I’ve been thinking about that famous chapter of the book of Hebrews, chapter eleven, frequently called the “Hall of Fame.” The chapter begins with a discussion of the nature of faith. The writer of Hebrews (we don’t really know who that is) does something that neither John, Paul, nor James do – he defines the word “faith.” And, wouldn’t you know?, he uses the word a tad differently than the other guys (who all use the word differently from each other – a topic for another day). Faith, for the writer, is both a rational thing and an action thing.
ByTheWay, no Biblical writer ever suggests that faith is a “blind leap” like wishful thinking. That is a completely un-Biblical understanding of the word.
The point of this whole section (and the writer has been working up to it throughout the book) is that faith is what saves. Hebrews 11:2 “For by it the people of old received their commendation.” That is, the idea of salvation by faith is not some new-fangled idea invented by John or Paul. It’s been around from the Very Beginning.
There are some really interesting things to notice in the chapter. First, the writer seems to emphasize a ‘declaratory’ nature to faith in the time before Moses. People are commended, speak (4, 14), are warned, are called, condemn, receive promises, bless, and make mention. These are all words related to speech, to declaring something. At the same time, notice that these people also are doing things. Kinda a ‘speech-act’ notion. Interestingly, after Moses faith is demonstrated pretty much only by action.
But then Moses comes along. There are three Great Heroes to the Hebrew people: Abraham (Father - identity), Moses (Prophet), and David (king). The writer deals with two of them, Abraham and Moses. Like Paul and James, the writer affirms that Abraham was not justified by the Law, but by vital faith. Even more startling to the readers (Hebrews) is that "The Law Giver," Moses, was approved before God because of his faith – not his ability to keep the Law! Even today we refer to that governmental, sacrificial, and ethical complex of rules as “The Law of Moses.” But the writer slaps that down pointing out that even Moses wasn’t justified because of The Law that bears his name.
But the REAL agenda that the writer wants to emphasize is that it is only Jesus who is the standard, source, and object of faith. It is clear that every person mentioned in the so-called “Roll Call of Faith” was a sinner; some of them notoriously so. But Jesus is the perfect example of faith. The writer says, in 12:1-2, (pardon my paraphrase): ‘While you have all of those examples of so-called “Great Faith,” you’re looking in the wrong direction. You need to look at Jesus – he’s the Real Deal.’
So the writer’s argument is that it is faith in a proper object, from a proper source, and actually relied upon that saves. And it has always been that way.
20080904
20080824
"Grey" Scripture
One of the questions that was brought up during this last course was a question about the concept of the "sufficiency of scripture." One of my classmates provocatively asked whether the Bible speaks mostly in guidelines, suggestions, and is mostly "grey" rather than being "black and white." That got me thinking.
We learn, in Bible classes, the Interpreting Scriptures course, and the theology classes that the Bible is "sufficient." But we don't spend a lot of time poking at that idea.
I'm going to quote a guy named Ken Myers:
We don't hear much about the "insufficiency of Scripture." But it is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about Christianity and culture. Scripture does not present itself as the only source of truth about all matters. It does not even present itself as a source of some truth about everything. It presents itself as the only authoritative source of truth about some things, and they are the most important things.
So, seems to me that the issue is whether the Bible presents the down-to-the-last-detail truth about those important things. In agreement with the folks posing the "grey" question, I think the answer is occasionally: "no." That is, not all the details of how to live life are filled in by the Bible in such a way that we in our modern (or post-modern) mindset would like. I think that God does grant us the dignity of discovery and wants us to work a bit at connecting the dots that he's laid out.
As to the not-as-important-things? For example: the Bible doesn't directly speak to whether I should buy and use a Mac or PC - much less whether I should use electricity. From that, I would conclude that issue (Mac or PC) is not really as important as stuff like: what's our relationship to The Creator; do we understand that we have a HUGE sin problem; do we see that the answer is Jesus; do we connect with a well-done church; do we do (as well as believe) a true gospel? Those are The Important Issues and the Bible speaks clearly to them. Though not even those matters are always covered in complete detail.
While I am, even now, going through a thought experiment about the concept of biblical "ambiguity" (in a technical sense) I'm not at all comfortable with the thought that most of the Bible is 'grey.'
I'm going to quote a guy named Ken Myers:
We don't hear much about the "insufficiency of Scripture." But it is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about Christianity and culture. Scripture does not present itself as the only source of truth about all matters. It does not even present itself as a source of some truth about everything. It presents itself as the only authoritative source of truth about some things, and they are the most important things.
So, seems to me that the issue is whether the Bible presents the down-to-the-last-detail truth about those important things. In agreement with the folks posing the "grey" question, I think the answer is occasionally: "no." That is, not all the details of how to live life are filled in by the Bible in such a way that we in our modern (or post-modern) mindset would like. I think that God does grant us the dignity of discovery and wants us to work a bit at connecting the dots that he's laid out.
As to the not-as-important-things? For example: the Bible doesn't directly speak to whether I should buy and use a Mac or PC - much less whether I should use electricity. From that, I would conclude that issue (Mac or PC) is not really as important as stuff like: what's our relationship to The Creator; do we understand that we have a HUGE sin problem; do we see that the answer is Jesus; do we connect with a well-done church; do we do (as well as believe) a true gospel? Those are The Important Issues and the Bible speaks clearly to them. Though not even those matters are always covered in complete detail.
While I am, even now, going through a thought experiment about the concept of biblical "ambiguity" (in a technical sense) I'm not at all comfortable with the thought that most of the Bible is 'grey.'
But I sense that's not the core of the question. It seems my classmate is responding to an overly-literalistic tradition. And to that, I certainly agree that scripture gives us more freedom and liberty in Christ than some of our Fightin' Fundies brothers and sisters are willing to admit.
20080817
Acts 2:42 - Not the ideal for the church
I've also occasionally wondered at our use of that Acts 2 passage as an example of the perfect church. Or, for that matter, of our attempts to become "like the first century church."
The thing we like (and should like) about the church of that time was their rootedness in the "Apostles teaching" (that's 'Bible' to us), their influence by and general obedience to the Spirit, their zeal for both growing in Christ and sharing Christ (eventually), and so forth.
But, while I certainly applaud my brothers and sisters as they followed Jesus 1,900 years ago; it is obvious "that was then and this is now." Even Paul touched on this when he stated that David served his generation and then went to be with his Lord (Ac 13:36). My Bible survey professor keeps hammering on us that The Apostolic Age was pretty unique in church history.
So these, and a recent semester of church history, lead me to tentatively consider that there may not be some Golden Model of Church. In fact, it may be that church is far more a child of its culture and time than we are comfortable with (I ruminate on this here).
And I'm not the only one that may be questioning this Acts-2-church-is-the-perfect-church idea. There's a whole church-planting network out there called Acts29. The idea behind the name is what-if the book of Acts continued on past chapter 28 to record the expansion of the Kingdom in our own time? That would become the '29th' chapter of the book of Acts.
I think the big idea is that the church holds tightly to the gospel and is in firm contact with its culture; not some idealized way of doing church from "The Golden Age." To even suggest that the Church had a "golden age" is to dismiss that the church's best days are yet to come.
The thing we like (and should like) about the church of that time was their rootedness in the "Apostles teaching" (that's 'Bible' to us), their influence by and general obedience to the Spirit, their zeal for both growing in Christ and sharing Christ (eventually), and so forth.
But, while I certainly applaud my brothers and sisters as they followed Jesus 1,900 years ago; it is obvious "that was then and this is now." Even Paul touched on this when he stated that David served his generation and then went to be with his Lord (Ac 13:36). My Bible survey professor keeps hammering on us that The Apostolic Age was pretty unique in church history.
So these, and a recent semester of church history, lead me to tentatively consider that there may not be some Golden Model of Church. In fact, it may be that church is far more a child of its culture and time than we are comfortable with (I ruminate on this here).
And I'm not the only one that may be questioning this Acts-2-church-is-the-perfect-church idea. There's a whole church-planting network out there called Acts29. The idea behind the name is what-if the book of Acts continued on past chapter 28 to record the expansion of the Kingdom in our own time? That would become the '29th' chapter of the book of Acts.
I think the big idea is that the church holds tightly to the gospel and is in firm contact with its culture; not some idealized way of doing church from "The Golden Age." To even suggest that the Church had a "golden age" is to dismiss that the church's best days are yet to come.
20080810
Communicating Gospel Cross-culturally
Seems to me that given the general biblical illiteracy of the culture we find ourselves in, as well as the general inability of most people to think critically (most thinking seems to be more bumper-sticker or sound-bite polemic), we can't go to the Bible very quickly when we attempt to communicate the gospel to our Post-modern culture and society.
I read a Christian thinker a few years back who suggested that we need to become better Natural theologians rather than better Systematic theologians. What he meant by that is that we should get a better grip on Thomas Aquinas' massive thought-experiment that we now call Natural Theology. Aquinas' experiement went like this: we know Paul says in Romans 1 that everybody knows some pretty basic things about God. So using the evidence we have before us and our own reasoning power, just how far can we get along into our theology without having to rely on Jesus, the Apostles, or scripture? Aquinas got pretty far along, and while others that followed him thought he resorted to a couple of logical cheats to get there (unintentionally), still he made lots of interesting points.
The guy I read said we ought to do a similar, though not as intense thing. Can we converse with a dude in the epicenter of Portland "wierdness" (say on Hawthorne) about the existance - not of God - but of basic good and evil? Can we argue about the sanctity of life - not from Psalms - but from our own feelings towards children and infants? Can we argue about a creator - not from Genesis - but from the amazingly balanced world around us? And then, from there, can we make the move to point them to God, human uniqueness, and creation?
And even to a moral standard? Consider this exchange:
PoMo: "Dude, your metanarratives don't do it for me. I don't need somebody doing their power trip on me; telling me what's right and wrong."
XnDude: "OK, so let me ask you; do you have a sense of right and wrong?"
PoMo: "Sure I do."
XnDude: "Do you, according to your own standards, ever fail those standards?"
PoMo: "Yeah, 'course I do."
XnDude: "Then you -right there - agree with me that you are a 'sinner.'"
The thinker's point (who I mentioned before) was that if our culture denies us the use of scripture, we are not left without authority to speak. God has still given us an ordered world in which he is displayed. We can use that and build upon it to bring the specific good news about Jesus, salvation, and redemption.
What do you think? Would that play in the espresso shop on Hawthorne?
I read a Christian thinker a few years back who suggested that we need to become better Natural theologians rather than better Systematic theologians. What he meant by that is that we should get a better grip on Thomas Aquinas' massive thought-experiment that we now call Natural Theology. Aquinas' experiement went like this: we know Paul says in Romans 1 that everybody knows some pretty basic things about God. So using the evidence we have before us and our own reasoning power, just how far can we get along into our theology without having to rely on Jesus, the Apostles, or scripture? Aquinas got pretty far along, and while others that followed him thought he resorted to a couple of logical cheats to get there (unintentionally), still he made lots of interesting points.
The guy I read said we ought to do a similar, though not as intense thing. Can we converse with a dude in the epicenter of Portland "wierdness" (say on Hawthorne) about the existance - not of God - but of basic good and evil? Can we argue about the sanctity of life - not from Psalms - but from our own feelings towards children and infants? Can we argue about a creator - not from Genesis - but from the amazingly balanced world around us? And then, from there, can we make the move to point them to God, human uniqueness, and creation?
And even to a moral standard? Consider this exchange:
PoMo: "Dude, your metanarratives don't do it for me. I don't need somebody doing their power trip on me; telling me what's right and wrong."
XnDude: "OK, so let me ask you; do you have a sense of right and wrong?"
PoMo: "Sure I do."
XnDude: "Do you, according to your own standards, ever fail those standards?"
PoMo: "Yeah, 'course I do."
XnDude: "Then you -right there - agree with me that you are a 'sinner.'"
The thinker's point (who I mentioned before) was that if our culture denies us the use of scripture, we are not left without authority to speak. God has still given us an ordered world in which he is displayed. We can use that and build upon it to bring the specific good news about Jesus, salvation, and redemption.
What do you think? Would that play in the espresso shop on Hawthorne?
20080804
Immediate or Delayed Baptism
As I may have mentioned before, I've been doing lots of thinking about baptism in the last three or more months. I've also been looking at baptism from a church history perspective.
The very early church (within 100 years of the Ascention) practiced 'delayed' baptism. The ritual was performed after a period of training as they saw baptism partly as an 'initiation.' Before the convert was to be accepted by the local church, they needed to get some basic training (replacing their previous pagan background with what we might now call 'a biblical world-view') and show real commitment ("Do you truly renounce the world, the flesh, and the Devil?").
Post-convert-pre-baptism folks were called "catechumans" (because they were in the process of "catechesis," or training). There actually were some of these catechuman guys who delayed getting baptized for years because they weren't *quite* ready to seriously renounce the world, flesh, and works of Satan. One of our early Best-And-Brightest guys, Augustine once quipped, "Lord, give me chastity - but not quite yet." Of course, Augustine eventually got with the program.
Anyway, all of that just gets me thinking about folks who we may allow to become members of our churches.
Let's be clear about this historic position of 'delayed' baptism - it is not necessarily saying that these converts were converted only when they were baptized There is some confusion on that point. Still, the emphasis was on, as we put it, "affirming by an outward sign an inward reality."
So that was the argument for 'delayed' baptism - the local church wanted to see a level of evidence that the convert really had engaged the gospel. In this view, the Ethiopian (Ac. 8:27-38) clearly already had a biblical world view - he was reading a personal copy of Isaiah so knew the OT pretty well and was asking good interpretive questions. The Ethiopian already had a good 'biblical world-view.' So Philip, goes this reasoning, could baptize the Ethiopian immediately. Again, the Phillipian jailer (Ac. 16:25-33) got training and instruction directly from an Apostle (16:32) so he and his family - after showing evidences of conversion and commitment - could be baptized very quickly by that Apostle.
These don't capture all the arguments for 'late' baptism, but it is worth reflecting on the issue. The very early church faced the same problems that we do: so-called "believers" who turned out to have been admitted into the local body too soon. The result, for those true believers long ago, was severe persecution and death by 'turncoat Christians.'
Is it possible that allowing unprepared "believers" into church membership too early could cause harm to our local churches? Is that a risk we run today?
So, some suggest that the Biblical model is immediate baptism Why don't we go back to that? My response is to challenge whether 'indiscriminate' early baptism truly is the Biblical model. The very early church did not seem to think so.
The very early church (within 100 years of the Ascention) practiced 'delayed' baptism. The ritual was performed after a period of training as they saw baptism partly as an 'initiation.' Before the convert was to be accepted by the local church, they needed to get some basic training (replacing their previous pagan background with what we might now call 'a biblical world-view') and show real commitment ("Do you truly renounce the world, the flesh, and the Devil?").
Post-convert-pre-baptism folks were called "catechumans" (because they were in the process of "catechesis," or training). There actually were some of these catechuman guys who delayed getting baptized for years because they weren't *quite* ready to seriously renounce the world, flesh, and works of Satan. One of our early Best-And-Brightest guys, Augustine once quipped, "Lord, give me chastity - but not quite yet." Of course, Augustine eventually got with the program.
Anyway, all of that just gets me thinking about folks who we may allow to become members of our churches.
Let's be clear about this historic position of 'delayed' baptism - it is not necessarily saying that these converts were converted only when they were baptized There is some confusion on that point. Still, the emphasis was on, as we put it, "affirming by an outward sign an inward reality."
So that was the argument for 'delayed' baptism - the local church wanted to see a level of evidence that the convert really had engaged the gospel. In this view, the Ethiopian (Ac. 8:27-38) clearly already had a biblical world view - he was reading a personal copy of Isaiah so knew the OT pretty well and was asking good interpretive questions. The Ethiopian already had a good 'biblical world-view.' So Philip, goes this reasoning, could baptize the Ethiopian immediately. Again, the Phillipian jailer (Ac. 16:25-33) got training and instruction directly from an Apostle (16:32) so he and his family - after showing evidences of conversion and commitment - could be baptized very quickly by that Apostle.
These don't capture all the arguments for 'late' baptism, but it is worth reflecting on the issue. The very early church faced the same problems that we do: so-called "believers" who turned out to have been admitted into the local body too soon. The result, for those true believers long ago, was severe persecution and death by 'turncoat Christians.'
Is it possible that allowing unprepared "believers" into church membership too early could cause harm to our local churches? Is that a risk we run today?
So, some suggest that the Biblical model is immediate baptism Why don't we go back to that? My response is to challenge whether 'indiscriminate' early baptism truly is the Biblical model. The very early church did not seem to think so.
20080728
Gal. 1:15; Election To Salvation and Mission
So the great Calvinist-Arminian debate...
First, I'm going to annoy some people and suggest that the debate has been shaped a bit unfairly. For one, the debate has been shaped by "Reform" writers who seem to ignore that Jacob Arminius was, in fact, a Reform theologian. For two, the debate (again, from the side of "Reform" writers) describes "Calvinism" (rather than what Calvin explicitly taught) and "Arminianism" (which casts Finney-ism as the straw man, rather than the Weslyan tradition). So the whole thing is a bit of a set-up.
Second, The Debate goes (very simplistically) like this: either God pre-ordaines and decrees people to be saved before any consideration as to how those people might choose, which smacks of fatalism; or God is a bit dense (or powerless) and has to look forward to save those people who actually will respond to the gospel.
Dr. Breshears, in an attempt to square the circle on this matter, suggests that when faced with an intractible apparent contradiction we should look for an untested assumption. He suggests that such an assumption exists in the election issue. The assumption is that God always acts exactly the same way with all people. Is that assumption warrented?
Maybe God acts differently with different people. Maybe some people are persuaded and others are decreed. That popped into my head as I read Galatians 1:15: "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, ..."
What's interesting about Galatians 1:15 is that Paul only speaks for himself. He says that he was called apart even before he was born. Why didn't he say the same thing about all the other believers in Galatia?
Now the traditional view of this text is that Paul is talking about his calling to preach the gospel to Gentiles - to a specific ministry. But the grammar here is a bit uncertain. There seems to be room to read that as, "God (the same who called me to salvation) was pleased to reveal Jesus to me in a way that would allow me to do this special ministry to the Gentiles." That is, Paul was affirming two callings: (parenthetically) one to salvation, the other (the main point) to a special ministry. "set me apart..." and "called me through his grace" seem to be subordinate clauses to the main thought: "But when God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might (do this special mission)."
So that gets me wondering about the nature of election. Do we assume - presumptively - that God must act with everyone in exactly the same manner?
First, I'm going to annoy some people and suggest that the debate has been shaped a bit unfairly. For one, the debate has been shaped by "Reform" writers who seem to ignore that Jacob Arminius was, in fact, a Reform theologian. For two, the debate (again, from the side of "Reform" writers) describes "Calvinism" (rather than what Calvin explicitly taught) and "Arminianism" (which casts Finney-ism as the straw man, rather than the Weslyan tradition). So the whole thing is a bit of a set-up.
Second, The Debate goes (very simplistically) like this: either God pre-ordaines and decrees people to be saved before any consideration as to how those people might choose, which smacks of fatalism; or God is a bit dense (or powerless) and has to look forward to save those people who actually will respond to the gospel.
Dr. Breshears, in an attempt to square the circle on this matter, suggests that when faced with an intractible apparent contradiction we should look for an untested assumption. He suggests that such an assumption exists in the election issue. The assumption is that God always acts exactly the same way with all people. Is that assumption warrented?
Maybe God acts differently with different people. Maybe some people are persuaded and others are decreed. That popped into my head as I read Galatians 1:15: "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, ..."
What's interesting about Galatians 1:15 is that Paul only speaks for himself. He says that he was called apart even before he was born. Why didn't he say the same thing about all the other believers in Galatia?
Now the traditional view of this text is that Paul is talking about his calling to preach the gospel to Gentiles - to a specific ministry. But the grammar here is a bit uncertain. There seems to be room to read that as, "God (the same who called me to salvation) was pleased to reveal Jesus to me in a way that would allow me to do this special ministry to the Gentiles." That is, Paul was affirming two callings: (parenthetically) one to salvation, the other (the main point) to a special ministry. "set me apart..." and "called me through his grace" seem to be subordinate clauses to the main thought: "But when God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might (do this special mission)."
So that gets me wondering about the nature of election. Do we assume - presumptively - that God must act with everyone in exactly the same manner?
20080723
Acts 17 - Paul's Seeker Sensitivity: Rebuttal
So one of my friends gave me some good-natured push-back about my line of reasoning that Paul was "seeker sensitive" and "culturally relevant" (see the post on 20080708). My friend poked specifically at the Mars Hill discourse at Athens. The line of reasoning goes like this: Paul's attempt to be culturally relevant was ineffective: not many converts, no recorded church in Athens, and The Bible tells us so - look at the text! Therefore, we should jettison all this "culturally relevant" garbage and Preach The Word!
OK - certainly we should preach the Word. I'm not in any disagreement with that. But let's take another look at the text.
First, the evidence actually in the text doesn't support the proposition that Paul's cultural engagement was ineffective. Some people in Athens were converted, there were requests to hear more from Paul, and it's not surprizing that no church was recorded planted as Paul's mission wasn't to plant in Athens - he was on his way and Athens was a lay-over while he waited for Silas and Timothy. Finally, the scripture doesn't signal or otherwise indicate that Paul's work on Mars Hill was bad, ineffective, or inappropriate.
The real, larger, question that my friend is raising (of course) is one of 'cultural engagement.' Is Christ against culture, above culture, accomodated to culture, or in culture? Several of you will recognize those phrases as the premise of the book, "Christ In Culture" by R. Niebuhr - a very important work. His answer is that the best - and especially the most Biblical - answer is Christ in culture: the church engaged in society.
So, my friend's arguement - seems to me - is not as compelling as advertised and the larger issue (as well as the best Biblical answer) is that Paul was right to do what he did. By the way, my friend doesn't really hold his argument, he'd heard it from a mis-guided fundamentalist.
Those are my thoughts.
OK - certainly we should preach the Word. I'm not in any disagreement with that. But let's take another look at the text.
First, the evidence actually in the text doesn't support the proposition that Paul's cultural engagement was ineffective. Some people in Athens were converted, there were requests to hear more from Paul, and it's not surprizing that no church was recorded planted as Paul's mission wasn't to plant in Athens - he was on his way and Athens was a lay-over while he waited for Silas and Timothy. Finally, the scripture doesn't signal or otherwise indicate that Paul's work on Mars Hill was bad, ineffective, or inappropriate.
The real, larger, question that my friend is raising (of course) is one of 'cultural engagement.' Is Christ against culture, above culture, accomodated to culture, or in culture? Several of you will recognize those phrases as the premise of the book, "Christ In Culture" by R. Niebuhr - a very important work. His answer is that the best - and especially the most Biblical - answer is Christ in culture: the church engaged in society.
So, my friend's arguement - seems to me - is not as compelling as advertised and the larger issue (as well as the best Biblical answer) is that Paul was right to do what he did. By the way, my friend doesn't really hold his argument, he'd heard it from a mis-guided fundamentalist.
Those are my thoughts.
20080716
Colosians 3:11 - A Final Word
I am taking my last course in seminary for this degree as a combination of lecture-on-DVD and online interaction by a Wiki-forum tool. Several of my last blogs have come from my contributions to this forum. The folks in the course seem to have begun a “Final Posting” tradition. I like the idea and like the thought that each person posts on one last final Big Thought. So this is a revision of my "Final Post" on a little phrase from Colossians 3:11: “… Christ is all…”.
David Bryant, in his book Christ Is All makes the point that modern Evangelicals have drifted into what I’ll call a “Generic Protestant Judaism.” We hear from the podium and sing from the screen lots of stuff about “God.” But, oddly, we shy away from actually talking about “Jesus” or even “Christ.” Younger Evangelicals are recapturing this, thankfully.
The point is even more forcefully made by Bryant when he asks us to listen to the conversations among Christians in the church lobby during Sunday morning. How many times do we ask each other, “Hey, so what’s Jesus been showing you this week?” That suggestion strikes many of us as, well, a little weird.
And that’s the point. Why? Why should that be weird? That kind of conversation should be completely normal for us as Christ followers. If we can’t talk about Jesus normally to each other, then how can we expect to talk to Jesus with unbelievers?
In the last few years I have had to come to grips with my deteriorating theology about Jesus. Do I really worship him? Do I really believe that he is the God-man who is not merely The Famous One, or my hero, but worthy of veneration and worship? Is Christ all for me? Too many times the answer was no.
I’m working for that to change. I’d be happy to have your company with me as I make that journey.
David Bryant, in his book Christ Is All makes the point that modern Evangelicals have drifted into what I’ll call a “Generic Protestant Judaism.” We hear from the podium and sing from the screen lots of stuff about “God.” But, oddly, we shy away from actually talking about “Jesus” or even “Christ.” Younger Evangelicals are recapturing this, thankfully.
The point is even more forcefully made by Bryant when he asks us to listen to the conversations among Christians in the church lobby during Sunday morning. How many times do we ask each other, “Hey, so what’s Jesus been showing you this week?” That suggestion strikes many of us as, well, a little weird.
And that’s the point. Why? Why should that be weird? That kind of conversation should be completely normal for us as Christ followers. If we can’t talk about Jesus normally to each other, then how can we expect to talk to Jesus with unbelievers?
In the last few years I have had to come to grips with my deteriorating theology about Jesus. Do I really worship him? Do I really believe that he is the God-man who is not merely The Famous One, or my hero, but worthy of veneration and worship? Is Christ all for me? Too many times the answer was no.
I’m working for that to change. I’d be happy to have your company with me as I make that journey.
20080712
Phil. 4:8 - What Kind Of Person?
I was reading Philippians 4:8 where Paul tells us that we should be spending our thinking resources on the things that are true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, good reputation, excellent, and worthy of praise.
And then I thought, what if I turned this around? What would be the result to a person if they dwelt (continued to think, obsessed, concentrated) on things that were:
• False
• Shameful
• Wrong
• Corrupt
• Ugly
• Bad reputation
• Mediocre
• Unremarkable
What would such a person have in their life? How would they spend their time? What would they shop for? Who would they vote for? Who would be their friends? What movies or CD’s would they like? What would be their fashion identity? What bumper stickers would adorn their mode of transport?
Maybe that’s a description of what our “mission field” looks like?
And then I thought, what if I turned this around? What would be the result to a person if they dwelt (continued to think, obsessed, concentrated) on things that were:
• False
• Shameful
• Wrong
• Corrupt
• Ugly
• Bad reputation
• Mediocre
• Unremarkable
What would such a person have in their life? How would they spend their time? What would they shop for? Who would they vote for? Who would be their friends? What movies or CD’s would they like? What would be their fashion identity? What bumper stickers would adorn their mode of transport?
Maybe that’s a description of what our “mission field” looks like?
20080708
1Cor. 10:23ff - Paul Is Seeker Sensitive
Again, my Bible course gave me a new insight (which I suppose is the point) on this little section about Christian liberty (1 Cor. 10:23ff).
Here, Paul states that 'all things are lawful, but not profitable or edifying.' The presenting issue is eating food knowingly sacrificed to idols. Such meat was less expensive (like day-old bread) and many Christians (rightly) felt it was fine to buy that as there was no real spiritual power to that meat. But there were some folks (both new believers and "seekers," if you will) who were still pretty superstitious and creeped out about that meat. As the course (wonderfully taught by Dr. J. Carl Laney) pointed out; this specific issue was clearly decided during the Jerusalem 'Council' several years before. The council's decision was - by now - well known and published abroad.
So why didn't Paul just appeal to the authority of the Council? He was there, he fully participated, certainly he was in agreement with the conclusion and decision - why didn't he just tell the goofy Corinthians: "Look, this was decided years back. You know the decision - just obey."
What I find so refreshing is that Paul goes a completely different track. He doesn't respond authoritatively, he responds evangelistically. Paul says that (v.24) it's not about what's good for you, but what's good for your neighbor. I think he's implying that the "neighbor" is a non-believer or else he'd have used the word "brother." Later (v.27), he specifically refers to unbelievers. And in verse 28, Paul asks the rhetorical question (paraphrased), 'Why should I, knowing better, be prevented from enjoying inexpensive BBQ?' Paul's answer is clear: because you have a greater calling and that's to proclaim the gospel. If eating meat offered to idols is going to be a barrier to a gospel presentation, then you have got to give up your 'theologically pure' practice of inexpensive BBQ.
I think Paul is offering up an arguement for what has been the big point about being "seeker sensitive." Here's the big point about being seeker sensitive: if pews are a barrier to people meeting Jesus, rip them out; if special terminology ("justification," "propitiation," "redemption," etc.) prevents people from understanding the good news, find other words to make the same ideas understandable; and if people who don't know Jesus are actually willing to show up on a Sunday morning (but no other time of the week) to hear the gospel, then we need to move our more serious teaching experience to another time of the week and make our Sunday morning worship service comprehensible - at the least - to those who are interested learning about Jesus.
I think the take away from this passage (and Paul's point) is to put aside our preferences so that whatever we do, we glorify God towards those who do not know Him yet.
Here, Paul states that 'all things are lawful, but not profitable or edifying.' The presenting issue is eating food knowingly sacrificed to idols. Such meat was less expensive (like day-old bread) and many Christians (rightly) felt it was fine to buy that as there was no real spiritual power to that meat. But there were some folks (both new believers and "seekers," if you will) who were still pretty superstitious and creeped out about that meat. As the course (wonderfully taught by Dr. J. Carl Laney) pointed out; this specific issue was clearly decided during the Jerusalem 'Council' several years before. The council's decision was - by now - well known and published abroad.
So why didn't Paul just appeal to the authority of the Council? He was there, he fully participated, certainly he was in agreement with the conclusion and decision - why didn't he just tell the goofy Corinthians: "Look, this was decided years back. You know the decision - just obey."
What I find so refreshing is that Paul goes a completely different track. He doesn't respond authoritatively, he responds evangelistically. Paul says that (v.24) it's not about what's good for you, but what's good for your neighbor. I think he's implying that the "neighbor" is a non-believer or else he'd have used the word "brother." Later (v.27), he specifically refers to unbelievers. And in verse 28, Paul asks the rhetorical question (paraphrased), 'Why should I, knowing better, be prevented from enjoying inexpensive BBQ?' Paul's answer is clear: because you have a greater calling and that's to proclaim the gospel. If eating meat offered to idols is going to be a barrier to a gospel presentation, then you have got to give up your 'theologically pure' practice of inexpensive BBQ.
I think Paul is offering up an arguement for what has been the big point about being "seeker sensitive." Here's the big point about being seeker sensitive: if pews are a barrier to people meeting Jesus, rip them out; if special terminology ("justification," "propitiation," "redemption," etc.) prevents people from understanding the good news, find other words to make the same ideas understandable; and if people who don't know Jesus are actually willing to show up on a Sunday morning (but no other time of the week) to hear the gospel, then we need to move our more serious teaching experience to another time of the week and make our Sunday morning worship service comprehensible - at the least - to those who are interested learning about Jesus.
I think the take away from this passage (and Paul's point) is to put aside our preferences so that whatever we do, we glorify God towards those who do not know Him yet.
20080705
Gal. 3:3 - Monergism or Synergism?
OK, I admit I picked my subject line to be deliberately controversial. The controversy is this: how much does any person contribute to the work of salvation done in their everyday lives?
The 'hard' Reform guys say - it was God, beginning to end, and any person saved has no input or influence on God's sovereignty. There was only "one worker" (mono+erg = monergism).
The other Reform guys (remember that Arminius and Weslyans are also part of the Reformation) say - yep, God did all of the heavy lifting and that much is clear. But at some point we (as a response to God's working and 'wooing') had to grope a bit and come to some conclusion and then decide. That is, God and the person "together worked" (syn+erg = synergism, "synergy" is a similar idea). Now the reason hard Reform guys don't like 'synergism' is they get very allergic (and for very good reason!) to anything that smells like Pelagianism. It's not the heresy of Pelagius, but it can sound like that.
OK, now that's the issue with our justification. That is, justification is the work of conversion that occured when we were saved, converted, regenerated, etc. For the Christian alive today, justification is in the beliver's past.
So the open issue that this text seems to present is what about our sanctification? That is, the work that God does in our every-day present lives to transform us to be more like Jesus. For the Christian alive today, sanctification is how God continues to daily 'save' us from our past life, habits, etc. Is this spiritual work done only by God (monergism) or something we partner up with God about (synergism).
This text seems to speak against 'synergism' - that we shouldn't be 'perfected' (sanctified) by any work of our 'flesh.'
But I don't think that's the issue. I think that the issue in that text is that the Galatians were getting confused about was whether they needed some extra physical (flesh) rite to "seal the deal" (perfect) their justification. In a rough analogy to what the Roman Catholics believe, that there is a two-stage justification (gotta do good works to seal the deal), so the Galatians believed they needed to do Jewish rites to seal the deal. That, BTW, goes *way* beyond 'synergism!' Theologically, as to what the Galatians were proposing; well that just takes you right off the reservation of Christianity (Protestant, Roman, or Orthodox) - which is precisely Paul's point. Believing you need to do Jewish rites (be circumcized) to "seal the deal" of your justification is heresy.
Nope, this test isn't about sanctification, it's about justification. Paul is trying to get them back to the gospel: you have been completely saved, actually sealed by the Spirit, and as that work was completely done in the believer's past there's nothing else that the believer can do to improve upon their justification.
Now, as to your sanctification, Paul has stuff to say about that. For example, serve each other (5:13), walk with the Spirit (5:16, and keep in step with the Spirit (5:25).
So the point of Galatians 3:3 is not about monergism or synergism in our sanctification, but about a heresy of justification.
The 'hard' Reform guys say - it was God, beginning to end, and any person saved has no input or influence on God's sovereignty. There was only "one worker" (mono+erg = monergism).
The other Reform guys (remember that Arminius and Weslyans are also part of the Reformation) say - yep, God did all of the heavy lifting and that much is clear. But at some point we (as a response to God's working and 'wooing') had to grope a bit and come to some conclusion and then decide. That is, God and the person "together worked" (syn+erg = synergism, "synergy" is a similar idea). Now the reason hard Reform guys don't like 'synergism' is they get very allergic (and for very good reason!) to anything that smells like Pelagianism. It's not the heresy of Pelagius, but it can sound like that.
OK, now that's the issue with our justification. That is, justification is the work of conversion that occured when we were saved, converted, regenerated, etc. For the Christian alive today, justification is in the beliver's past.
So the open issue that this text seems to present is what about our sanctification? That is, the work that God does in our every-day present lives to transform us to be more like Jesus. For the Christian alive today, sanctification is how God continues to daily 'save' us from our past life, habits, etc. Is this spiritual work done only by God (monergism) or something we partner up with God about (synergism).
This text seems to speak against 'synergism' - that we shouldn't be 'perfected' (sanctified) by any work of our 'flesh.'
But I don't think that's the issue. I think that the issue in that text is that the Galatians were getting confused about was whether they needed some extra physical (flesh) rite to "seal the deal" (perfect) their justification. In a rough analogy to what the Roman Catholics believe, that there is a two-stage justification (gotta do good works to seal the deal), so the Galatians believed they needed to do Jewish rites to seal the deal. That, BTW, goes *way* beyond 'synergism!' Theologically, as to what the Galatians were proposing; well that just takes you right off the reservation of Christianity (Protestant, Roman, or Orthodox) - which is precisely Paul's point. Believing you need to do Jewish rites (be circumcized) to "seal the deal" of your justification is heresy.
Nope, this test isn't about sanctification, it's about justification. Paul is trying to get them back to the gospel: you have been completely saved, actually sealed by the Spirit, and as that work was completely done in the believer's past there's nothing else that the believer can do to improve upon their justification.
Now, as to your sanctification, Paul has stuff to say about that. For example, serve each other (5:13), walk with the Spirit (5:16, and keep in step with the Spirit (5:25).
So the point of Galatians 3:3 is not about monergism or synergism in our sanctification, but about a heresy of justification.
20080702
Warning Signs
For the two of you who actually read my blog, here are a couple of links discovered by my BFF Doug who is preparing a sermon on "warning signs..."
Could this, in fact, be the greatest warning sign ever? http://www.smoothharold.com/uploaded_images/helpdesk_warning_sign.jpg
This is more subtle: http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/scarylaser.gif
Thanks, again, to Doug Humphreys for these catches.
That caused me to go looking and I came up with these:
Enjoy.
Could this, in fact, be the greatest warning sign ever? http://www.smoothharold.com/uploaded_images/helpdesk_warning_sign.jpg
This is more subtle: http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/scarylaser.gif
Thanks, again, to Doug Humphreys for these catches.
That caused me to go looking and I came up with these:
Here's one from my BackInTheDayDawg, Eric Miller: try not to die
Enjoy.
20080701
Rom. 3:21 - God Is "Tricky"
Romans 3 is really interesting! In a startling "reveal," Paul says that it turns out that God can - and does - save people apart from the Law.
Paul points out that the Law was never intended to save people. The sacrificial system could not accomplish that (Heb. 10:4). Abraham was saved before he became Jewish because (Rom 3:21), 'God has shown a becoming-saved-process that is not at all linked to The Law.' The Law doesn't save - it brings death and even greater realization that we are doomed. But God - all along - had this undercurrent of salvation by grace through faith. God's salvation was always apart from The Law. The Jewish mindset was that they needed to obey the rules to get God to like them more.
The author of Hebrews says a similar thing as Paul when he does a "reveal" that there's another order of priesthood that you-all forgot about. Everybody was fixated for the longest time on the Aaronic Priesthood. But there was this other priest - no relation to Aaron at all - that was a priest of God whom even Abraham showed submission to. This guy with the crazy name, Melchizedek, was a believer in Yahweh and acted as his priest hundreds of years before Aaron came along.
I have to chuckle at this. It's a bit like the illusionist who distracts your attention away from what's really going on and it when the effects are shown, it looks like "magic." All this time God had a righteousness and a priesthood working in the background ready to be used when The Law and Aaronic priesthood had fully taught us what we didn't want to believe. Because what we wanted to believe was that we could try really hard and get God to like us.
That could be confusing so let me restate the lesson: it is absolute folly to think you can do anything to make yourself acceptable to God.
Go 'head, try it! Here's a list of 613 commands - just 613 of them. Go ahead, keep them all.
OK, OK, that's too many and too hard. Here - let's start you out on just ten rules. Live your life so as to not violate just those ten. Hmmmm. Can't do that either.
Well, by the time people are figuring this all out, Jesus comes along and says there really are just two: love God and love neighbor. We still can't do it.
Have we learned the lesson? We can't do anything to gain acceptance by God. OK, now let's get to the real point: it's about grace and it always has been.
This must have been an earth-shattering realization for both Jews and Gentiles. An earned righteousness that is apart from rule-keeping. Mind boggling!
Paul points out that the Law was never intended to save people. The sacrificial system could not accomplish that (Heb. 10:4). Abraham was saved before he became Jewish because (Rom 3:21), 'God has shown a becoming-saved-process that is not at all linked to The Law.' The Law doesn't save - it brings death and even greater realization that we are doomed. But God - all along - had this undercurrent of salvation by grace through faith. God's salvation was always apart from The Law. The Jewish mindset was that they needed to obey the rules to get God to like them more.
The author of Hebrews says a similar thing as Paul when he does a "reveal" that there's another order of priesthood that you-all forgot about. Everybody was fixated for the longest time on the Aaronic Priesthood. But there was this other priest - no relation to Aaron at all - that was a priest of God whom even Abraham showed submission to. This guy with the crazy name, Melchizedek, was a believer in Yahweh and acted as his priest hundreds of years before Aaron came along.
I have to chuckle at this. It's a bit like the illusionist who distracts your attention away from what's really going on and it when the effects are shown, it looks like "magic." All this time God had a righteousness and a priesthood working in the background ready to be used when The Law and Aaronic priesthood had fully taught us what we didn't want to believe. Because what we wanted to believe was that we could try really hard and get God to like us.
That could be confusing so let me restate the lesson: it is absolute folly to think you can do anything to make yourself acceptable to God.
Go 'head, try it! Here's a list of 613 commands - just 613 of them. Go ahead, keep them all.
OK, OK, that's too many and too hard. Here - let's start you out on just ten rules. Live your life so as to not violate just those ten. Hmmmm. Can't do that either.
Well, by the time people are figuring this all out, Jesus comes along and says there really are just two: love God and love neighbor. We still can't do it.
Have we learned the lesson? We can't do anything to gain acceptance by God. OK, now let's get to the real point: it's about grace and it always has been.
This must have been an earth-shattering realization for both Jews and Gentiles. An earned righteousness that is apart from rule-keeping. Mind boggling!
20080616
Acts 21:4-14; Paul Goofs?
In my coursework we are going through the book of Acts and I've developed a renewed appreciation for Paul and his ministry. But what has really grabbed my attention has been incidents where it seems that Paul has actually made a mistake.
Now let's get this straight: Paul was not infallible, he could and did make mistakes. The Bible records those (and the mistakes - even sins - of others) inerrantly. While Paul is legitimately a role-model (1Cor 11:1), he isn't perfect and even said so (1Tm 1:15).
When Paul comes back from his last missionary circuit, he stops by and has a quick off-site briefing with the leaders from Ephesus and admits to them that everywhere he's been recently the Spirit keeps saying that 'bonds and afflictions' await him. Paul says good-bye, sails back towards home, and then lands in Tyre.
In Tyre, the prophesies are a bit more explicit (Ac 21:4): "they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem." Now I don't know if there might be something hiding in the text, but it sounds like - from these words - that the Spirit is trying to tell Paul "Don't go to Jerusalem!" Now, what's the difference in Paul's reaction between this and Ac. 16:6-7 where Paul hears from the Spirit to not go to places, Paul obeys, and does not go to those places?
Paul then goes to stay with Philip and his four daughters (all prophetesses) in Caesarea. Agabus, a prophet who seems to have a good track record, makes a special trip up to Paul and warns him, again, things aren't going to go well if Paul persues this course of action. All the folks (including Philip and his daughters) take this news and beg Paul to not go further. Paul doesn't listen.
Finally, in the face of a remarkably intrasigent Paul, the folks there say, "Well, we sure hope that God can do what he wants with this situation." Now a couple of commentators I've read both see that as the folks "finally acknowleged that it was the Lord's will for Paul to go."
Really? In the face of five prophets, a Proto-Deacon who helped to break the gospel into Samaria, and the words of the Spirit from many believers for the last few months, am I to read this narrative and see that the vast majority of Christian leaders (including reliable and respected prophets) all saw it the other way but only Paul had it right?
Any thoughts out there?
Now let's get this straight: Paul was not infallible, he could and did make mistakes. The Bible records those (and the mistakes - even sins - of others) inerrantly. While Paul is legitimately a role-model (1Cor 11:1), he isn't perfect and even said so (1Tm 1:15).
When Paul comes back from his last missionary circuit, he stops by and has a quick off-site briefing with the leaders from Ephesus and admits to them that everywhere he's been recently the Spirit keeps saying that 'bonds and afflictions' await him. Paul says good-bye, sails back towards home, and then lands in Tyre.
In Tyre, the prophesies are a bit more explicit (Ac 21:4): "they kept telling Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem." Now I don't know if there might be something hiding in the text, but it sounds like - from these words - that the Spirit is trying to tell Paul "Don't go to Jerusalem!" Now, what's the difference in Paul's reaction between this and Ac. 16:6-7 where Paul hears from the Spirit to not go to places, Paul obeys, and does not go to those places?
Paul then goes to stay with Philip and his four daughters (all prophetesses) in Caesarea. Agabus, a prophet who seems to have a good track record, makes a special trip up to Paul and warns him, again, things aren't going to go well if Paul persues this course of action. All the folks (including Philip and his daughters) take this news and beg Paul to not go further. Paul doesn't listen.
Finally, in the face of a remarkably intrasigent Paul, the folks there say, "Well, we sure hope that God can do what he wants with this situation." Now a couple of commentators I've read both see that as the folks "finally acknowleged that it was the Lord's will for Paul to go."
Really? In the face of five prophets, a Proto-Deacon who helped to break the gospel into Samaria, and the words of the Spirit from many believers for the last few months, am I to read this narrative and see that the vast majority of Christian leaders (including reliable and respected prophets) all saw it the other way but only Paul had it right?
Any thoughts out there?
20080613
Paul's Miscalculation?
As I read both first and second Corinthians and one of the minor themes was how Paul interacted with this church he’d planted. After he left, they got into a habit of disrespecting him. Paul, in both letters, has to reassert his apostolic and pastoral authority.
What’s interesting is that Paul figures this out and he identifies the cause. He jokes with them: "You guys don’t respect me because I didn’t abuse you financially." Now it’s only half a joke because, from Paul’s perspective, that’s actually a big bit of what’s going on between him and them – and that’s pretty messed up.
Paul got to Corinth and was supported by other churches in order to do his church planting work there. He had very good reasons for doing so, but the Corinthian church consistently misread Paul’s generosity on their behalf.
What is really annoying about the church is that, once the church was established, they still weren’t willing to give to support the work of the gospel! (We see that in 1Cor.9:9-14) Finally, in 2Cor.11:7 Paul says, “Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God without charge?”
And I wonder, seriously, was that an error in judgment on Paul’s part?
I remember a while back when we were getting ready to launch a really important ministry initiative that would involve people buying a book. Most of the people in the room said, “This is so important and so beneficial to our people that we should make sure there is absolutely no barrier for them – have the church pick up the tab and give the people the books for free!” But a couple of folks said, more wisely I think: “No, they should be made to pay a few bucks for the book. If they don’t pay even a little bit for it, they won’t value it.”
I wonder if Paul, who would certainly understood this dynamic of human nature, realized what trouble this would eventually cause for him as he worked to effectively minister to Corinthian church.
What’s interesting is that Paul figures this out and he identifies the cause. He jokes with them: "You guys don’t respect me because I didn’t abuse you financially." Now it’s only half a joke because, from Paul’s perspective, that’s actually a big bit of what’s going on between him and them – and that’s pretty messed up.
Paul got to Corinth and was supported by other churches in order to do his church planting work there. He had very good reasons for doing so, but the Corinthian church consistently misread Paul’s generosity on their behalf.
What is really annoying about the church is that, once the church was established, they still weren’t willing to give to support the work of the gospel! (We see that in 1Cor.9:9-14) Finally, in 2Cor.11:7 Paul says, “Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God without charge?”
And I wonder, seriously, was that an error in judgment on Paul’s part?
I remember a while back when we were getting ready to launch a really important ministry initiative that would involve people buying a book. Most of the people in the room said, “This is so important and so beneficial to our people that we should make sure there is absolutely no barrier for them – have the church pick up the tab and give the people the books for free!” But a couple of folks said, more wisely I think: “No, they should be made to pay a few bucks for the book. If they don’t pay even a little bit for it, they won’t value it.”
I wonder if Paul, who would certainly understood this dynamic of human nature, realized what trouble this would eventually cause for him as he worked to effectively minister to Corinthian church.
20080610
History III
History is important to Christianity.
But, oddly, history isn’t very important to Christians these days. Most believers in my tradition have a passing understanding of Jesus’ biography, the events surrounding the Apostles, know there was something called “The Reformation,” and then think of Billy Graham. That’s all the history about the church they know.
And that’s a shame, it seems to me. Of course, we could observe how many Christians of my tradition are barely aware of what they believe (and, much worse, if what they believe is truly in line with the faith they "profess"). There are many reasons for this: an underlying suspicion of ‘intellectual stuff;’ an emphasis on felt needs and experience; an emaciated theology of the person that believes that Jesus was just joshin’ when he told us to love God with our minds; and a teaching-pulpit tradition that encourages all those weaknesses.
In any case, my point is this: we ought to pay more attention to church history. During my couple of years in seminary, I’ve been challenged by my good friend, Johnmark, to give a bit more weight to the early Patristics.
Now “Patristics” is another word for “church fathers” and they, as a group, are kind of Christianity’s ‘founding fathers’ (a term most Americans know). When I talk about the early Patristics, I’m thinking of those influential church leaders who helped guide the church as it transitioned from the Apostles commissioned by Jesus to the ‘institutional’ church that Constantine ushered in. For about two hundred years, most of these early church fathers worked very hard to preserve and teach nothing but the teachings of the Apostles. The church fathers of the first hundred years after the last Apostle died are of particular interest to me.
My current hero from this time is a man name Irenaeus who was raised in Turkey, actually was a protégé a bishop named Polycarp. Polycarp was a protégé of John, the Beloved Disciple. So it was John (Jesus’ best friend on this earth) who taught Polycarp, and then Polycarp taught Irenaeus. During that era, we don’t see much speculative theology. No, the emphasis was on conservativism: teaching what the Apostles taught – no more and no less.
Now the value of these Patristics to us is that when we have certain questions about, say, church organization or baptism, or engagement with worldview philosophy our proper, right, and God-honoring response should be to go to the Bible. But what if there is ambiguity there? I realize that’s a hot-button statement. But still, I have to acknowledge that some ambiguity on those matters exist. The next place to go is, seems to me, to those early Patristics.
For example, to those who insist that baptism is only valid if it is done by immersion might be surprised to learn that the Apostles and their protégés were not nearly so rigid. From “The Didache,” a very early document that dates from the 100’s, the understanding of Apostolic practice was that how a believer was baptized was a matter of circumstance. That is, there was an order of preferred 'modes:' immersion in cold flowing water (river or beach) was the best, second best was cold still water, third best was warm still water, fourth best was to pour water over the head three times. All of those were legitimate modes of baptism to the very early church. What was really important was that the person being baptized and the one doing the baptism to fast one or two days before. These days, we don't even think about doing a fast before baptism.
Hmmmm. Folks, that’s what was important to the Apostles: not how the person got wet, but whether they were spiritually prepared to engage in the ritual.
We say that our faith is built upon Jesus and the Apostles’ teaching but we conveniently neglect to see what the Apostles actually taught. We make ambiguous Biblical passages into doctrine and ignore Apostolic teaching.
Now I am not – read me well – in any way suggesting that early Patristic writings have the same authority as the canon of scripture. I am suggesting that they should be influential in our understanding of some ambiguities which I believe God has allowed to be in scripture.
Here's another thing; I realize that there's a current faddish re-discovery of the Patristics among Evangelicals. I applaud that movement as an attempt to get reconnected with the church's history. However I would exhort Evangelicals to go beyond the faddish find-a-quote-from-a-Patristic and thoughtfully engage with those men who struggled to carry on the Apostles' teaching.
But, oddly, history isn’t very important to Christians these days. Most believers in my tradition have a passing understanding of Jesus’ biography, the events surrounding the Apostles, know there was something called “The Reformation,” and then think of Billy Graham. That’s all the history about the church they know.
And that’s a shame, it seems to me. Of course, we could observe how many Christians of my tradition are barely aware of what they believe (and, much worse, if what they believe is truly in line with the faith they "profess"). There are many reasons for this: an underlying suspicion of ‘intellectual stuff;’ an emphasis on felt needs and experience; an emaciated theology of the person that believes that Jesus was just joshin’ when he told us to love God with our minds; and a teaching-pulpit tradition that encourages all those weaknesses.
In any case, my point is this: we ought to pay more attention to church history. During my couple of years in seminary, I’ve been challenged by my good friend, Johnmark, to give a bit more weight to the early Patristics.
Now “Patristics” is another word for “church fathers” and they, as a group, are kind of Christianity’s ‘founding fathers’ (a term most Americans know). When I talk about the early Patristics, I’m thinking of those influential church leaders who helped guide the church as it transitioned from the Apostles commissioned by Jesus to the ‘institutional’ church that Constantine ushered in. For about two hundred years, most of these early church fathers worked very hard to preserve and teach nothing but the teachings of the Apostles. The church fathers of the first hundred years after the last Apostle died are of particular interest to me.
My current hero from this time is a man name Irenaeus who was raised in Turkey, actually was a protégé a bishop named Polycarp. Polycarp was a protégé of John, the Beloved Disciple. So it was John (Jesus’ best friend on this earth) who taught Polycarp, and then Polycarp taught Irenaeus. During that era, we don’t see much speculative theology. No, the emphasis was on conservativism: teaching what the Apostles taught – no more and no less.
Now the value of these Patristics to us is that when we have certain questions about, say, church organization or baptism, or engagement with worldview philosophy our proper, right, and God-honoring response should be to go to the Bible. But what if there is ambiguity there? I realize that’s a hot-button statement. But still, I have to acknowledge that some ambiguity on those matters exist. The next place to go is, seems to me, to those early Patristics.
For example, to those who insist that baptism is only valid if it is done by immersion might be surprised to learn that the Apostles and their protégés were not nearly so rigid. From “The Didache,” a very early document that dates from the 100’s, the understanding of Apostolic practice was that how a believer was baptized was a matter of circumstance. That is, there was an order of preferred 'modes:' immersion in cold flowing water (river or beach) was the best, second best was cold still water, third best was warm still water, fourth best was to pour water over the head three times. All of those were legitimate modes of baptism to the very early church. What was really important was that the person being baptized and the one doing the baptism to fast one or two days before. These days, we don't even think about doing a fast before baptism.
Hmmmm. Folks, that’s what was important to the Apostles: not how the person got wet, but whether they were spiritually prepared to engage in the ritual.
We say that our faith is built upon Jesus and the Apostles’ teaching but we conveniently neglect to see what the Apostles actually taught. We make ambiguous Biblical passages into doctrine and ignore Apostolic teaching.
Now I am not – read me well – in any way suggesting that early Patristic writings have the same authority as the canon of scripture. I am suggesting that they should be influential in our understanding of some ambiguities which I believe God has allowed to be in scripture.
Here's another thing; I realize that there's a current faddish re-discovery of the Patristics among Evangelicals. I applaud that movement as an attempt to get reconnected with the church's history. However I would exhort Evangelicals to go beyond the faddish find-a-quote-from-a-Patristic and thoughtfully engage with those men who struggled to carry on the Apostles' teaching.
20080606
History II
History; well, that’s a tough thing.
Why?
First, because many people didn’t have my good experience with history classes in school. For them, history is boorrrrinnngggg – a real snoozer and anytime history is brought up, their lights go out. If you ever tried to pay attention, your likely response was: “What-ever.”
Second, history is, well, old. In our modernistic culture new is good and old is bad. Progress is the goal and “history is bunk.” We have lots of clichés for that attitude: “That was then, this is now;” “What have you done for me lately?,” "What's next?," “Let’s not dwell on the past,” “Forget the past, look to the future,” and so on. Really, our culture truly, viscerally, and with extreme prejudice believes with all its heart that history is, well, evil. I don't think I'm overstating here. People these days have an allergic reaction to history.
Third, history, …. "Dude, there’s just so much of it!" Humans have been around for a long time and even within ‘recorded’ history there’s just a lot of stuff to know. History can be overwhelming and it can be really difficult to place events, people, eras, movements, and cultures in coherent context.
Fourth, history is depressing. Face it, there’s not a lot of happy news in history. A lot of it is about meglomaniacal warlords in love with their own legends; wars, battles, killing, plagues, famines, dying, and a constant theme of trajedy, injustice, and oppression. History is frequently not a happy place. Here's something from Brennan Manning: "How does one dare to propose the way of trust in the face of raw, undifferentiated heartache, cosmic disorder and the terror of history?" Followers of Jesus see that matter differently, by the way.
Fifth, Yes - history can be prey to ‘perspectivalism.’ Yes, many historians wrote with almost comically transparent agendas and biases. Even those part of the ‘modern’ historical movement have been shown to be unconsciously influenced by their times, societies, and mores.
Yet, badly told history should be a motivation to demand well-told history.
Why?
First, because many people didn’t have my good experience with history classes in school. For them, history is boorrrrinnngggg – a real snoozer and anytime history is brought up, their lights go out. If you ever tried to pay attention, your likely response was: “What-ever.”
Second, history is, well, old. In our modernistic culture new is good and old is bad. Progress is the goal and “history is bunk.” We have lots of clichés for that attitude: “That was then, this is now;” “What have you done for me lately?,” "What's next?," “Let’s not dwell on the past,” “Forget the past, look to the future,” and so on. Really, our culture truly, viscerally, and with extreme prejudice believes with all its heart that history is, well, evil. I don't think I'm overstating here. People these days have an allergic reaction to history.
Third, history, …. "Dude, there’s just so much of it!" Humans have been around for a long time and even within ‘recorded’ history there’s just a lot of stuff to know. History can be overwhelming and it can be really difficult to place events, people, eras, movements, and cultures in coherent context.
Fourth, history is depressing. Face it, there’s not a lot of happy news in history. A lot of it is about meglomaniacal warlords in love with their own legends; wars, battles, killing, plagues, famines, dying, and a constant theme of trajedy, injustice, and oppression. History is frequently not a happy place. Here's something from Brennan Manning: "How does one dare to propose the way of trust in the face of raw, undifferentiated heartache, cosmic disorder and the terror of history?" Followers of Jesus see that matter differently, by the way.
Fifth, Yes - history can be prey to ‘perspectivalism.’ Yes, many historians wrote with almost comically transparent agendas and biases. Even those part of the ‘modern’ historical movement have been shown to be unconsciously influenced by their times, societies, and mores.
Yet, badly told history should be a motivation to demand well-told history.
- As to boring; even in our narcissistic culture, if we want to know ourselves even better, we should want to know where we came from, how we came to be, and what shaped us. History is our own story - it is interesting.
- And, yes, there’s a lot of history! But there have been a lot of people who have come before us and we owe it to them to try and capture their times and a small sliver of their lives.
- For Christians, who are deeply wounded by the injustices done in the name of their savior Jesus, we see history as a painful, yet needed, reminder that people are broken and have needed Jesus all this time.
- Lastly, that even noting the failings of historians, we still are motivated by a sense of objective truth. Those laughable ancient writers may have been engaging in covert sarcasm. Ever consider that? We become sympathetic with those who have struggled hard to get a handle on their times and occasionally came short. We applaud their efforts and ourselves take up the banner to even better understand the times.
20080603
History I
I’ve always enjoyed history. That, right there, marks me off as different from lots of other people in my society. Maybe I was just lucky, but my history teachers were good. They always seemed to be able to show how where we are now is because of what happened before. I specifically remember a professor at my Community College, Mr. Haydu, who I realized lectured in history like he was telling a story: characters, plot twists, motivations – all of those things were what made up history.
As I advanced in my education, I got the typical undergraduate stuff about perspectivalism: “All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon” – Voltaire. My favorite is the African proverb, “Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters.” But that attitude never satisfied. There has always been perspective, sure, but one reason why we tend to trust some historians over others is that those we trust seemed to work hard to eliminate their biases.
In any case, when it comes to history about the church, things get fun. Christianity places a Very High value on objective truth. Yet, because another high value is the recognition of human fallibility, Christianity is ‘realistic’ and recognizes that historians – operating by themselves – can record with unrecognized bias.
Christianity itself is a religion based on history: the historical facts of Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. In fact, Paul states that if the historical fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus is not an objective fact, then Christianity itself is just plain false. Without history, Christianity evaporates. For millennia, this has been known as the ‘soft underbelly’ of the faith. And yet, dispite this notoriously known fact, there’s been no soft underbelly to be found. Archeology and high-confidence history keep revealing more and more strength where the soft belly is supposed to be.
Judaism and Christianity both affirm the importance of history and note that the writing of history is left to its most capable people. Moses, equipped with the best education that civilization of his time had to offer, recoded a purposeful history of humanity to show how his people came to be. Unnamed prophets compiled histories of the Jewish people using the reign of kings as their narrative structure. Ezra, an extremely gifted priest, compiled a brief history of Jews returning to their homeland. Luke, a gentile physician, used his scholarly bent to compile a systematic biography of Jesus and early history of the Apostles.
And we also believe that all these writers were not operating by themselves. They had supernatural guidance. Because, even with the most gifted of people, God was there to work with those writers to not only make sure that the facts were correct, but also that the writing would accomplish the purposes that God ultimately had for those writings.
History is important to Christianity.
As I advanced in my education, I got the typical undergraduate stuff about perspectivalism: “All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon” – Voltaire. My favorite is the African proverb, “Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters.” But that attitude never satisfied. There has always been perspective, sure, but one reason why we tend to trust some historians over others is that those we trust seemed to work hard to eliminate their biases.
In any case, when it comes to history about the church, things get fun. Christianity places a Very High value on objective truth. Yet, because another high value is the recognition of human fallibility, Christianity is ‘realistic’ and recognizes that historians – operating by themselves – can record with unrecognized bias.
Christianity itself is a religion based on history: the historical facts of Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus. In fact, Paul states that if the historical fact of the death and resurrection of Jesus is not an objective fact, then Christianity itself is just plain false. Without history, Christianity evaporates. For millennia, this has been known as the ‘soft underbelly’ of the faith. And yet, dispite this notoriously known fact, there’s been no soft underbelly to be found. Archeology and high-confidence history keep revealing more and more strength where the soft belly is supposed to be.
Judaism and Christianity both affirm the importance of history and note that the writing of history is left to its most capable people. Moses, equipped with the best education that civilization of his time had to offer, recoded a purposeful history of humanity to show how his people came to be. Unnamed prophets compiled histories of the Jewish people using the reign of kings as their narrative structure. Ezra, an extremely gifted priest, compiled a brief history of Jews returning to their homeland. Luke, a gentile physician, used his scholarly bent to compile a systematic biography of Jesus and early history of the Apostles.
And we also believe that all these writers were not operating by themselves. They had supernatural guidance. Because, even with the most gifted of people, God was there to work with those writers to not only make sure that the facts were correct, but also that the writing would accomplish the purposes that God ultimately had for those writings.
History is important to Christianity.
20080529
Heroes - Part 2
So here is part two of my hero list….
Titus – we see Titus as St. Paul’s associate. What I like about him is that Paul could count on Titus to do anything. Titus was Paul’s utility player: take care of some money transfers, do a church evaluation, step in as an interim pastor – Titus had lots of talent that God used. So he appeals to me because he was multi-talented and ministered in a broad context.
Bill Hybels and Mark Driscoll – these are two guys who both love Jesus and want others to know about Jesus, as well. They are both innovative and created models of ministry that are admirable. They are on opposite sides of one theological spectrum, which might be ironic except that they both very insistently point to Jesus. They are similar in that their younger days were marked by being both very effective and maybe a bit arrogant. They are both very committed to engaging their culture with the gospel.
(update in 2015) - of course, many in evangelicalism have heard the Mark Driscoll had an implosion. Of course, this is disappointing. Yet, while this speaks volumes about Driscoll's struggles with pride and his pastoral 'heart,' I hope this does not invalidate his Jesus-centered preaching and the mission to bring the gospel to Seattle-land. The messenger has shot himself, but much of the message is still valid.
(update in 2018) - and ... now Bill Hybels has been accused of sexual abuse and has resigned. While I could repeat the tenor of my update on Mark Driscoll, I have recently wondered if there is something else going on - a systemic problem with 'evangelical' leadership. Hybels - especially - promoted the young, charismatic, dynamic speaker, alpha-male model. The cracks are splitting - that model (as useful as it *might* have been) is failing the church and the Lord of that church, Jesus.
Bishop Irenaeus – he was born in the Orient, then ministered in Europe, and a man with a powerful love and concern for his church. He saw a faddish spiritual movement developing, recognized its toxicity for his flock, and took it upon himself to argue and refute that heresy of Gnosticism. In doing so, and not really intending to, he became the first systematic theologian of the church. His name means “peaceable” and he lived up to that moniker.
C.S. Lewis – I have a real respect for bright people who can communicate clearly. C.S. Lewis was once described by a close associate as “the clearest thinking man in Britain” because of the lucidity of his writing style. He came to Jesus later in life and turned his smarts towards explaining why following Jesus was the most obviously rational thing to do.
George Washington – people of my generation went through the 60’s when it was the cool thing to trash the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson excepted. But in college, I read a biography of Washington and found him to be a true hero. Not always the brightest man in the room (compared with others of the Founding Fathers), he was a man of character, courage, and talent. He made many mistakes but never repeated any of them and learned from them all. He was sacrificially dedicated to his new country.
Winston Churchill – very similar to George Washington for me: a late-bloomer, tenacious, dedicated to his nation, and a charmer. We think of Churchill today for his wit, which was considerable, but few knew that Churchill wasn’t much of a student, had a pretty obscure start as a politician, but kept plugging away until he was the man of the hour during the Second World War.
George Smiley – this is a fictional character born of ‘John LeCarre,’ a spy novelist. George is a master spy but as anti-James Bond as can be: middle-aged, un-athletic, bad with women, plenty of self-doubts, a powerful thinker, hated gadgets – the character of Smiley is very compellingly drawn by ‘LeCarre.’
So there are some common themes here. Dedication and purpose of life, character and integrity, talent and capacity, mostly intellectuals or bright people. These are my heroes.
Titus – we see Titus as St. Paul’s associate. What I like about him is that Paul could count on Titus to do anything. Titus was Paul’s utility player: take care of some money transfers, do a church evaluation, step in as an interim pastor – Titus had lots of talent that God used. So he appeals to me because he was multi-talented and ministered in a broad context.
Bill Hybels and Mark Driscoll – these are two guys who both love Jesus and want others to know about Jesus, as well. They are both innovative and created models of ministry that are admirable. They are on opposite sides of one theological spectrum, which might be ironic except that they both very insistently point to Jesus. They are similar in that their younger days were marked by being both very effective and maybe a bit arrogant. They are both very committed to engaging their culture with the gospel.
(update in 2015) - of course, many in evangelicalism have heard the Mark Driscoll had an implosion. Of course, this is disappointing. Yet, while this speaks volumes about Driscoll's struggles with pride and his pastoral 'heart,' I hope this does not invalidate his Jesus-centered preaching and the mission to bring the gospel to Seattle-land. The messenger has shot himself, but much of the message is still valid.
(update in 2018) - and ... now Bill Hybels has been accused of sexual abuse and has resigned. While I could repeat the tenor of my update on Mark Driscoll, I have recently wondered if there is something else going on - a systemic problem with 'evangelical' leadership. Hybels - especially - promoted the young, charismatic, dynamic speaker, alpha-male model. The cracks are splitting - that model (as useful as it *might* have been) is failing the church and the Lord of that church, Jesus.
Bishop Irenaeus – he was born in the Orient, then ministered in Europe, and a man with a powerful love and concern for his church. He saw a faddish spiritual movement developing, recognized its toxicity for his flock, and took it upon himself to argue and refute that heresy of Gnosticism. In doing so, and not really intending to, he became the first systematic theologian of the church. His name means “peaceable” and he lived up to that moniker.
C.S. Lewis – I have a real respect for bright people who can communicate clearly. C.S. Lewis was once described by a close associate as “the clearest thinking man in Britain” because of the lucidity of his writing style. He came to Jesus later in life and turned his smarts towards explaining why following Jesus was the most obviously rational thing to do.
George Washington – people of my generation went through the 60’s when it was the cool thing to trash the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson excepted. But in college, I read a biography of Washington and found him to be a true hero. Not always the brightest man in the room (compared with others of the Founding Fathers), he was a man of character, courage, and talent. He made many mistakes but never repeated any of them and learned from them all. He was sacrificially dedicated to his new country.
Winston Churchill – very similar to George Washington for me: a late-bloomer, tenacious, dedicated to his nation, and a charmer. We think of Churchill today for his wit, which was considerable, but few knew that Churchill wasn’t much of a student, had a pretty obscure start as a politician, but kept plugging away until he was the man of the hour during the Second World War.
George Smiley – this is a fictional character born of ‘John LeCarre,’ a spy novelist. George is a master spy but as anti-James Bond as can be: middle-aged, un-athletic, bad with women, plenty of self-doubts, a powerful thinker, hated gadgets – the character of Smiley is very compellingly drawn by ‘LeCarre.’
So there are some common themes here. Dedication and purpose of life, character and integrity, talent and capacity, mostly intellectuals or bright people. These are my heroes.
20080526
Heroes - Part 1
I was just recently challenged to make up a list of my heroes and to think a bit upon the list. I then recalled that I had a list of heroes (look to the right) on this blogsite. So I thought I’d tell a bit about why each of these are on that list.
Jesus – can’t get past this one, Jesus Christ is my hero. He is an awesome guy, lived an exemplary life, I want to be like him. I am an absolute raving fan about Jesus. I worship the dude.
Joseph Jacobson I – you know this guy as Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was a bit relationally retarded as a young guy (and a bit arrogant), got sold into slavery, languished in prison for a couple of decades, but was eventually used greatly by God to save thousands of lives. I admire Joe because God used Joe’s talents to do good and great things. Additionally, a case could be made that Joe was a late bloomer and that is something I identify with.
Joseph Jacobson II – you know this Joe as Jesus’ dad. I think Joe is the unsung hero of the Christmas story. Joe’s character, his determination to obey God, his acceptance of an unthinkable responsibility to raise the boy Jesus… Well, Joe ought to be the patron saint of all blue collar tradesmen. He loved God, did his job, took his responsibilities as a husband and father seriously, and didn’t ask for anything in return. We should honor this guy more.
Mary Elidatter – I’m using the Scandinavian formula for this gal’s name. This is Mary, Jesus’ mom. Mary is an absolutely first-class gal. She should not only be a role model for women but all us men as well. She was one strong woman. This is the kind of gal we should marry and the kind of gal we should help our daughters to become like.
Mark Etzen – this is a friend of mine who died in 2007 from pancreatic cancer. Mark was funny, supportive, positive, and wise. He sold things and was good at that; he was generous with his resources; he was a respected voice in our church’s leadership; he was an exemplary family man. All of those things made him a good friend to me. But the thing that capped off his hero status to me was the way he died: with courage, grace, and looking forward to meeting our mutual hero, Jesus.
Doug Humphreys – this is my BFF who was an attorney and has moved into ministry splitting his time pastoring and working for CRM. Doug is smart, funny, a good family man, and has had to battle some health issues. He has done so also with courage and grace. I find myself occasionally thinking that someday I want to grow up to be like Doug, even though he’s younger than me.
Jeff Logsdon – Jeff is the ‘Associate Pastor’ of Flipside church. Jeff sought me out to help him with some projects as the newly-planted Flipside was shaping up its ministry model. I soon came to admire Jeff for his courage and willingness to risk much to start the church. Jeff’s wisdom, temperament, and willingness to learn came strongly into the mix when God started speaking more clearly to me about entering into vocational ministry.
This is just part one of my hero list. Keep posted for part two...
Jesus – can’t get past this one, Jesus Christ is my hero. He is an awesome guy, lived an exemplary life, I want to be like him. I am an absolute raving fan about Jesus. I worship the dude.
Joseph Jacobson I – you know this guy as Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was a bit relationally retarded as a young guy (and a bit arrogant), got sold into slavery, languished in prison for a couple of decades, but was eventually used greatly by God to save thousands of lives. I admire Joe because God used Joe’s talents to do good and great things. Additionally, a case could be made that Joe was a late bloomer and that is something I identify with.
Joseph Jacobson II – you know this Joe as Jesus’ dad. I think Joe is the unsung hero of the Christmas story. Joe’s character, his determination to obey God, his acceptance of an unthinkable responsibility to raise the boy Jesus… Well, Joe ought to be the patron saint of all blue collar tradesmen. He loved God, did his job, took his responsibilities as a husband and father seriously, and didn’t ask for anything in return. We should honor this guy more.
Mary Elidatter – I’m using the Scandinavian formula for this gal’s name. This is Mary, Jesus’ mom. Mary is an absolutely first-class gal. She should not only be a role model for women but all us men as well. She was one strong woman. This is the kind of gal we should marry and the kind of gal we should help our daughters to become like.
Mark Etzen – this is a friend of mine who died in 2007 from pancreatic cancer. Mark was funny, supportive, positive, and wise. He sold things and was good at that; he was generous with his resources; he was a respected voice in our church’s leadership; he was an exemplary family man. All of those things made him a good friend to me. But the thing that capped off his hero status to me was the way he died: with courage, grace, and looking forward to meeting our mutual hero, Jesus.
Doug Humphreys – this is my BFF who was an attorney and has moved into ministry splitting his time pastoring and working for CRM. Doug is smart, funny, a good family man, and has had to battle some health issues. He has done so also with courage and grace. I find myself occasionally thinking that someday I want to grow up to be like Doug, even though he’s younger than me.
Jeff Logsdon – Jeff is the ‘Associate Pastor’ of Flipside church. Jeff sought me out to help him with some projects as the newly-planted Flipside was shaping up its ministry model. I soon came to admire Jeff for his courage and willingness to risk much to start the church. Jeff’s wisdom, temperament, and willingness to learn came strongly into the mix when God started speaking more clearly to me about entering into vocational ministry.
This is just part one of my hero list. Keep posted for part two...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)