Thursday, October 01, 2009

The Necessary Relevance and Irrelevance of the Church

The Necessary Relevance and Irrelevance of the church:

I am reading Bryan Stone’s book, “Evangelism After Christendom” which offers an approach to evangelism after the Modernity. Part of this means a rejection of the church’s desire to be relevant to its culture. Instead, part of the church’s faithful witness to culture is by being different. Yet this goes against the practice of most churches which desire to engage their culture in meaningful ways. I think there is room for agreement in both of these positions when we are clear what we mean by “church.” I think there are two ways one can faithfully use the word church:

1. Church as a politico-economic faith community; and
2. Church as a local organization dedicated to the systemic and organized proclamation and worship of Jesus.

If these are both faithful uses of the word church, then the church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture. To use an example close to my heart, the church (#1) cannot simply be an organization that teaches better money management than other not-for-profits that do that sort of thing. In this sense, it has to be irrelevant to a culture consumed with economics. However, the church (#2) must be relevant in proclaiming and practicing Christian faith in its culture, which means teaching financial management to people swamped with debt. This teaching is incredibly relevant, but irrelevant in its content because it should help to create that new faith community where money is not status. (The necessary point to the church (#2) is that it doesn’t teach financial management for reasons of self-perpetuation. That goes against the church (#1) being irrelevant.) The Good News of the church (#1) is not financial management, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through financial management.

Another example one could use is sexuality. The church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture in that it asks completely different questions about sexuality than its culture, but the church (#2) must be completely relevant by understanding sexuality is a prominent issue facing its culture. The Good News of the church (#1) is not its promise of sexual fulfillment within its teaching, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through its relevant teaching on sexuality.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Was the Holy Spirit present in the Old Testament?

Out of yesterday's sermon, I received two questions for further thought. The first was regarding the Holy Spirit's presence in the Old Testament.

The fast answer is that the presence of the Spirit in the New Testament is to be the norm because of the ascension of Jesus. Jesus has received the Spirit from the Father and has poured the Spirit out on his people (Acts 2:33). Perhaps we could say that as the Spirit was present in unique ways in the Old Testament so is the Spirit's unique presence now to be expected because of the triumph of Jesus.

Monday, March 30, 2009

Thoughts on Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionaire (SDM) tells the life (and love) story of an Indian teen through his appearance on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? The questions he faces all provide a window into short and long vignettes about his life.

The best part of SDM is that it is not void of hope. Great story doesn't just leave you bummed out. It paints a sobering picture of India and its amazing discrepancy between the rich and poor, the powerful and the weak. One interesting aspect of the story is the transformation of the police officers who interrogate the main character. They start out as thugs and eventually one of them becomes more humane.

I liked it.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

What does God being in the change feel like?

The second insightful question I had after the service on Sunday was from my wife, Heather. She asked, "What does it feel like to have God in the change?" I thought this question very insightful because at times I think we over-interpret our emotional responses. For example, when we feel anxiety through times of serious illness, is that what God's presence feels like? Most would guess no, and so may interpret that anxiety as evidence of God's absence. I don't feel God because I feel anxiety. Now, it may or may not be true that anxiety shows God's absence (I'm inclined to think No), but it's still an open question.

Any thoughts on what God being in the changing world would feel like for individuals? Is it peace? Hope? Optimism? Joy?

Monday, March 23, 2009

How do Christians look different?

I had two excellent questions posed to me yesterday after the sermon and our opportunity to talk it out. First was from Kellie Tompkins and the second was from Heather. I'll share on Kellie's today and Heather's Thursday. Kellie asked, What can Christians do to set themselves aside, to make themselves look different? The last stanza of the poem, "Mad Farmer's Liberation Front" by Wendell Berry provides some beginning reflections.
Go with your love to the fields.
Lie down in the shade. Rest your head
in her lap. Swear allegiance
to what is nighest your thoughts.
As soon as the generals and the politicos
can predict the motions of your mind,
lose it. Leave it as a sign
to mark the false trail, the way
you didn't go. Be like the fox
who makes more tracks than necessary,
some in the wrong direction.
Practice resurrection.
First, a story. In the early 2000s there was a lot of terrorism associated with the #18 bus route in Jerusalem. Suicide bombers and other horrors. Some Christians, a significant minority in the area, decided to hold a prayer vigil. Not your average vigil, though. A vigil on the #18 bus route. They prayed for peace in the place of fear. Did it end terrorism? Of course not. Did it set them aside as strange? Sure.
The challenge of Christians is to live out of the hope for a renewed world because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The wisdom of Daniel was that he did it in the simplest of things: What he would eat. Was what you ate serious to Daniel? Of course. But it was simple and daily and formative--it shaped who he was. What Christians do on a daily basis is what will set them aside and generate the impetus to be set aside--daily things like what we eat, where we shop, whether we exercise, how we parent, where we live, what we drive.... Daniel could have gone unnoticed in his eating regimen for many people in the kingdom. I think many Christians, in their desire and activity to be set aside, may go unnoticed, as well.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Jesus and Joshua

Sometimes revelation catches us by surprise. I have been reading through the Old Testament for a few months and I am now in Joshua. One story struck me. It's the story of Joshua and his brilliant military strategy in conquering the city of Ai (Joshua 8). Joshua is about to attack the city and separates off 5,000 men while the remaining 25,000 make like they are going to attack the city. The King of Ai, obviously a very brave man, and his fighting men (less than 12,000!) empty out of the city to engage these 25,000 men, unaware of the 5,000 laying in ambush. Joshua allows this smaller army from Ai to begin defeating this larger group of Israelites, pushing them further and further from the city, until he gives a signal for the remaining 5,000 to rush into the city, setting it ablaze and killing women and children. The men of Ai are now trapped--devastated by the loss of their city and hopelessly outnumbered. The account ends with the king of Ai, likely already dead, hung on a tree outside the city, and then buried under a pile of rocks, two symbolic reminders of the destruction and shaming of this city.

It's a brutal account. Death all around. Women and children killed under the leadership of Israel. It's all very easy to read this as 21st century people and condemn its horror without thinking of its historal context. Of course it's brutal; of course it's horrific--it's 4000 years ago! But doesn't it leave us with questions about God? God has instructed them to take away plunder, but not to spare people (8:29). Why would God do this?

I don't think there are many answers to these questions. At least, not answers that shape the whole thing up and make it more palatable. But what struck me in this was the contrast of Jesus. While Joshua hangs the shamed king from a tree, Jesus gives himself to be killed. While Joshua buries the King of Ai under rocks, Jesus is entombed behind a stone. Ironic that Jesus' life would not identify with his namesake--Joshua (Jesus = Yeshua in Aramaic, a sister language to Hebrew that Jewish people spoke under the reign of the Greeks)--but with the King of Ai. Sometimes you just have to let the story play out and be surprised by the ending.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

James the Mediator

We have been exploring James for a few weeks and something jumped out at me in my latest reading. I believe James is writing to Jewish Christians spread throughout the Roman empire. Some of them have land and status; some do not. James is writing to bridge the gap between them, writing to them about the possibilities of growth for the poor if things don't change, but also the necessity that they do.

One of the warnings James gives is in chapter 4. He begins the chapter with cautions about what actually starts all of the quarrelings among them: battles that rage within them. They covet; they desire. He then warns: Your friendship with the world is hatred toward God (v. 4). What they use to achieve status with the world despises God. Rather than achieving status with the world, they are to submit themselves to God. They are to wash their hands! They are are to purify their hearts! (v.8) Notice how James takes purity laws (wash your hands) and applies it in terms of how lives are lived in the context of the great promise of the prophets of a new covenant written on the hearts of people. James is appealing to the law and history of this group of people to establish a new context for their relations. He is mediating.

Then he finishes his warnings with advice: Do not slander one another. He is referring to them all, here, rich and poor alike. Poor, don't speak against the rich. Rich, don't speak against the poor. Why? Because when you speak you judge one another. And when you judge one another, you judge the law. And when you judge the law, you are setting yourself above it. Notice how James has now used the law--the great unifier of the Jewish people in dispersion--and shown how their disunity is a judgment on it.

James creates a new world for his hearers to live in, one that is shaped by their Scripture for them to live out the life of the church.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Reading James

James writes to Jewish Christians scattered through the Roman empire. They know the Old Testament. They have saturated their minds with it. But there are quarrels among them. They are reading; they are not understanding. Hence, James goes back to the law over and again--the royal law, the perfect law.

Today I am reading "Eat this Book" by Eugene Peterson, a book about spiritual reading. Spiritual reading is how one reads the Bible to be shaped and formed by it. A Christian has to get this book into them as thoroughly as if they were eating it. Peterson uses the example of running. When he was running, he would read and read and read about running. How to heal injuries. How to stretch. What to eat. If it was running, he would read it. However, when he got an injury, he stopped reading. As long as he wasn't running, he wasn't reading about it. This was because in his running, his reading was an affirmation, an encouragement, companionship, a deepening, a validation of his life. Likewise for Scripture, when our lives are being given for its story, we will read it for sustenance. We will read it because without it, we starve. The world doesn't feed those who live against its ideals and its stories. God does through his word.

Back to James. In this letter we have a glimpse at a community encouraged to eat the Old Testament again. Take it in. Be shaped by it. See its royalty and perfection. And in seeing this encouragement, we are given part of our own Scripture to take in and eat and consume. We are to be fed by it, but this only happens as we are participating in the world of James--a world where Jesus is Lord, where leaders are humble, where we are slow to speak and slow to become angry. I think this captures why the word planted in us can save us.

Friday, February 20, 2009

James and the Oscars

The Oscars always generate a lot of buzz. Morning news shows interview all the actors I've heard of but never seen or the ones I've never heard of and now am supposed to see but rarely the ones I've seen who aren't nominated for Oscars.

On Tuesday, our small group was talking about living out Christian lives in front of coworkers and how we can often be held to a higher standard. We asked, suppose James was sitting right here with us, what would he say about it? Count it pure joy. See the opportunity. Live genuinely--and be careful what genuine is! Be slow to speak. We then stepped back a bit. What about the situation to which James writes? He writes to a group of people with factions in their communities because of money. But he writes with instructions in how to live in the midst of it and that it should be resolved. Perhaps James realized that the opportunity for witness from a group of people who had come through such faction and fighting was greater than that of a community that never had any troubles at all. Likewise when we fall short of the standard of Christ, there is often a greater witness in our response to it--our apologies, our humility, our attempts at reparation--than had troubles never happened at all.

Back to the Oscars. Why all the buzz? I think it's because a good story is something humans appreciate. And yet we always need new stories. What were the five nominees for best movie last year? I certainly can't remember. We always need new stories to be energized and entertained and engaged. Wonderful thing, then, how our lives are always little episodic stories that, with God's help, can be weaved into one large one, thereby remaining fresh while coherent. What's the witness of our stories--especially in the midst of trial?

Monday, February 16, 2009

Reasons For God?

So we have looked at a few critiques Keller has for reasons against God, but as my friend Billy pointed out on Facebook, none of these are reasons for God. So, what reasons does Keller offer for belief in God? It must first be noted that Keller doesn't consider these ideas, quite old ones, "proofs" for God. One cannot prove God's existence. One can only offer reasons for believing in God's existence. In this case, Keller says that belief in God makes sense of a few facts of life.

1. Belief in God makes sense of the universe and its fine-tuning for life. The probability figures for life on this planet arising by chance are astronomically low. Billions and billions to one. Just the right combination of nitrogen and oxygen; just the right axis tilt; just the right distance to the sun; just the right atmospheric conditions... All such scientific findings are best explained by the presence of a creator. All of the big atheists take on this argument by saying that there could have been billions and billions of failed universes before this one came about. That's true. The odds are low, but, by definition, that does not mean impossible. So, Keller offers a story (originally Alvin Plantinga's). Suppose you are playing poker and your opponent, who is dealing, keeps turning aces for himself over and over again. Twenty straight times. You accuse him of cheating. He says, "The chances of me turning up aces are billions to one. But for every game of poker there is that chance that it will happen. Given all the universes that could exist where this doesn't happen, there's a chance it will happen in this universe." You can either accept his story or punch him in the nose. The absurdity of the story makes Keller's point: This finely tuned universe is no proof of God, but nobody lives other parts of their lives against such odds.

2. Belief in God makes sense of morality. We have senses of right and wrong that make no sense without an appeal to something beyond culture. One can believe certain practices are wrong and work against them, but unless there is a standard to which such practices are not conforming, then there is no reason to work for what one considers right. Of course, many people live with morals regardless of their strict adherence to religious teaching, but this only strengthens the argument that belief in a creator God whose image is borne in these people makes sense of this situation. Does it prove God's existence? No, but it does make it seem more understanable. Put to another level, what sense does love make in an enlightened culture that knows all processes that have brought humans to this level of development are simply a combination of chance and survival mechanisms? One now sits above these mechanisms and so all emotion is only chance and survival. Can one offer a story that makes sense of love in terms of chance and survival mechanisms? Sure. Does this story capture the essence of love (both friendship and/or romantic) to being human as well as God? That's the question.

3. God gives explanation to the meaning of life. Victor Frankl's chronicles of his time in a Nazi war camp revealed three groups of people in the camps. The first were those who succombed to the enemy and cohorted with them. The second were simply those who gave up and died. The third were those who lived for something beyond themselves. Those in the first two groups were out-survived and out-numbered by those in the third. Frankl's work captures an element of real-life and how we live our lives. What's the meaning? What's the purpose? That there are those who live with meaning and purpose in life--and they are the majority--can best be made sense of with the existence of God. Does this prove God? No. God just makes sense in light of meaning and purpose. (Interestingly, Phyllis Tickle makes the point in "The Great Emergence" that when work became less necessary and people found themselves with much more free time on their hands that purpose decreased. The gap that filled in the void for many of these people? Church. And that wasn't always a good thing!)

So, what do you think of Keller's reasons for believing in God? Which is the most important for you? Which is the strongest/weakest? Why?

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Reasons against God?

Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God, is the basis for a lecture he recently gave, which sketched three reasons for God and three faith-filled reasons against God. All of his reasons and critiques are pastorally repackaged versions of older lines of thinking. Today we'll look at the reasons against God. By faith-filled reasons against God, I mean that Keller shows how three classical arguments against God have leaps of faith in them. Here they are:

1. "I can't believe in God because of evil and suffering and no all-powerful, all-good God would allow evil and suffering." Keller says that what this really boils down to is not that there is no reason God would allow evil and suffering, but that the person making the argument does not know what good reason God would have. Keller then offers an illustration. Suppose that I asked you to look in a pup tent and tell me if there are any Saint Bernards in it. You could look quickly and realize whether or not there are Saint Bernards. However, suppose I asked you to look and see if there were any mosquitos. That would be more difficult. Perhaps with the complexity of evil and suffering in our world, reasons for it are more akin to mosquitos, discernible only to a being of infinite intelligence. Saying definitively that no reason exists is a leap.

2. "I can't believe in God because no religion can capture everything about God." The classic picture is of five blind people stumbling upon an elephant and each experiencing a different side of it--the trunk, the body, the tail, the ears, the leg... Each has a different picture of the elephant and each is right, although each is significantly limited. Likewise different religions have different vantage points for God, though none has the full view. To say, however, that no religion captures the truth about God necessarily puts one in the position of being above all the other religions. If one knows that no religion captures the truth about God then one has superceded other religions, which is the very position this person wishes to critique. That's a leap.

3. "I can't believe in God because the Bible says x, and we know that x simply isn't true." Keller offers the example of vengeance being God's and Jesus' words to forgive. While most North Americans will say, "Hooray!", they will scoff at the Bible's teaching against sex outside marriage. On the other hand, some older cultures will readily applaud the Bible's teaching on sexual fidelity, but won't be willing to accept its teaching on forgiveness. How can both cultures be right? Keller says that to deny belief in God because the Bible teaches x shows not only great faith in one's culture, as shown above, but also great faith in one's moment of time. Consider that much of what skeptics and social liberals believe differs from their grandparents. Why should we not expect that our grandchildren won't have the same experience of doubting much of what we think? If we believe that our grandchildren will have the same beliefs, then we believe that our moment has achieved truth and enlightenment. That's a leap.

Instead, Keller suggests that if the Bible's teaching really is from God and that no culture or time has perfectly instituted and activated all of its teaching, then at some point every culture will be offended and disagree with the Bible.

Next week we'll look at ways believing in God helps make sense of some of the most important elements of life, though these elements do not prove God. Until then,
what do you think of these reasons and Keller's critiques?

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

A Jamesian Reflection on the Old Testament Law

Is the Old Testament law valuable? Can following the law be an important part of the faith of a Jewish Christian? Let me offer some reflections on these thoughts from James.

First, I believe that James writes to Jewish Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire in the diaspora. Some are wealthy, some poor; all are Christians. James's purpose in writing to them is to encourage them to get along and help one another out by appealing both to their Jewish faith and the life of the Lord Jesus, thereby saving them (5:20).

In the midst of this, he points that contrary to sin which brings death, God has given us life through the word of truth (1:18) which can save us (1:21). We should not just listen to this word, but do what it says (1:22) because when we listen but do not do, we make the word useless, like when we use a mirror but forget what we look like. This means that without following the word, it is useless to do what it can do; without us following us, it is useless to saving us. James then equates this "word" with the perfect law (1:25), saying the one who follows it will be blessed in what she does. This perfect law is the law that gives freedom.

James then encourages his hearers to speak and act as those who will be judged by this law (2:12). This is the perfect law whose royal form is loving one's neighbour as we love ourselves (2:8-9). Without loving your neighbour, it matters not a hoot whether one obeys the rest of the law; they have broken the whole thing (2:11).

Let me pull this together. I think James is fine with his hearers following their religious practices and the law. However, without inward transformation, these religious practices are useless. (This is what he means by controlling the tongue, which Jesus says speaks the overflow of our hearts.) Inward transformation, however, which is and is enabled by the word planted within us, is the perfect law, the complete law, the purposed law. The purpose of the law is to love one's neighbour as we love ourselves and we should act with this law in mind. This is the law that gives freedom to do just what it asks--not showing favourtism and loving our neighbours. This is our salvation because this is the life of our Lord Jesus--who is glorified.

[I think it will later takes Paul and theologians working out their thoughts on the Holy Spirit who makes this transformation possible because, as Paul and other prophets before him (like Jeremiah) tell us, the law is powerless to bring about this transformation.]

So, the perfect law is good, worth following and obeying and thereby becoming like Jesus in its and his royalty--loving indiscriminately. Anything less is useless.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Keeping Oneself from Being Polluted by the World

James tells us that part of what God accepts as pure and faultless religion is keeping oneself from being polluted by the world (1:27). Christians have often done this by attempting to recreate the world they live in ex nihilo. By this I mean that they have not tried being redemptive figures in their existing culture in order to remake it, but by creating a separate culture. As a result we have Christian wrestling, Christian mints, Christian games, Christian music. This is not a counter-culture, meant to be a critique of the existent culture; this is a separate culture, meant to enjoy all the pleasures of the existent culture with none of the pollution.

But James' words cannot be heeded in this way because the source of sin is not culture. James warns us that we are tempted by our own evil desires, that these desires give birth to sin, and that sin, when it is finished, gives birth to death (1:14-15). The source of sin is not culture; it is us. So, if keeping oneself from pollution is not done by separation, how is it done?

Consider the socio-spiritual rules of disease and illness that Jesus bucked. Being touched by a leper, bleeder, dead body, etc. brought uncleanness according to the law. But when touched by lepers, Jesus did not become unclean; they became clean. When touched by a bleeding woman, Jesus was not defiled; she was healed. When touched a dead girl, Jesus was not polluted; she was restored to life! By the power of God's Spirit in Jesus, sin's contagion was stopped and righteousness spread. Jesus was kept from pollution not in his separation from others, but in his relationship to the Father. Righteousness spread. Jesus kept from being polluted by the world by justifying / rightifying it (making it right).

Likewise for James. Believers are kept from being polluted by the world by entering into the actions of their glorious Lord Jesus (2:1): Not showing favouritism. Just as Jesus showed no favouritism by including the poor, the sick, the betrayer, etc., so do his followers keep from being polluted by showing love to the poor (2:2-7). They are encouraged to speak and act as Jesus--as though the law gave freedom (2:12-13). And in this life of obedience--of rightifying the world, to be rightified (2:24), to find their righteousness and friendship with God (2:23). And yet this is not a salvation by merit because it is only through the word of truth, planted in us (1:21) that God has given us birth (1:18).

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Thoughts on human sexuality

*Caution: The following is a fairly dense theological approach to sexuality. As such, it is best read slowly and carefully, without making inferences. It is also best to approach questions and concerns as questions and concerns: seek clarification; invite opportunity for conversation.*

A letter to The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY brings up the issue of homosexuality and being Christian. If I could write a letter to this seemingly earnest lady, I would write something like this.

Dear Cindy,

First, let me say that human sexuality is a significant part of being human. Scripture's first declaration of human sexuality is that humans were created male and female--an intimate connection and bond. Moreover, humans--male and female--are created in the image of God. Something about the male-female creation that is humanity reflects God. This means that there are healthy ways for males to be attracted to males and for females to be attracted to females. Of course, there are unhealthy attractions, as well, in all categories of attraction: male to female, male to male, female to female, female to male. This is a broken world and this sexual brokenness is exploited and glorified by media and culture. This makes it an even more important issue for church today.

Second, I want to clarify another Evangelical thought. Being gay is not a sin. Same sex attraction is not a sin. (In this way I am acting with the definition of sin as a willful transgression of a known law, which was held to by a theologian named John Wesley.) Homosexual acts, including lust and intentional fantasies, are a sin. There is an important difference to be made there. But why are homosexual acts a sin when they don't hurt anybody? Why should people not be able to act on their feelings? It's because creation is for God's glory, meant to reflect him. In the male-female make up of humanity, there is the context for pro-creation. This is meant to reflect God, as well, in whom the Spirit is eternally generated in the love the Father and the Son both have for each other. In homosexual behavior, there is no context for procreation. In the end, it is the desire of humans to remake themselves in the image of something other than the Triune God.

It is important to note that heterosexual activity is not always reflective of God's image, either, and in those cases it's the same sin of people wanting to remake themselves in the image of someone other than the Triune God. Consider sex outside marriage. Marriage is the closest thing to an eternal bond into which humans can enter. It reflects the eternal love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father. Just as that eternal relationship eternally generates the Spirit, so does marriage provide the context for generation of another person. Sex outside this context of procreation, outside marriage, does not reflect God. This does not mean that sex is inappropriate when no chance of pregnancy is the case because, as mentioned above, human sexuality is an important aspect of being human and so is necessary to the strengthening of the bond of human marriage. (Lots more could be said here, but will have to wait for another time.)

With this in mind, I believe the church's call to preach against the sin of homosexual and heterosexual behavior must always be good news. This good news is multifaceted. First, there is the good news that God has entered this broken world, the Word of God made flesh--Jesus. Jesus was a full blooded human being with sexual desires. (He remains a human being now, of course, but I won't go into my opinions on the role sexuality plays in our new heaven and earth.) Jesus knows what it's like to be sexually attracted to someone. And yet he went unmarried--unsatisfied sexually. Jesus knows the restraint the law places on people outside the context of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Second, there is good news that Jesus is the image of God and we are being remade in his image. This means that we receive the fruit of his Spirit, part of which is self-control. This means that though sexual attraction outside marriage will occur--for both male and female, hetero- and homosexual--that we can live as Jesus lived. Third, there is good news that Jesus has created a community that is commanded and created to love perfectly, to walk through this sexual brokenness with all who come to them. That the church has failed is a given; it will never perfectly succeed. All you can hope to find are some who will better exhibit the life of Jesus.

Does Father by his Spirit transform some people who are gay so that they have heterosexual attractions? Yes. Does Father through his Son call some heterosexuals to live lives of singleness? Yes. Does Father leave some people who love him deeply unchanged and with same sex attraction? Yes. Does he expect them to live as his Son in his singleness? Yes. This, of course, is a most difficult calling, as is any calling of God, but those for whom marriage is not an option, for whatever reason, must learn to accept and take this calling as a gift of God (1 Cor 7:7) and live in the grace he supplies to be obedient.

How should you read the Bible? A "Jamesian" Reflection

James 1 has some alarming words, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." How should you read these words? As a command? Then I fail--much too often. As a challenge? That feels better. As a promise? Hmmm... What if it's a promise that perfection (being "complete") is the outcome of trial. If I read this as a promise, then my joy flows from the promised result. I don't need to work up more joy in the face of trial, feeling a failure when I don't.

This leads me to ask, then, "How should I read the Bible?" If it is read mainly as commands--and there are commands in Scripture--then how I respond is focused on me. My response. My attitude. My ability. There is a place for this. However, this also turns Scripture reading into one of those commands, so that if I'm not reading Scripture I'm already behind. I am already failing.

What if instead of reading the Bible as command we read it mainly as gospel--good news. James' words are really good news if something good can come from our trials. Not just something good, our perfection in the trying of our faith! What if we approach Scripture with the same mindset of it being good news. Might that change our devotion to its study and reading?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

James--Practical Theologian

I have been meditating and studying James for a couple of weeks in preparation for our upcoming series. Recently, I have begun seeing James' ability to apply theology to his hearers. Practical theology is best not thought of as a list of dos and don'ts, but as theology that aims to be formative; beliefs about and from God that shape our practices--often dos, but sometimes don'ts--in order to shape our character.

Let me give one example of James' practical theology. James is writing to Jewish believers scattered throughout the Roman empire--a phenomenon called the diaspora. As a result of this scattering, some Jews are poor and without land, while some are wealthy, owning land away from Jerusalem. James starts to address this disparity not by telling all his hearers to share and be nice, but by pointing out the benefit of trial. Trials produce perseverance and perseverance leads to maturity and completeness! As a result, James encourages the poor brother to take pride in his high position--a position that enables maturity to be developed.

James continues by charting the course of the rich: the rich should take pride in their low position. They should do this because without a change of attitude, their doom is foretold: they will pass like a plat scorched by the heat. James has taken and applied Jesus' parable of the sower to the wealthy people in this congregation. Just as Jesus said that those seeds which fell in rocky soil were scorched, so James is warning that without a reversal of attitudes, so will the rich of these churches die and be forgotten. The choice is theirs and James makes sure they realize it: "Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you."

Notice that James does not give a road map to solving their problems. Rather, he combines the parable of Jesus ("planted") with the OT law in order to lay out for them their choice. How they live out the word is up to them, but James has made all the connections and challenges. He has redrawn the world appealing to their law--taking care of widows and orphans--and by warning them as Jesus had once warned his listeners.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Is Obama the Anti-Christ?

Watching yesterday's extravagant, elegant, exciting, enduring, exhausting--take your pick--inauguration brought to mind a question I'd heard a couple of times through the campaign: Is Obama the anti-Christ? The question is often posed with suspicions of his religious background or just his overwhelming and (in my opinion) puzzling international popularity. I remain quite neutral toward the man, aside from my critiques of his stance on abortion and stem-cell research. But on to the question this post's title poses: Is Obama the anti-Christ?

Wrapped up in this question is a belief that just prior to the return of Jesus a leader will emerge (often from Europe) who will draw many people to himself, accepting forms of worship, and demanding that people receive some sort of mark that reveals their allegiance to him. This person, the anti-Christ, is also called the Beast in Revelation. His overwhelming power and blasphemy will prove bad news for Christians as they refuse to take his mark (sometimes thought of as a computer chip or another form of embedded code). Times will deteriorate for a period of seven years until Christ returns. Some believe Christians will be rescued from this time of horrid persecution (called the "Tribulation") before it starts; others at the mid-point; others right at the very end. Of course, some Christians hold various parts of this narrative without holding the whole thing. The Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins has expanded and dramatized this narrative, fleshing it out over a series of popular books and movies.

It may surprise some North American Christians that this narrative of end-times is not universally held either in this time or throughout history. Let's take a quick look at the passages which talk about the anti-Christ. The name itself, of course, simply means against the Christ, against Jesus. The word is only found in the Bible five times, all in the letters of John. Here are the passages:

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

2.22: Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.

4.2-3: This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

2 John
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

What immediately stands out is that John is more concerned the spirit of antichrist and the work of antichrist rather than identifying a specific person. He says that many antichrists have come; he says that any person who denies the presence of Jesus or his kingship is antichrist. He is also concerned with the perseverance of the church to whom he writes. There has been a church split of sorts that forces John to write (2:19, 26-27) and he wants those who have stayed to remain faithful to the kingship of Jesus. We do well to remain faithful in our day, as well, when the world tries to live by any King or politician opposed--in word or deed--to Jesus.

But what about Revelation and the beast John describes? What about the number 666? First we have to remember that John is a symbolic writer. Revelation 13 gives an initial description of the beast, one having elements of a leopard, lion, and bear. John takes this description from Daniel's description of four beasts in Daniel 7, combining all these elements to make this beast the worst of any before. In my opinion the beasts are connected with different political reigns that Daniel has seen and is seeing in the history of Israel. When John picks up these pictures he is describing a political power worse than any of those Daniel saw. Second, we must see that John has included clues to the identity of the beast because, as he tells us, if anyone has insight, he can figure out who he is talking about (Revelation 13:18).

So, what clues has John given? First, John tells us that the beast has seven heads and ten horns (13:2). Rome was known as the city settled on seven hills and John connects these seven heads with the seven hills (17:9). Perhaps John is alluding to Rome. Let's keep reading. Second, John tells us that one of the heads has a fatal wound (13:3), but that it had been healed. If John is talking about Rome, does this make sense? Consider that John also says that the beast itself had a fatal wound (13:12). In some way this head on the beast that suffers a fatal wound is both part of the seven-headed monster and yet captures its essence in itself. Is this a clue from John? Yes. In the first century, the first major persecutor of the church was the Emperor Nero who had Paul and Peter executed. Nero exemplified the concern that power had with the early Christians who often acted in countercultural ways, like treating slaves as brothers and meeting with other people around the worship of another King. Nero also suffered a head wound and died, but there was a belief that he had come back to life--that's how scary the early Christians considered him. But all of this isn't quite yet convincing that the beast of Revelation is Nero, although it's certainly a good fit. Is there another clue? Yes, in fact, the clearest one. John tells us that the beast is a man and that his number is 666 (13:18). It used to be common practice that numbers would be assigned to letters of the alphabet. (For example, A=1, B=2, etc.) This was called "gematria." Nero Caesar written in Hebrew letters come out like transliterated like this: nron qsr. The numerical value assigned to these letters is, respectively, 50, 200, 6, 50, 100, 60, 200. Those added up equals to 666. Of course, this is also a symbolic number of being just prior to the number of perfection(7), tripled, like when God is proclaimed as Holy, Holy, Holy. Not only has John identified this beast of a man, but has used these same numbers to describe his beastly mockery of perfection.

So, is Obama the antichrist? No. I believe the beast of Revelation was a real man, Nero, who exhibited the spirit of antichrist by his persecution of Christians and rebellion against Jesus. Obama, just like any one of us, is confronted with this same spirit of antichrist and we as Christians must pray for him and his leadership and offer, in addition to our words of prayer, our words of thoughtful, constructive criticism when we believe he is going astray. Christians owe this to all leaders whose political reigns mirror, however imperfectly, the Kingdom of our Lord and of His King (Rev. 11:15).

Monday, January 19, 2009

Gearing up for James

Hi everyone. Today's post comes from Kurt Hoover, a member of our church currently studying at Cornerstone University in Michigan. It's a reflection on a passage from James 1, mixed with what God is doing in his life. Thanks for writing, Kurt!

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27

I find this passage from the letter from James to be particularly important for Christians to not only read but to ponder and put into action. It seems like today many people are questioning what the church should teach, how they should teach, what we should believe, and how we should go about doing things. Some, myself included, have even questioned the purpose of the church; whether or not it should continue to exist or whether or not we should continue to support it as we know it.

I have just completed the first semester of my freshmen year of college. I attend a Christian university in Grand Rapids Michigan as most of you know and my experience at this school has driven my thinking in a direction that I would never have expected it to be driven before I left home. God is showing me many things regarding the existence of the church through my relationships with people at school, through classes, and through my own study of the scriptures.
I had an experience (I believe a divine experience) early on in the semester that acted as a catalyst of sorts for a whole universe of thinking that was brand new to me. This experience started with my work at a Christian non-profit organization in Grand Rapids called Sabaoth. This organization ministers to poor, urban children who are for the most part Hispanic. I have been volunteering there since the beginning of September and I have heard and seen some things from the children and from the volunteers at this place that had a great impact on me. I would hear stories of how some kids would go home at night to abusive homes, I heard stories of how some kids had cousins or brothers who were in gangs and some even had died from being in them. I heard one story about one of the kids who went home one day to see all of their brothers and sisters on the front porch. When this child asked what was going on the others told him that immigration came for their mother and after that their father packed his bags and left without making sure the kids would be taken care of.

These stories had and still have an immense impact on my heart. At some point a thought occurred to me, “How can the church allow this to happen?” and “Where is the church when this happens?” These questions stuck with me for a while. They have a way of eating at you, especially if you feel you can’t escape the situation. I started to get very frustrated at the Christian church. It seemed and still seems to me that there is immense pain and suffering in this country and yet we remain silent as a whole, we are content to live our lives apart from those who suffer, apart from those who have real need.

This thought sparked some more thinking on my part. I started thinking about how to solve this problem and I tried to pinpoint problems and solutions. At an evening worship event on a Sunday night at school I felt God tug at my heart and tell me something. He told me that I should try and start my own church. The idea as it was in my own head was that it wasn’t really a church at all like we are used to today in this country. After words, I was walking back to my dorm with some good friends and I mentioned this idea and two other guys said they felt the same thing. This only confirmed it for me that this is what I was supposed to do.
We started to come up with ideas on what it should be about, what we should do, how it should look. I started to realize that anything we did was not going to be a real big jump from what we do in church anyway. I struggled with this thought because I wanted to make something different, something to solve a problem that I saw. The problem being poverty and suffering and hurt and I thought the modern church had failed at addressing these issues. My friends wanted the same so we toiled to make it work, to force it to work which is obviously never a good idea. We had our first service sometime in October. It was just me, my friends who helped on the project, and some other good friends of ours who showed up. The day turned out to be a real letdown for me.

With the help of a good friend from home, I started to think about why I was disappointed with what had happened. I had expected God to move in a huge way and that everything would change from that point on. I had expected God to do one thing, but he did something totally different. He moved in a huge way but not how I or my friends had expected Him to. I foolishly thought He would change the world through this angst-fueled, hair-brained scheme when all He wanted to do is show me why things are the way they are. He has used these experiences to show me the real solution to poverty, to godlessness, to pain, to suffering. It’s not going to be an unusual church group, it won’t be a brand new building, it won’t be a massive organization, and it most certainly won’t happen next year. It’s going to be choices that I make everyday starting today. It’s going to be how I decide to spend my money, how I spend my time, my energy today.
To bring it all back, how then should the church act? What should we teach? What should we do? How should we live? I think the answer is very clear in James. A religion that is faultless before the One who we worship would be the religion that takes care of those who have none to care for them. The religion that takes care of those who cannot even take care of themselves; the religion that keeps itself pure from the ways of this world such as greed, social advancement, and a pick yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Can humans become perfect?

Jesus said, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). The phrase is in connection with loving even your enemies. Jesus said that pagans greet their brothers and so the mark of being different, the mark of God himself, is loving those who do not love you. The only other time the word perfect--complete--comes up in Matthew is in Jesus' words to the rich man who wants to follow him. Jesus says to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matt. 19:21).

Interesting that the commands to be perfect as God is perfect is connected with love and kingdom. Perhaps we could boil down Jesus' words in these passage to say that perfection is completion in love and in commitment to the Kingdom. (Interesting, then, to say that if we don't believe humans can become perfect that we are always people who have divided hearts, who display preferential treatment.)

A few things jump out at me from these passages. First, I do not believe that Jesus would give a command he considered unattainable. Second, Jesus' offer to the rich young ruler was to come with Jesus; Jesus would be with him in his journey of kingdom commitment. Third, this call to perfection is really good news. In the first passage, Jesus is expanding the family category, as it is in the context of being sons (and daughters) of God, which means brother- and sisterhood with those who are not blood relatives. We must also note that the Kingdom Jesus preaches is one that is consistently pushing the boundaries of inclusion outward. (It is not one that has no boundaries, as evidenced by the rich man walking away.)

So, how can we answer this question of perfection from Matthew? First, that our ability to become like God in loving all is without limit. Jesus has told us to be perfect in love as God is perfect. Second, our progress in this journey is not one that achieves God's favor, but that is made possible only by God's favor and Jesus' partnership with us. Consider the glorious implications: 1. We can become even more loving towards those we already love. 2. This love we have for our natural relations can be expanded to include all--even those who hate us. 3. We can live by a different set of rules than the world--the rules of God's Kingdom.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Are humans "free"?

This is a tough question because "freedom" has different contexts. Political freedom is often tied to democratic, representative governments, free press, and market capitalism--people are in control of themselves in their nations to a great extent. Personal freedom is tied to independence--perhaps having a car or means of transportation and a sense of autonomy. Religious freedom is connected with an opportunity to discern and pursue different religious avenues. Yet Christians could affirm that one who is lacking political, personal, and religious freedom could still be spiritually free. By this Christians mean that this person is free to respond to their circumstances as Jesus would respond, empowered by his Spirit. This person is free to love, be joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and in control of their reactions. In short, they are free to choose their response.

But don't we think that everyone is free to choose what they do? Christians traditionally have said No. People are not free to choose what they do--they do not have "free will" because humans have an inward bent--they are "depraved." "Depraved comes from a Latin word that means to bend or make crooked. Humans, each and every one of us, are bent toward ourselves. Christians have not only affirmed this depravity, but a total depravity, meaning that every part of us is bent toward ourselves. John Drury says that total depravity does not mean that "we are as bad as we possibly could be, but rather there's no 'safe' part of us that we can count on as innocent and good over against our fallen parts." This means that humans are not free to choose; we choose what's best for ourselves because we are bent inwards.

This sounds like a bad situation, but by God's grace, it's not. While humans are not free in themselves, because God is at work in the world, we see elements of selfless activity. We see people sacrifice their own time, money, strength, life for others without thought of their own well-being. What does this mean for our discussion of freedom?

John Wesley affirmed that freedom is restored to humanity by the grace of God. Were it not for God's empowering grace, human freedom is completely lost. Yet God's grace enables the "first faint desire" (John Wesley) we have for God--and for others. Any sign of love is a sign of God's grace.

Notice what this means, then. It means that one can only choose to sin when God's Spirit is at work in that person. If God's Spirit is not at work, then one doesn't choose to sin; one acts in their slavery to sin. The only time we choose to sin is by the power of God enabling that choice in the first place. So, why does God graciously enable people in whom his Spirit is at work to sin? Because it's in that graciously restored freedom that God works with us to conform our wills to the good, to God. That's the free response of love that God is wanting and which he makes possible.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Where does theology come from?

Where do you find out about God? Does knowledge of God come from books? Does it come from parents? Does it come from thinking really hard? Does it come from reflecting on our own life and experiences? Wesleyans have answered this question with a Yes. Theology comes from all these things--Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. This means that we know about God from our Bibles, Christian history, thinking and reflection, and life experience. They are all "sources."

But what about when these sources are in conflict? What if my experience of God is different from yours? What judges between our beliefs? Wesleyans affirm that Scripture is a theological "norm." This means that Scripture is the judge of all other sources of theology. If my experience of God is out of step with Scripture (like feeling God is a Cowboys fan), then I submit to Scripture.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Thoughts on Tithing

1. Tithing isn't magic. Too often we read Malachi 3:10 as a promise that a gift of 10% of our income is an investment with quantifiable returns. A gift of $10 to God brings back $100! Well, no. (The context of the passage is about return of crops and protection from pests.) While we all know stories of people who began tithing and their businesses earned double and triple in the next year, I also know stories of people who gave and gave and gave and never made an extra dime. That God blesses some people some of the time in financial ways is to be expected. That it is only sometimes is proof that tithing isn't magic.

2. Tithing at a local, institutional church should be tied to that church's mission. If you cannot support the mission and work of an institutional church that you attend, then you're missing out on one of the privileges God's gift of the institutional church offers. I think belonging to an institutional church is a tremendous aid in the Christian life, but that it is not even close to the support needed and community available to friends of Jesus. The institutional church is not the whole of the Church. At times the institutional church can be a step to that support and into that community; at times it can be a hindrance. Still, tithing at an institutional church is one of the most important ways to achieve your own buy-in to its mission. You start to add your voice; your hands and feet; your prayers to its life when your money is there. As Jesus said, where your money is, there your heart will be also. If your church's mission is not one you can support, then consider finding one you can! Don't settle for less!

3. Tithing is about character. By this I don't mean that people who don't tithe don't have strong character, because there are times when people must stop tithing for financial reasons. By saying "Tithing is about character" I mean that the practice itself--whether it is given to an institutional church, a Christian mission, families / individuals in need--is about practicing who you want to become. A standard gift from the top has enabled me to become better with the following 90% because of a change in character in two specific ways. First, I have become more devoted and joyful in a simple lifestyle. The other 90% of my money simply goes further because of what I now (don't) desire to spend it on. Second, I have become more generous. I don't mean I give away more money; I mean that I want to give away more--of my time, of my food, of my books...of me.

4. Bad thoughts on tithing have abused people, heaping needless feelings of shame and guilt, even from well-meaning people, onto many people. Sometimes those who have given over and again, even when they didn't have it to give, are precisely those who the church should be helping with the tithes and offerings of others. As such, I think tithing is best taught on as a privilege and opportunity.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Review: The Shack

The Shack, William Young's tale of Mack, his family tragedy, and his divine encounter, has become the NY Times number one best selling trade paperback fiction. Perhaps not exactly what Young was expecting, but certainly a hopeful sign that average people are still captivated by theology. Even good theology.

The Shack is the spiritual story of Mackenzie Allen Phillips (Mack), written by his friend Willie. On a camping trip with three of his children, Mack's youngest daughter, Missy, is kidnapped. All that is found is her bloody dress in an old shack. Missy is presumed dead and Mack returns home under the weight of what he calls, The Great Sadness. His relationship with God, already strained by his own father's abusive ways, becomes one of bitterness and anger. One day, Mack receives a note, inviting him to the shack--the shack--where his daughter was found, signed by none other than God.

When Mack arrives at the shack, God is not who he would expect. The Father, Papa, is a large African-American woman who loves to cook. Jesus is a Jewish laborer who wears work gloves. The Holy Spirit is a small Asian woman, Sarayu, dressed as a gardener. Not exactly who Mack would expect! As Mack interacts with each of them he hears of their internal relationship, their passions and hobbies, and how his own theological beliefs fall dreadfully short. Mack's weekend at the shack, leads to his experience of the full love of God, forgiveness with his father, and the beginning of forgiveness of the man who killed his daughter.

The Shack is better theology than fiction, which is not necessarily a significant critique as its theology is considered and thoughtful. However, the prose felt a little forced at times, trying very hard to be descriptive and detailed, which bogged the story down. Young's Trinitarian theology is solid. While God appears as two women and one man, Papa assures Mack that the Father and the Spirit are neither male nor female, though both sexes are derived from God's nature. God has created humanity to relate interdepently as sexes, woman originally coming from the rib of man (Eden having been a real place), and every man and woman now coming through women.

I would contend with three of Young's belief, however, (at least) two of which stem from his frustration with the institutional church. First, Young commits the heresy of patripassionism. Papa bears wounds on his wrists, just as Jesus does. Mack comments to Papa that he is sorry that he had to die (103), though it is specifically Jesus who dies. Papa never abandoned Jesus on the cross, though it felt like that. While some will wonder why this matters, it is important to maintain the Trinitarian relations that Young has skillfully described. If the Father has the same experience as the Son, then these two persons are in danger of being collapsed into each other. Further, part of atonement is Jesus entering the situation of estrangement from God and being brought back. If the Father has not abandoned the Son (at least politically), then the Son has not entered the fallen state of humanity.

Second, Young's Old Testament theology lacks a concept of covenant. God comments that the 10 Commandments are about teaching people they cannot live righteously. While the law does this on a national level and Paul affirms that the law was powerless to transform people, one must always consider the law as God's gift, evidence God has set Israel aside. But not only evidence, the gracious means of God's setting aside, intimately connected to the story outsiders enter to become Jews. Young emphasizes the relationship God wants with people that is not marked by rules and expectations, but by expectancy and love. However, the New Testament is full of commands, as well, which Young leaves unaddressed.

Finally, Young lacks a solid political theology. Young's Jesus says, "I don't create institutions--never have, never will." Jesus is not fond of economics, politics (179), preferring relationship. Here Young has failed to take seriously that economics and politics--institutions, markets, cities--are relational. They are fallen relationships, but relationships, nonetheless. To remove Jesus from the creation of institutions also removes Jesus from the powers which emerge from such institutions, which is Manichean and certainly against Paul's words in Colossians that thrones, powers, authorities are created by Jesus. Further, if Jesus is not involved in the creation of institutions, then is he not involved in the creation of orphanages? Hospitals? Universities? Publishing houses?

(One might also point out the personification of God's wisdom Sophia, which indicates a fourth 'person' of God. Better had Young somehow worked this into Jesus and how his story reflects the story of wisdom, but I'll leave that to New Testament scholars. As a theologian, I am uncomfortable with a 'personification' or enfleshment of anything in God except God's Word. All enfleshing is in him.)

In the end, I believe Young's work is worth reading and reflection. It would serve as a good text for church small groups to the extent that it raises a number of important issues in forming church. I appreciated Young's creativity and fearlessness in addressing preconceived notions of God. Even in the above criticisms to a partial extent, Young's work is critical and thoughtful. He has not written this work sloppily and would likely have strong and thoughtful responses to my critiques. In the end, my critiques are disagreements and not necessarily points that Young would see the need to change or sharpen. Finally, Young's book is a significant story that could form the imagination of people in need of reconciliation or forgiveness in their own tragedies. It paints a nice picture of God's involvement in this blue-green ball in black space and God's love for it and all its inhabitants.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Don't eat sand

If you listen to the same radio stations I do, then you've heard an advertisement about using teachable moments in the lives of children. The ad presents a young woman at the beach with her child, talking about the water, the sand, and what makes them different. The mother says, "Oh, no, that's sand. We don't eat sand." (That's good advice no matter how old you are.) The ad finishes by saying something like, "Children are naturally curious. Take advantage of this attitude to create teachable moments in everyday living."

Yesterday Pastor Gary talked a little about childlike faith and that children are naturally trusting. Part of this is simple necessity because children are so completely dependent on others in authority. However, as the ad states, children are naturally curious; their trusting attitude is not one that asks no questions, but that asks *many* questions.