves very challenged in their own views on what Christlikeness is.

Links 6-7: Karl Barth (pronounced Bart) is definitely one of the coolest theologians to have ever lived. He worked hard in his theology to let God be God an to show the difference between Creator and Creation. Link 7 is a great introduction to the thought of Barth's theology. Link 6 was a response to the Barth thread. As interesting as Barth is I've always expected that I'd agree even more with Bonhoeffer. Hopefully over the next couple weeks one or two of the members of that forum will discuss the basics of Bonhoeffer's theology and the ways in which it differs from Barth. I don't expect it to differ hugely because Barth got a young Bonhoeffer away from the liberal theologies being taught in his day, so both of them are conservative, but I expect Bonhoeffer will appeal more to my philosophical mind (which isn't to suggest that Barth is an easy read by any means ;) ).

Links 8-10: Discussion I discovered today about Driscoll's book Vintage Jesus and Emerging church leader Tony Jones's book The New Christians. I have no plans to read either. Driscoll's book is basic answers to basic questions and as one who is about to head to seminary I'm hoping I should know those answers by now. And well... Tony Jones is Tony Jones. That is to say he's one of the big dogs in the Emerging Church movement. For those who are unaware of this movement, it's a lot of people that have grown tired of the traditional church institutions and have began to question just about everything about Christianity in order to make it more relevant to current generations. That's a very broad generalization as there are many emergent types who don't quite fit that exact definition, but there's too much to say about that at this time. Needless to say, the dangerous types of emergents which are the kind generally discussed in those who know and discuss the movement are those that have been heavily influenced by a school of philosophy called Deconstruction.

Deconstruction is postmodern in every scary sense of the term that you've probably been told about. It really has no place in Christendom and these emergents by engaging in this particular school of thought only show themselves to be philosophical hacks. Deconstructionism and postmodernism are very out of fashion right now in philosophy. What is in fashion is modernism and critical modernism. Modernism is not much better than postmodernism. Modernism is what the atheist and science glorfiying philosophers are very engaged in. American culture is actually hardly postmodern at all and very much modern. Critical modernism is where things are really exciting right now.

History of Philosophy Lesson #1:
After the middle ages and the medieval philosophers like Aquinas, Ockham, the scholastics, jewish and muslim philosophers there came modernism. Modernism is characterized by the debate between rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism is the thought that reality is in the head and we know our thoughts and impressions of things. Empiricism is the thought that our senses inform us of what really is. Modern philosophers include, Decartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Hobbes, Locke, and to a debatable extent Kant. After Kant we have critical modernism in Europe. This includes German idealism, some existentialism and phenomenology. Then came postmodernism with the rest of existentialism and deconstructionism.

Back to the topic. Barth and Bonhoeffer (I think) are influenced by the good existentialism and phenomenology of critical modernism. German idealism built very liberal theology in traditional churches and postmodernism has equally influenced very liberal theology in the nontraditional Emergent church. The emergents continued their attempt to veer off into the other ditch and missed those that refound the middle ground of the philosophically viable, Biblically oriented, conservative theology of Barth and Bonhoeffer.

To summarize the difference between Emergents and what are just a new brand of Protestantism I finish by quoting Chad Hall's review.

And what does Driscoll have that emergents could use? As crazy as this might sound, I think he is humble. Not in the politically correct sense of humility where nobody is ever wrong or bad or judged, but in the City of God sense that you know your place in the order of things. In my opinion, Driscoll seems to get that Christianity is the rock against which humans are broken, the fire that purifies us, the sieve through which our lives are sifted and sorted and made good. By taking a deconstructing stance toward Christianity, theology, and life, emergents seem to be getting this backward: they can’t help but to break, burn, and sift the faith.

Drunk on an overindulgence of their own intelligence and high on the hoopla of being on the exploratory edge, emergents seem headed off the road of what passes as sensible and sound Christianity. Can the Christian faith withstand the deconstructive doubts and curiosities of emergents? Of course it can. That’s not the point. The point is that emergents may not be able to survive their chosen path.

Pagan Christianity and Ecumenism

2008-07-13T19:38:00.006-04:00

Here's a format I think I'll employ that I haven't seen anywhere else. I'll start with a list of webpages I've been reading that have to do with what I'm about to write about.

My Internet tracks:
Ben Witherington's Review of Pagan Christianity Part 1
Ben Witherington's Review of Pagan Christianity Part 2
Ben Witherington's Review of Pagan Christianity Part 3
Ben Witherington's Review of Pagan Christianity Part 4
Ben Witherington's Review of Pagan Christianity Postlude
Jon Zens response to Ben Witherington's review
Howard Snyder's review of Pagan Christianity
The Confessing Movement
Association for Church Renewal
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

All of this is highly recommended reading and it is posted in the order I read it. So what's going on in this little path? All of this is some recent fuss about a book called Pagan Christianity written by Frank Viola and George Barna. Here's the Amazon product description:

Have you ever wondered why we Christians do what we do for church every Sunday morning? Why do we "dress up" for church? Why does the pastor preach a sermon each week? Why do we have pews, steeples, choirs, and seminaries? This volume reveals the startling truth: most of what Christians do in present-day churches is not rooted in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles. Coauthors Frank Viola and George Barna support their thesis with compelling historical evidence in the first-ever book to document the full story of modern Christian church practices.

Ok, if you've already browsed the sites you'll see the discussion between Zens and Witherington is enough to be a small book. So if you don't have the patience for that at least read Howard Snyder's review. Dr. Snyder really hits home with me and connects with what I mentioned in my first blog about bridging between vastly different circles.

In college, I went on an amazing spiritual journey that in some ways I'm still on. One of the big questions I dealt with in that journey was, "Who am I in the Church?" I attended Southern Baptist churches until I was 20 when I began attending an Assemblies of God Church. When I was in college I was heavily involved in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship where I served the campus for Christ alongside other Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, Lutherans, Charismatics and Catholics. Towards the end of my time at school I went to the Catholic Bible Study on campus as often as possible. One summer I spent a lot of time attending a Mennonite Church. This summer I'm back in a Southern Baptist Church and God knows where I'll be this fall.

My point in mentioning all this is that I've met a lot of very different Christians with different ideas and preferences about Church. In all of these groups I've seen a devotion to the same Jesus Christ expressed uniquely in the various traditions from which they come. I've come to love and hate just about every different way I've seen church done. I love it when it works and hate it when it doesn't and I've found that every way of doing church fails at some point. Like Dr. Snyder I've come to the conclusion that there isn't one way to do church that's best.

One of the things I hate about the emerging church is how set they are in trying to upset tradition when it may not necessarily need to be upset. They often work from the Protestant mindset that if it doesn't agree with them they should create a new church with people that have similar ideas. For all the good of the Protestant Reformation it seems only recently that a very small number of Protestants are beginning to get a good idea of how to battle the nasty Protestant Spirit within. We have thousands of church denominations. Church splits have been the cause of countless pain and spiritual devastation. The way to fight the Protestant Spirit isn't to take sides and draw a line in the sand. You can't protest the Protestants and join the Catholic or Orthodox churches and think you're no longer Protestant.

So what do we do? How do we renew the church without destroying it? This question lead me to look to see if any formal renewal movements existed similar to what Dr. Snyder describes. I found the last three links. Brief glances through them have me uncertain whether or not these exact organizations are what will help but the spirit of the organizations seem to be what is needed at least. There is a very long list of things I don't like about Southern Baptists, but there are still many things I do like. I've decided never to leave the Convention no matter how much I may disagree with them, rather I want to work from the inside to change the SBC to better mirror Jesus Christ in themselves and to the rest of the world. I also want to encourage others no matter where they are in the Body of Christ and what denomination to do the same. Having a Body of Christ mindset instead of a local church or denominational mindset is what gets us out of the pit we've dug for ourselves with our Protestant Spirit. God is gracious enough to use those who make themselves available.

Here's your challenge: Learn your church history, see where your church comes short of connecting with everyone that walks in their doors and find ways to make old and young, traditional and new members grow towards Christ. God bless!

Let's see what happens

2008-07-07T00:08:00.002-04:00

I've been reading blogs, commenting on blogs and participating in forums since I began using the internet. For some reason I feel like I need to start doing my own blogging. The circles I run in feel so distant from each other and there's so much each has to offer the other, maybe this will be a bridge for people to new ideas and some hard truths. Or if nothing else it will be a place to be humbled by people that have a better grasp on it than I do. How about working together on this? I think that's best. I'll give my thoughts and you let me know how far on or off base I am and why.

So what will I post about? I think I'll try and regularly comment on Pastor Mark Driscoll's sermons. I know being a part of the "pajamahadeen" (as he calls it) is cliche but I've got a lot of respect for him and really like his work. I'll probably talk about whatever I'm reading or studying as well. I think at some point I'll do a series of blogs on the lyrical content of some of my favorite music. Mostly, this will be my spot for Christian ramblings. Most of my online discussion lately has been secular in nature so this is where I try and get more of the rest of me out to the internet. I'm not sure how often I'll update this. I'm sure it will be at least a few times a month, but I can probably guarantee it won't get abandoned at least for a few years.

So that's that. Spread the word and hopefully I'll give you a reason to check back regularly and with interest. God bless.

Following not dreaming... I hope

Recommended blog posts

Inauthentic Women's Ministry

Overhaul?

Church-State Separation

My Ana/Baptist Dilemma

A Simple Dream

My Greatest Idea Ever

Threat to the Bible

Lawson Stone and Ben Witherington on the Bible, Christians, and Violence

Jesus Freak

Professor Timothy Erdel: Anabaptist, Evangelical, Kindred Spirit

A Series on Singleness Suffering

Links about Christian Dating

Review of Mere Churchianity

Changes

Righteousness for Love's Sake

Journal and update

Journal

Midweek Links

Journal

Midweek Links

Journal

Midweek Links

Journal

Journal

Blogs

New Blogs for the Blogroll

Baptist21 Panel

David Platt is Awesome

SBC Annual Meeting '09

Cults and Conventions

Sorry...

SBC Annual Meeting

Journal

Journal

Book Review: Breaking the Discipleship Code

More Blogs

Journal

Journal

The SBC Sucks Part 1

Journal

Update

Prayer Request

Update

The Southern Baptist Convention Sucks

"And Now for Something Completely Different..."

Internet Culture

Luke 22:35-38 - My take on the mess

New Blogs and Cool Articles

Driscoll Cliffnotes #5: Jonah 4

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Driscoll Cliffnotes #4: The Peasant Princess #1

Gospel, Mission and Church

Band of Brothers

mewithoutYou Lyrics Part 1

Augustine on Free Will

Driscoll Cliffnotes #3: Pray Like Jesus Part 3

Shane Claiborne on Jesus's Radical Love

Driscoll Cliffnotes #2: Pray Like Jesus Part 2

Things That Inspire

Driscoll Cliffnotes #1: Pray Like Jesus Part 1

Miscellany

Pagan Christianity and Ecumenism

Let's see what happens