Thursday, October 2, 2008

The Church: A Proleptic Sign of the Kingdom of God Embodying a Eucharistic Piety



Lately I've been wrestling with the Luthern theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg's theological ecclesiology.

There are two important dimensions of his ecclesiology that have stood out to me so far: his view of the church as the proleptic sign of the Kingdom of God and his view of spirituality as "eucharistic piety".

It is important to note from the very beginning that for Pannenberg, theology is always a provisional enterprise. No one has a "pure" theology. We all embrace heresy in one sense or another. After the first advent of Jesus Christ we see dimly- after the second advent, the parousia, we will see more clearly.

(i) The Church as the Proleptic Sign of the Kingdom of God

Proleptic can be defined as follows, "the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished."

For Pannenberg, the church is the eschatologically proleptic sign of the Kingdom of God. I haven't read enough of Pannenberg to understand the full implications of this statement. But here are a few points I think Pannenberg may be trying to communicate.

(a) Within the eschatological "already/not yet" dimension of the Kingdom of God , the church is that entity which points forward to the day when love and justice embrace and the reign of God visibly covers the earth as the waters cover the sea.

(b) For Pannenberg, an important aspect of the Kingdom of God is the unity of humanity and the union between creature and Creator. Although always in a provisional sense, the church is that unique community where fellow men and women are reconciled to each other and reconciled to God. This unity is a living testimony to a watching world.

(c) Lastly, Pannenberg's theology of the Kingdom of God brings love and justice intimately together. The kingdom love is just; the kingdom justice is loving. The church should be that place where the difficult question of how to extend a loving justice/just love into a broken world is wrestled with and prayed over.

(ii) Eucharistic Piety

Pannenberg laments over the internalized pietism that plagues much of Lutheranism (and I would add much of contemporary Evangelicalism!)

Following much of church history (and his own tradition) Pannenberg argues that the Eucharist is at the center of the church's spiritual life. Not only worship, but our lives and relationships with others should be shaped by the Eucharist. Practically, what does this mean?

I have not read enough of Pannenberg to answer this question. The following thoughts are my own personal reflections (shaped by Catholic theologians William Cavanaugh, Hans Urs Von Balthassar, and Henri de Lubac).

We live in a world saturated by consumerism and violence. Every second we are bombarded by images of death, sex and distorted desire. We are told that we're not really alive if we don't satiate all our cravings and are warned that we will never flourish if we are kind- if we neglect to utilize force and oppression to get ahead.

These two contemporary virtues are unmasked at the table for what they really are: lies from the pit of hell!

In the Eucharist, we are not told that desire is a bad thing. Instead, our desires are re-oriented toward the One for whom they were created. In the Eucharist we feed on and enjoy the exuberant Triune God. We do what we were created to do. Not to aimlessly search and prod for the "next best thing" but to rest and commune with the maker of heaven and earth.

Violence is also "re-narrated" in the Eucharist. Violence is not the end all be all of human existence. Jesus Christ has experienced the violence and terror of Holy Saturday ("and he descended into the dead") to make an end of death and establish true and reinvigorating peace. Each time we receive the broken body and spilt blood of our Lord Jesus Christ we are reminded that peace, and not violence, is what causes a community to flourish. The Eucharist is that place where Jesus meets us- empowering us with his peace so that we might be led by the Spirit- bringing that very same peace to our friends, neighbors, and community.

Should Christians Be Involved in Movie Discussion Groups?

A common objection to movie discussion groups is that many of the most respected and sought after films are saturated with violence, profanity, and sexuality. Many of these movies are anti-God. How can Christians, who are called to be “different” from the world and its cultural patterns watch such morally questionable movies? I am not sure how to answer this question. It might be the best thing for some Christians not to watch some of these movies. But for those who think these movies can become platforms to discuss the gospel, I offer these two provisional insights.

First, it is always important to remember that God has not forsaken the most God-forsaken places. Even the face of a prostitute can exhibit the grace and glory of God. I believe that we, like God (albeit not in the exact same way), can never forsake the most God-forsaken movies.

Second, it is wise to remember that Christ is never simply “against” or “for” culture. Instead, he is dialectically “above and through” culture. Practically speaking, this means that God’s way of being in the world is never identical to our culture’s way of being in the world. The gospel will always challenge our culture in one way or another. But at the same time, God never operates in a “supra-cultural” sphere. This means that God always communicates his gospel within the forms and structures of a particular culture. This is a pattern we should emulate.

The real question we have to ask our selves is, “how can we be in the world but not of it?” I believe questionable movies can be interpreted as creative vehicles of God’s truth without endorsing them en toto. I don’t want to stretch this too far, but using movies like There Will Be Blood and Requiem for a Dream for movie discussion groups is actually a redemptive endeavor. We are taking sharp and jagged swords and converting them into creative plowshares for the endorsement and extension of the gospel.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Our Dialectical Identities


F. LeRon Shults, a contemporary theologian, has co-written a fabulous little book with Stephen J. Sandage entitled The Faces of Forgiveness: Seeking Wholeness and Salvation.

In one section of the book, Shults begins to talk about the Christian's "dialectical identity". In one sense, this "dialectical identity" is representative of all human beings.

Shults writes, "[the human] ego is both centripetally figured (self-centered) and centrifugally oriented (other-facing)". Because of this, argues Shults, human beings find it almost impossible to trust and develop healthy interpersonal relationships. Why? Because every one is trying to simultaneously balance two seemingly contradictory "modes of being". On the one hand, every individual in his/her centripetal figuration (self-centerdness) tries to find their identity and worth in their accomplishments, personal treasures, etc., while at the same time longing to be accepted and welcomed unconditionally by the community, the "we". On the other hand, every individual in his/her centrifugal orientation (other-facingness) seeks and longs to be accepted by the community, the "other" without being erased by the "will of the people", without being stripped of their unique individuality.
and
The outcome is bleak. One is caught in the endless cycle of being secure with oneself at the expense of being accepted by the community and being invited into fellowship at the expense of personal flourishing.

This is such a difficult predicament, argues Shults, becuase human beings were created to be individuals in relation, beings in community. Ideally, we should be people that flourish in our individuality within the rich context of diverse community. Is an "individual-in-community" a genuine possibility or an idyllic illusion?

For Shults, this is a genuine possibility only within the context of a relationship with the Infinite "Other"- the true Community of Persons (the Holy Trinity). The gospel, the good news that God affirms our individuality despite our brokenness and guilt empowers us to be comfortable with ourselves and look outward toward others. Becuase we know God will always be gracious to us, we don't have to fear rejection nor the obliteration of our unique personalities.

Christianity casts a beautiful vision of the individual maintaining his unique identity within a healthy participation in community. He/she needs others to flourish; the community needs plural individuals to be a place of "communion".

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Community, Cross, New Creation

For the past two months, I've served as the pastoral intern at Redeemer Sugar Land. This has been a very enjoyable experience. I've been challenged, stretched, discouraged, empowered, transformed, hurt and everything in between. This has been a great and realistic taste of ministry.

Last week I was at Panera Bread catching up on Barth's Church Dogmatics when I met two pastors from local churches here in Fort Bend county. Both of them were extremely nice individuals with some great perspectives on ministry. There was one thing they both agreed on that initially took me off guard. In fact it was something that quite honestly disturbed me. Both of them told me that I wouldn't be able to effectively communicate the vision of Redeemer to visitors/seekers if I could not do it in the space of a paper napkin. I was confused. Was this a form of savvy advertising? How could I boil the vision of my church into the space of a napkin?

Later that evening, I realized that I had overreacted. Despite what the two pastors had in mind, I began to realize that it wouldn't be a bad thing to encapsulate Redeemer's vision or "DNA" in a short and concise message. This would be a great thing if not only for the sake of clarity.

This past Monday, at the request of a friend, I picked up Richard Hay's The Moral Vision of the New Testament. As I was reading about abortion and pacifism, I was hit by Hay's New Testament paradigm for interpreting ethical issues: community, cross, new creation.

Although I am taking these three concepts out of their original context, I believe they are a very helpful way of articulating Redeemer's vision. And they create an alliteration-- which is nice.

Community:

*By emphasizing the importance of community, we are witnessing to the reality that we are ultimately created to experience and enact love in the context of relationships. In a culture and age of rampant individualism, we want Redeemer to be a place where we wrestle with what it really means to live "life together".

*By community, we also desire to stress that the church is the only organization that doesn't exist for the sake of it's members alone. We aren't being the authentic people of God if we are not reaching out to our local community with graciousness and love.

Cross:

*
For us the gospel is absolutely central. Christ is our great prophet, priest, and king
who loved us so much that he gave his life that we may truly live. The gospel and the gospel alone shapes our identity. We are more broken and sinful than we would ever dare confess and yet more loved and accepted then we would ever dream possible.


New Creation:

*
This world is not all there is. God has an answer to all the present suffering and brokenness. His answer is a "new heavens and a new earth". Although we now live in the already/not yet tension between the cross and the second advent of Jesus Christ- there will come a day when all the broken and hideous things that flood our world will be transformed by grace into whole and beautiful realities. This is the world's hope.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Logic of Election

I know. We Christians do spend too much time thinking about and debating theology. It's not necessarily that theology is a bad thing; it's when theology becomes an end in itself and not a means to practice or worship that it becomes dangerous.

Let's take a classic Christian doctrine as a quick case study. All orthodox Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) have a doctrine of election. Many disagree on the theological particulars. Is election referring to the individual person? Is it a communal election? Both?

Lesslie Newbigin, a famous missionary to India, believed that while not all Christian traditions would agree on the particulars of the doctrine of election, there was a beautiful "logic" behind the doctrine of election that all Christians could get behind.

For Newbigin, the doctrine of election was inherently mysterious. We cannot fully understand it. And we shouldn't try to! Nor should we spend all of our time debating over it. Although he was not calling Christians to embrace some form of doctrinal agnosticism, like John Calvin and Herman Bavinck before him, he knew how dangerous it was to probe the depths of the mind of God.

So what is this "logic" behind the doctrine of election? Well, Newbigin is a firm believer that good doctrine must always lead to practice and worship. While Christians can't spend their entire lives obsessing over the depths of the doctrine of election, they can easily hone in on God's purpose for election.

God's election is never merely to save an individual. Taking Abraham's election as our hermeneutic, we see that God elects in order to transform communities who then communicate God's grace/blessing into the entirety of created reality.

Yes. It's very easy to dwell in the "ivory tower" But I think it's much sweeter to come down and practice what you preach.

Monday, June 23, 2008

The Essence of Christianity

Bavinck boils Christianity down to the following sentence: 

"Christianity is no less that the real, supreme work of the Triune God, in which the Father reconciles his created but fallen world through the death of his Son and re-creates it through his Spirit into the kingdom of God"

(The Essence of Christianity)


Must Buy!


I just recently purchased Bavinck's collection of essays on religion, beauty, societal relationships, science, and many other topics. 

It is truly a gem. Biblically rooted; culturally sensitive. I am blown away at how Bavinck addresses issues that I am facing today in the 21st century. I haven't read all the essays yet, but I would definitely recommend the ones on Evolution and The Relationship Between Society and Christianity. 




Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Vacuuming for the Kingdom

Whatever Christianity is, it is not a philosophy in the traditional sense of the word. Although Christians should be interested in ideas and truth, the Christian faith cannot be reduced to just another "idea" or "ideology". Christianity is ultimately about a community's witness to the very real and historical person of Jesus Christ. You may doubt Christ's authenticity, but you have to admit that Christianity is unique in this regard.

Practically, Christianity's concrete and non-philosophical nature can be quite frustrating. If you're anything like me, you find it easier to talk about love and justice than actually practice them. In the Christian faith, you think about love and justice... but you also have to practice them. This means you can't stay in the ivory tower. You have to come down to everyday life and exercise your faith in very practical ways.

This week, my wife and I had a guest over to our home. All day, on a theoretical level, I thought about the nature of hospitality, why Christians were called to do it and how ultimately God was hospitable with us.

But then my wife reminded me that I had to vacuum our dirty floor in order for our guest to feel welcomed. This, she reminded me, was an integral part of being hospitable.

Believe me! It was much easier for me to contemplate hospitality then to actually practice it.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Hospitality: A Sign of Contradiction

I've just begun to read a new book by Christine Pohl entitled Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition.

I'm reading this book at the start of my first week as the pastoral intern at Redeemer Sugarland.

One of the things that I appreciate and admire about my friend/mentor/pastor Brad Wright is his incurable desire to cultivate community and "make room" for people in his life through the embodiment and enactment of hospitality. I would go as far to say that Brad embraces a hermeneutic of hospitality. Although he hasn't articulated this to me in these exact words, there is a sense in which he would say the best way to "read" the Christian story is (a) as a narrative in which God is opening up his Kingdom to strangers and outcasts to meet with them in communion and (b) that you can't really understand Christianity without practicing hospitality.

That said, I want to follow in Brad's footsteps. As St. Paul once wrote, I want to "seek to show hospitality".

But I don't want to be naive. I know hospitality is a form of death-to-self. It can be joyful but it is not always glamorous.

I'd like to end with this quote that really stuck out to me:

"A community which embodies hospitality to strangers is a sign of contradiction, a place where joy and pain, crises and peace are closely interwoven"

- Jean Vanier

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Doctrinal Righteousness

“[Roman] Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a Protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride.”

- Herman Bavinck

Herman Bavinck is my favorite theologian. I think this is my new favorite quote.

Friday, May 30, 2008

The Dilemma of Belief in the World of Today

"Belief appears no longer as the bold but challenging leap out of the apparent all of our visible world and into the apparent void of the invisible and intangible; it looks much more like a demand to bind oneself to yesterday and to affirm it as eternally valid. "


- Pope Benedict XVI

This is is a great quote from a brilliant thinker as to why so many people today adopt a hermeneutics of suspicion. This is a difficult barrier for the minister of the gospel today.

Friday, May 9, 2008

What Hath Rome to do with Westminster?

"To be sure, the response of faith to revelation, which God grants to the creature he chooses and moves with his love, occurs in such a way that it is truly the creature that provides the response, with its own nature and its natural powers of love"

Hans Urs von Balthasar

This is a beautiful summation of the tension of God's initiating grace and our authentic response to the gospel from a brilliant Roman Catholic theologian.

Monday, May 5, 2008

your story

an open letter addressed to you

ruffled, broken, bent on the table

good news, bad news, you just don’t know

pregnant expectation attacks your stomach

the clock hand is now moving slowly


the paper in your hands is rough

the words are small

piercing your eyes with emotion

you taste excitement once again


paradise warped into wasteland

then stunned back into something beautiful

freedom strangled by the heat of idolatry

beauty, justice, relationships

the vandalization of shalom; the triumph of grace

from a garden-park to a holy city

This is your story

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Pneumatological Compassion and Mindfulness

Lately, I've been listening to podcasts of Krista Tippet's Speaking of Faith (American Public Media) on my iPod. This is a very stimulating and engaging forum of religious discussion. 

As a religious studies minor, and a lover of ideas, I want to stay in touch with all the "current" religious movements even after I leave the University. 

As an amateur follower of Francis Schaeffer, I really want to learn how to authentically listen to those of different faiths. As a Presbyterian, I am very good at destructing arguments and immediately pointing out when someone has gone theologically astray.  I do a poor job highlighting the beauty and truth (even if it is a partial truth) of other world religions. 

One of Krista's guests was Karen Armstrong. Armstrong considers herself a "freelance Monotheist". Armstrong is a Monotheist drawing from the various resources of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. When asked how these three religions could coexist, she pointed to the theological virtue of compassion. She believes that compassion is the one thread that runs through these three "historical" faiths that prohibits them from blowing each other apart. She concluded her interview by stating that compassion is the greatest of all religious impulses. 

Krista Tippet has also interviewed Thich Nhat Hanh.  Hanh is a world renowned Zen master. He has had a countless influence on many people (including Martin Luther King). For Hanh, the greatest religious impluse is "mindfulness". Mindfulness for Hanh is a calm and melodic "being in the moment". He believes that if different religious leaders would take the time to understand the sufferings of the "other" and practice mindfulness, we would see far more peace in the world. 

As a Christian, I believe compassion and mindfulness are indispensable. While I appreciate Armstrong's and Hanh's insights, I have to disagree with them on an important level. Throughout their entire conversations about compassion and mindfulness, they never mentioned God or even an "outside force" that could help cultivate compassion or mindfulness 
in human beings. This is really one of the reasons why I am a Christian. Most (if not all other religions) have beautiful ideals and ethical standards that I (on one level or another) am attracted to. My problem is that I can't muster enough will power or "calmness" to produce these religious impulses. 

My Christian faith stems from my desperateness and utter dependance. It is only in the Christian tradition that you have an outside personal force (the Holy Spirit) breeding these religious impulses in ones heart. I'm too anxious to be mindful . I'm too selfish to be compassionate. But I believe in a pneumatological mindfulness and compassion. It is the Holy Spirit that moves in us to cultivate a desire to sit still (mindfulness) and authentically listen to the "other" (compassion). I think this is why Christianity has never called these virtues impulses. They aren't a result of our spontaniety. Instead they are fruit. They can only grow when we are rooted in Christ and empowerd by his Spirit. 




 

Thursday, April 17, 2008

John Calvin's Central Soteriological Structure

What I am about to say will probably be controversial to some people.

John's Calvin's central soteriological structure is not the doctrine of predestination (as some critics of Calvin wrongly assume).

Lane Tipton, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, writes:

"Calvin's central soteriological structure is Spirit wrought faith union with the crucified and resurrected Christ of Scripture"

Amen brother!

The Drama of Doctrine

I have a big problem. I try to read too many books at one time. My wife Kristen thinks I have an incurable disease :)

I also don't usually read through an entire book (I usually get through 1/2 or 3/4 of the way through). The major exception to this is when I read a book with someone else.

To my heart's delight, my friend/pastor (Brad Wright) and I will be reading through Kevin Vanhoozer's The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology.

The main argument of this book is that doctrines are not merely theoretical concepts that we are called to intellectually submit to. Instead, doctrines are the canonical-lingustic teachings about God's Trinitarian drama within redemptive history that serve to shape and guide the Christian's ecclesiastical/cultural performace.




Monday, April 14, 2008

I needed to hear this..

"Laughter is the closest thing to the grace of God"

Karl Barth

This is a great quote for me. I really needed to hear this as I am prone to take life too seriously.

You Can't Mean Everyone?

"In the church of Jesus Christ there should be no non-theologians"

Karl Barth

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Very Convicting


"Faith in God's revelation has nothing to do with an ideology which glorifies the status quo."

Karl Barth



Thursday, April 3, 2008

Tradition(ed) Faith

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"

- Jaroslav Pelikan

Some Definitions (vol. 1; pages 1-10)

Evangelical Christianity is often allergic to tradition.Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and anyone else doing that liturgy thing, we often believe, are merely trading the Bible for the traditions of men. In some instances this may be the case. But it doesn't always have to be.

Some Christians are very proud of the fact that they stick to the Bible and "the Bible alone!". They don't let philosophy, theology, church history or any other tradition get in the way of God's pure Word. Don't get me wrong. I'm evangelical. I understand why most people think this way. We're trying to protect the uniqueness of the Bible.

However, I think Christians are mistaken if they believe they can arrive at a mature and developed doctrine of the Trinity (for example) by merely opening the pages of their New Testament and never consulting the tradition of the church. This is not to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the New Testament. This is to say that many apologists and theologians have fought long and hard, across the centuries, to communicate how God can be fundamentally one yet also three. Whether Christians know it or not, the minute they use the word "Trinity" and talk about God in terms of being and essence they are walking into the halls of tradition, borrowing extra-biblical terminology to describe a profoundly biblical truth.

Not all tradition is the enemy of biblical truth. In fact, I would go as far to say that on one level, you can never separate the two. We never experience biblical truth apart from the communicative channel of tradition.

Reflections on the Christian Tradition

I finally received all five volumes of Jaroslav Pelikan's Christian Tradition. I've already started to read the first volume.

What I plan to do is utilize this blog space to share some of Jaroslav's thoughts on the development of doctrine throughout the history of the church. Each chapter in the book is divided into smaller sub-sections. I hope to give some brief commentary on each sub-section.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Maasai Creed

The Maasai Creed The Maasai Creed is a creed composed in about 1960 by Western Christian missionaries for the Maasai, an indigenous African tribe of semi-nomadic people located primarily in Kenya and northern Tanzania. The creed attempts to express the essentials of the Christian faith within the Maasai culture.


We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created man and wanted man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the earth. We have known this High God in the darkness, and now we know him in the light. God promised in the book of his word, the Bible, that he would save the world and all nations and tribes.

We believe that God made good his promise by sending his son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left his home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing that the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He was buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, he rose from that grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.
We believe that all our sins are forgiven through him. All who have faith in him must be sorry for their sins, be baptized in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love, and share the bread together in love, to announce the good news to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.


Jaroslav Pelikan?




Jaroslav Pelikan. I hadn't really heard of him until a few days ago. Pelikan has been considered the greatest church historian of our century. He learned to read and type when he was two years old. He graduated from seminary and completed his PhD from the University of Chicago before he was 22! He taught over 40 years at Yale. He was raised Lutheran and converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in his very late years before he passed away.

I have recently ordered his magnum opus: a 5 volume set chronicling the doctrine of the Christian church from A.D. 100 to the present. It should be fascinating. I'll try to post my thoughts frequently.

If the Resurrection is true, nothing else matters. If the Resurrection is not true, nothing else matters.

- Jaroslav Pelikan

Friday, March 28, 2008

The World is Not Flat: Challenging Globalization with a Eucharistic Imagination




I have been a corporate communications major for the past two years. One of the most popular "buzz" words in my field of study has been globalization. The concept globalization, like religion, is very difficult to define. Scholars have a hard time articulating exactly what globalization is.

Globalization (in its broadest sense) is the process whereby people and societies around the world are unified into a single "global village"; functioning together economically, politically and socially. Globalization seems to embody a certain degree of secular catholicity. For many corporate communication majors, globalization is the best thing since sliced bread. Organizations are able to host digital conference meetings in three different continents all at the same time. Many companies have pursued the economic advantages of globalization by "outsourcing" labor to various Eastern countries where the wage standards are minuscule. Popular American companies like McDonalds and Coca-Cola have planted colonies and promoted their products across the globe. Unlike any other moment in history, it appears that globalization is bringing the most cultures together and creating the greatest number of economic opportunities. Not to mention the fact that globalization has facilitated the movement from mass communication to massive communication (the capacity to effectively communicate with and influence very large populations around the world).

For the past four years, I have been a Christian theology major and a religious studies minor. You have no idea how excited I get when I come across an interdisciplinary academic study that addresses corporate communications issues with religious studies resources (or vice versa). The other day I came a across Catholic theologian William T. Cavanaugh's article The World in a Wafer: A Geography of the Eucharist as Resistance to Globalization. I know, what a mouthful! William T. Cavanaugh teaches systematic theology at St. Thomas University in St. Paul Minnesota and has authored Torture and Eucharist and The Theopolitical Imagination (a book I hope to buy and read very soon). My thoughts below are heavily influenced by Cavanaugh's stimulating article (found here: http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/cavanaugh/wafer.pdf)

Globalization, in the end, embodies a counterfeit catholicity. True catholicity is not just the "universal" overshadowing the "particular"- flattening out the uniqueness and locality of the particular, but the universal mysteriously present in the particular. Many people believe that globalization is such a great thing because it brings so many different people together. However, what many don't realize is that while globalization has a mighty reach, it is quite uncharitable. While globalization breaks through various cultures across the world, it ends up squashing the "uniqueness" and "otherness" of those cultures. Unity that leads to a forced, tasteless homogeneity is an ugly thing. Instead of bringing a variety of different cultures together, globalization is really creating an alternate mass-culture that slowly disintegrates the smaller cultures it comes in contact with.

Cavanaugh contrasts the false secular catholicity of globalization with the true catholicity the Eucharist. The church's practice of the Eucharist is truly catholic because it is a communal event that both cherishes particularity/locality (a particular loaf of bread and a very localized church comprised of very different members) and universality (Christ by his Hoy Spirit is cosmically present around the globe among his various churches and his saints are mysteriously united with one another).

"By the same liturgical action , not part but the whole Body of Christ is present in each local Eucharistic assembly. In Romans 16:23 Paul refers to the local community as hole he ekklesia, the whole Church. Indeed, in the first three centuries the term "catholic Church" is most commonly used to identify the local Church gathered around the Eucharist. Each particular church is not an administrative division of a larger whole, but is in itself a "concentration" of the whole. The whole Catholic Church is qualiatatively present in the local assembly, becuase the whole Body of Christ is present there. Catholic space, therefore, is not a simple, universal space uniting individuals directly to a whole; theEucharist refracts space in such a way that one becomes more united to the whole the more tied one becomes to the local. The true gloal village is not simply a village writ large, but rather "where two or three are gathered in my name" (Mt. 18:20)"

Globalization promises a unity without diversity-a homogenous vision without any subtstanital concrete plurality. The true catholic ekklesia, made up of males and females, rich and poor, white and black, is the only community that offers a rich unity without the obliteration of diversity.

Neither the Eucharist or globalization are neutral. They both demand our attention and vye to shape our imagination. Will you be shaped by the massive culture of globalization that forces you to downplay localized particulairty for a homogeneous universality or will you be interrupted by the Eucharist where you are fed the cosmic Christ who "appears in the homless person asking for a cup of coffee...who appears in the person of the weakest, those hungry or thirsty, strangers or naked, sick or imprisoned (Mt.25-46)" ?

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

How to Avoid Not Speaking about God



The existence of evil has been a problem for Christians since the early church. Many scientists have rejected the Christian view of creation and divine providence because of the supposed evidence for evolutionary naturalism. Philosophers have often abandoned an orthodox understanding of God (or have radically redefined the concept "God") due to alleged inner-contradictions within the traditional understanding of God (e.g., how can God be an eternal being and yet be simultaneously involved in a time-bound world?).

In the last 50 (or so years) a new weapon has been aimed at God and theological discourse in particular. Various philosophers (usually operating within the framework of hard postmodernism) have posed the following dilemma:

(i) God is infinite
(ii) Human language is necessarily finite
(iii)Therefore, any "God-talk" will either obliterate God's otherness or be de facto unintelligible

How can nouns, verbs, and adjectives (etc) possibly describe a being that is infinite? The moment one"captures" God within the net of a theological statement- he ceases to be God. Stripped of his transcendence, he becomes another finite "idea" or "thought" that can be described and analyzed.

If these allegations are true, they pose a major threat for Christian theology. How as Christians do we avoid nor speaking about God?

Paradoxically,we avoid not speaking about God by looking at the heart of our theology: the incarnation. In the incarnation we discover a particular logic at work. In the person of Jesus, the eternal, infinite God is pleased to dwell and embody himself in human form. Jesus is not half God and half man, he is fully God and fully human. The logic embodied in the incarnation is that infinity can take on the finite (and vice versa) without collapsing into meaninglessness.

The application to theological discourse should be obvious. Although God can never be "captured" by theological concepts, within the logic of the incarnation, finite words are able to communicate meaningful and true things about God. Finite language, while never escaping its finiteness- just like Jesus' humanity never escaped its humanness- can never the less be an adequate vehicle to describe an infinite God.

Philosopher James K.A. Smith writes:

"It is in this way that language functions like the Incarnation of the God-man: when the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14), the transcendent God descended into the realm of immanence (finitude), but without thereby denying or giving up his transcendence... God's transcendence is inaccessible to us, but the way in which this is remedied is precisely by God's humiliation and descent to the order of the (fallen) creature. It is God who moves toward finitude, rather than lifting up ...the finite.

(Speech and Theology: Language and the Logic of the Incarnation, page 25).

It was God's powerful initiative love that led him to humble himself and take the form of a servant. As Christians (although always being careful of not being overly dogmatic) this should encourage us that God has not only made it possible for us to communicate about him and his gospel- he desires that we do so.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The Paradox of Christian Exclusivism

All orthodox Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, would agree that Christianity is in someway or another exclusive. By communicating that the Christian faith is marked by a level of exclusivity, most Christians are trying to preserve the uniqueness of the gospel- that God has intruded into world history in the person of his Son to reconcile all things to himself.




Christians are not alone in their exclusivity. At a fundamental level, every community (shaped by some set of beliefs and not by others) is exclusive. This includes communties that are "non" religious as well. Let me give a brief example. The Civil Rights organization at the University of Houston stands for the freedom of all citizens. However, if the president of the organization suddenly changed her mind and no longer believed that men (for example) deserved the same rights as women, she would be in violation of the organization's fundamental belief: that all citizens (regardless of gender, race, etc.) deserve equal rights. The civil rights organization might tolerate this from their president for a while, but not for very long. If the president was unwilling to change her beliefs, she would be asked to resign. The idea here is that communities have to be exclusive in one way or another to maintain their uniqueness.

So the question that has to be asked is not, "Why is your community exclusive", but "What are the internal resources within your community that prevents your community's exclusivity from becoming explosive" Although exclusive aspects of the Christian community have been used to promote violence and oppression (Crusades), this has been because members of the community have distorted the exclusive message, not necessarily because the exclusive message automatically leads to violence and oppression.

Tim Keller, in his book The Reason for God talks about the great paradox of Christianity's exclusive message. At the heart of the Christian story is a God who serves and loves his own enemies by dying on a cross. This is radical! Christians should labor to protect the exclusivity of their message --- not to exclude for the sake of exclusion---- but to embrace their enemies and serve them with the powerful love of Jesus Christ.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Buffet Spirituality

N.T. Wright, in his fabulous book Simply Christian, argues that spirituality is a fundamental human longing. Especially in our American culture today, I would say this is true. No matter how secularized we have become, there is still an aching sense that we are not at the center of the universe. There has to be something more.

On one level, I agree with Robert Webber that as Christians we are in a very opportunistic age. There is a flood of individuals in our society seeking for purpose and meaning. Many are wanting to re-connect with something outside of themselves. This is, on one level, very good news. As the church, I think we should be excited about this. At the heart of our story is God's descent into our world to restore humanity and renew the entire cosmos. This is great news for those who are searching for meaning and fulfillment.


But its not that easy. While people are comfortable being categorized as "seekers" and "spiritual" they don't like sticking to one story. What do I mean by this? Many people in our society approach spirituality like they would approach a buffet line. I'll take a little bit of Islam here, some of this Hinduism there, and a few pieces of Christianity. I don't want to oversimplify things, but it seems to me that a lot of people pick and choose what they want to believe (which usually ends up being aspects of a religious tradition or philosophy which are easy to manage and typically uncontroversial). Love, personal fulfillment and material prosperity are popular dishes in our American spiritual buffet line. As Christians, we stick to one dish- one macro-story that shapes and structures not only our individual lives (but as we believe) the entire flow of world history. We stick to one story because we believe this one story communicates to us the richest spirituality imaginable. A spirituality we were designed to experience. Creation- Incarnation-Recreation. This is our story. Herman Bavinck (my favorite theologian!!!) puts it this way:

"The essence of the Christian religion consists therein: that the creation of the Father, destroyed by sin, is again restored in the death of the Son of God and recreated by the grace of the Holy Spirit to a Kingdom of God"


To add to or subtract from this story would really be to throw it away. Christianity is a unified story. You take out one integral part, and the rest of it really doesn't make sense.

We must be charitable with those who feel compelled to run to the buffet line and pick and choose their religion. We must learn to listen to their questions and love them regardless of their answers. But we must also be bold. We must gently (yet confidently) proclaim to them a new diet- a single story that is large enough and beautiful enough to satisfy their hungry souls.



Friday, February 15, 2008

The Reason for God




Finally! Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God, has arrived.

Keller wrote this book to accomplish two main goals:

1) Show skeptics that their doubts and objections to Christianity are in fact alternative beliefs about the spiritual world, the nature of justice, and even God himself. Keller is challenging skeptics to place their beliefs under the same level of scrutiny that they demand of Christianity. In other words, Keller is asking the skeptic to be skeptical of his own skepticism.

2) Keller also wants this book to be a resource for Christians whose loved ones (family, friends, coworkers, etc.) struggle with honest doubts and objections to Christianity.

I hope everyone buys at least three copies and hands them out to family and friends!

Monday, February 11, 2008

Let's Be Honest



"Religion is orientation toward ultimate reality. Everyone orients their lives to some version of ultimate reality."

William Deming

"We (must) identify and name the idolatries, the false gods that our society worships. I was reading again recently Dennis Munby’s book ‘The Idea of a Secular Society’. Munby in the 1960’s advised us that a secular society was what a Christian ought to work for, and that one of its marks was that ‘there is no publicly accepted image of the good life’. If that is so, ours is certainly not a secular society. How absurd it would be to make such a claim when (according to published statistics) something like 90% of the population spends at least three-quarters of its free time glued to the television screen, hooked inseparably to those pictures of the good life which are being ceaselessly pumped into every living room in the country, the advertisements and the soap operas which provide an image of the good life more powerful than anything Islam or mediaeval Christendom every managed to fasten on an entire population. Ours is not a secular society, but a society which worships false gods"

Lesslie Newbigin

I think it's right to say that everyone is religious- everyone worships something (although many would deny that they do). Being religious does not mean following a strict code of ethics or offering sacrifices to statues- it means committing yourself- giving your entire life over to something/someone. Christians are not "archaic" when they talk about worship. They're just being honest about what everyone else is doing.


The Hermeneutics of Charity

In two years, my wife and I plan to move to St. Louis, MO so that we can attend Covenant Theological Seminary. Covenant is the official seminary of our denomination- The Presbyterian Church of America (PCA).

What stuck out to us most when we visited the campus last month was the faculty's overwhelming sense of charity and graciousness toward individuals and systems of thought that differed from their own. Don't get me wrong, the faculty at Covenant are intellectually honest about their theological distinctives. They would never communicate that all Christians are the same and that any differences are ultimately minor (and thus unimportant). Differences between Methodists and Presbyterians (for example) are important and have to be explored.

What is truly beautiful about the faculty at Covenant is that they are not cavalier or arrogant with their theology. They are very gracious and deeply understand the necessity to be clear and fair when disagreeing with different theological perspectives.

There are many areas in my life where I would like to become more like the faculty at Covenant. But above everything else, I would like to embody their hermeneutics of charity- the way they winsomely and fairly represent those they disagree with.

As a Presbyterian, I want to write about the Methodists' view on sanctification and the Baptists' understanding of the sacraments in such a way that Methodists and Baptists (although disagreeing with my conclusions) are comfortable with my representation of them. Either it be discussing homosexuality and Christianity, sola gratia and the Roman Catholic view of progressive justification, I want those who I disagree with to read my statements about their beliefs and say, "I think you're wrong, but you really do understand what I'm trying to say."

Friday, February 8, 2008

What's Your Set of Words?




There is someone in my life (who will remain unnamed) who thinks I am foolish for embracing Christianity becuase, "We are never supposed to let anything or anyone tell us what to believe!" This statement has always been interesting to me. And it is extremely popular in our culture today. I hear it all the time at UH (University of Houston). Is this statement accurate, or do we need to deconstruct* it?

Philosophically, this statement is self-refuting

A self-refuting statement is a statement that contradicts itself. For example, if I were to tell someone that I did not speak a word of German in German, that would be a self-refuting statement.

On one level, anyone who commuicates the belief that no one/no thing should ever influence our beliefs- is in that very statement trying to influence our beliefs. Practically, I have found this to be the case. Most people that I talk to that believe nothing should influence our beliefs are very passionate and determined to persuade as many people as possible to accept that their reasoning is true. Ironic isn't it?

Everybody is shaped by some set of words

On another level, this view fails to recognize that everyone is shaped by some set of words. The question is not "are you shaped by a set of words" but "which set of words shape you"? The very assumption that we are autonomous human beings able to come to our "own conclusions"- apart from any external influence- is extremely influenced by the philosophical ideas of Rene Descarte.

Many Americans are shaped by the words of materialism. If only I had a nicer car or a bigger house I would be happier. Some are shaped by the words of New Age Spirituality. The world will become a better place when we begin to tap into the "divine" resources within ourselves. Others are shaped by the words of religious pluralism. No one religion can be true- this would be inherently unfair and oppresive.

As Christians, we are primarily shaped by the Word of God

When we think about the "Word of God" we usually think about the Bible. And this is true. The Bible is God's authoratative word. But there is also a sense in which we can think about preaching as the Word of God. The protestant reformes knew this very well. The Second Helvetic confession explains:

"Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good".

The implications for evangelism and discipleship are massive. We don't want new converts to think that the Christian life is merely about listening to the Christian radio station and becoming a "better" person (a view that I held when I first became a Christian).
No, things are larger and richer than that. Christ invades our minds and our hearts. By his Holy Spirit, he uses the dagger of preaching to penetrate all the "words" that shape our lives- opening up a space for us to be transformed by his Word. Through preaching, he begins to develop a world and life-view in his people. The grand narrative of the Bible- creation, fall, redemption, new-creation- becomes the framework within which the disciple "interprets" their life. A Christian shaped by good preaching will never think about science, politics, art, literature, etc. the same. Intimate issues like suffering, depression and marital struggles are placed in fresh perspective when the disciple is transformed by preaching. Good preaching, as the early church knew so well, is throuroughly Christ-centered. The pastor does not preach himself, he preaches the cross and ressurection of the Lord Jesus Christ. From Genesis-Revelation, the pastor expounds the Scriptures and feeds his people the plump fruit of the gospel.

We are human beings who listen to others. We are usually impacted (in some way or another) by our conversations with people. The Christian life is about hearing the Word of God- by faith- and letting that Word become our word so that we begin to reflect the beauty and glory of the eternal Word- Jesus Christ.

* Deconstruction is a methodoloigcal tool used by postmodern philosophers to challenge and dismantle commonly accepted beliefs.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Transformative Worship




"A person will worship something. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshiping we are becoming"
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Evangelism is often separated from worship. What really matters, some argue, is that a person "accept Jesus into their life". Worship is important-no doubt about that- but it's not as important as the initial moment of conversion.

This line of thinking stems more from an American understanding of democratic choice and liberty than the portrait given to us in the Scriptures of a disobedient life being radically transformed by the glory of the Lord.

Worship is diluted in many churches (I believe) because of a misunderstanding of its fundamental nature. Worship is not simply singing songs to God (although this is a manifestation of it). Worship is bigger than what most Christians think. Worship really describes the entirety of our lives. What we give ourselves to, what shapes and molds us are all things that we worship.

The Bible is very clear that we will begin to reflect whatever we worship. Worship is transformative. If you worship sex or money, your life will be marked by these things. As Christians, we long to be renovated and transformed by worshiping Christ our King. As we come to know him, and serve him, and give our lives over to him - our fractured and broken lives will begin to reflect his mysterious and penetrating beauty.

This is important for evangelism. Our goal should be to communicate the gospel to others not merely to "save them from hell", but to invite them into a worshiping community so their lives will be genuinely changed. Let's not separate evangelism and worship. Those we encounter in our schools, our jobs and our neighborhoods (who are not believers) are already worshiping something. You have to find out what that is- and help them to see that it is ultimately damaging their lives. Only worshipping the Triune God- Father, Son and Holy Spirit-can bring lasting refreshment and deep transformation into out lives. This is good news. This is our message. This is our hope. Let's be a part of healing the nations through worship.

Diet or Repentance?

We are in what Christians have called the season of Lent. While I am very thankful that many people still take this season seriously, I am suspicious of whether or not many Christians understand what Lent is all about.

I have encountered many individuals in the past few days who have decided to give up some type of food (usually chocolate or sugar). But this is it. I don't want to be reductionistic, but it seems like many people think about Lent as an opportunity to rekindle their New Years resolutions to lose a few pounds. This surface approach is not only dangerous but cheap- when Jesus offers us such rich mercy!

I encourage everyone to think about why we partipcate in Lent- this seasonal journey to the cross. Instead of giving up lattes and Big Macs- let's reflect on how we are marked by Christ. The goal of Lent is not to lose 20 pounds (or even to forsake our favorite foods) but to enable us to experience the freedom of a lifestyle of faith and repentance that we have in the Lord Jesus Christ.


Monday, February 4, 2008

The Church as "Final Apologetic"


Most people read the word apologetics and think, "a rational defense of the gospel". Although apologetics can mean that, I want to reflect on its broader meaning.

Apologetics for sure has to do with the plausibility and "attractiveness" of the Christian faith. Usually when we think about apologetics, are minds are drawn to philosophical and theological arguments that seek to preserve some of the core propositional teachings of historic Christianity.
As a church, we need winsome philosophical and theological answers to all the various questions that outsiders have about our faith. Although I believe propositional answers to the various cultural objections to Christianity are necessary, our final apologetic (our strongest argument) cannot be propositional arguments. Why? Because we no longer live in a society that believes ultimate truth can be "contacted" via rational argumentation.

In our postmodern environment, truth is "contacted" through submersion in a particular environment or culture. Although propositional statements are not entirely jettisoned in the postmodern world-view, they are no longer considered the primary ways to receive truth. The main idea here is that being submersed into a particular culture/environment will shape and guide the ways we view the world and the ways we live within the world.

This said, in our postmodern* society, evangelism and discipleship must occur in a particular environment/culture. Throughout the history of Christianity, the local church has been the environment where people have been submersed in and thus shaped and formed by the narrative of the gospel.

Robert Webber puts it like this,

"The church communicates through an immersion into its reality. The church lives by a different story and vision. When a new disciple is submerged in the communal life of the church- in its story, its values, its perspective- the countercultural nature of the faith is caught and the disciple begins to be formed by immersion in the ways of the community"
(Ancient-Future Evangelism, pg 75).

I believe that Christianity is both intelligible and "attractive". But I know that many people who are outside the circle of faith would disagree. How can I communicate with those who disagree with me? Although I think I can present reasonable arguments to people, it is going to take an authentic community of faith, the bride of Jesus Christ, embracing those who are opposed to the faith and submersing them in a radical love and performing the beautiful narrative of the gospel in their midst.

*Postmodernism is a philosophical movement after "modernism". Whereas modernism was interested in traditional views of authority/power and the supremacy of human reason- postmodernism has a basic suspicion of human reason and challenges traditional views of authority/power.

Sunday, February 3, 2008

The Art of Being Open





Anyone who is seriously thinking about evangelism should read Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Evangelism. I never thought that I would learn so much about evangelism from studying the early church. In what follows, I would like to reflect on one of the marks of the early church that empowered their evangelism.

Openness?

Webber explains that one of the reasons why the early church was so successful in evangelism was that they were open, as a living community, to everyone. Most Christians will read that last sentence and think, "We're Christians. We believe that salvation is exculsive. We could never be open to everyone". On one level this is true. But on another level this attitude is mistaken.

Liberal Christianity

Many Christians today have [supposedly] taken the early church's advice and swung their doors wide open to everybody. But they have done so in a way that actually contradicts another fundamental principle held by the early church. The early church was not only open to everyone, but it was open to everyone with a very specifc message. The message of the early church was that Jesus is Lord. He is the only name that can be invoked to bring salvation. This wasn't seen as an oppresive exclusivism but a liberating particularized universalism. I admire the fact that many liberal Christian churches have embraced different people with the arms of authentic love. I need to learn alot from them! However, I think that many liberal Christian churches have not gone the full nine yards in their love. They have shown compassion and charity, but have not given people the most loving thing- the radical [exclusive-yet-universal] message of the gospel- that in Christ Jesus alone salvation is found.

Fundamentalist Christianity

While most fundamentalist churches have embodied the early church principle of communicating a particular message of salvation- they have failed to be open to their surrounding communities. It is actually quite sad. I often wonder whether or not fundamentalist Christians actually understand the very message they are trying so hard to protect. The reason why the early church was so quick to open their doors to everyone was becuase they were so excited to share the good news of Jesus Christ! Thier exclusive message inspired them to be inclusive.

How open?

Anyone who has "done" evangelism in a post-Christian world knows the tension between genuinely loving people and communicating a message of exclusive salvation. It's very difficult!
But it has to be done. What the early church teaches us is that reflecting more and more on the content of the message (the boundless love of Jesus Christ) will empower and motivate us more and more to be open to our communities. Being open means following Jesus' example of being a friend to sinners. As a larger church, we need to invite people of all walks of life to witness our communication of and participation in the grand-drama of redemption rehearsed in our worship services. As individual Christians, we need to invite different people into our lives to share and enjoy movies, meals, memories. We don't want to see non-Christians hurt by spiritualities and philosophies that lead to despair or moral chaos. The reason why we want to proclaim the exculsive message of the gospel is becuase we passionately believe that in the gospel alone people find true joy and meaning.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Comfort and Support


Psalm 23

The LORD Is My Shepherd
A Psalm of David.
1The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
3He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.

4Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

5You prepare a table before me
inthe presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.

I know that I was going to spend some time focusing on evangelism- but I've decided to reflect on Psalm 23. I promise to be brief and get back to evangelism on the next post. Psalm 23 is probably the most famous of all the psalms. It is one of my personal favorites. I've been struggling with depression lately and dealing with some identity issues. When I am struggling with these types of things I tend to do one of two things.

1) I become very introspective and fall deeper into a distorted outlook on life.

2) I try to "fix" my problems by turning to other things (books, movies, food, whatever).

This morning my wife and I read Psalm 23 together. It was a breath of fresh air.There are three things that I've been thinking about as I've been reading (and re-reading) Psalm 23.

Everybody walks through the Valley of the Shadow of Death

As Christians we sometimes believe that we are somehow "immune" to suffering or hardship. By suffering and hardship I mean the "big issues" like disease, death and poverty and the "smaller issues" like relational stress, emotional pain, etc.

We are living in what the apostle Paul calls this "present evil age". You and I are constantly comparing ourselves to other people, wondering whether anyone really accepts us, struggling with our self -image, and a wide ocean of other difficult things. I don't care who you are-you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.


We all try to find comfort and support from things

If only I had more money in the bank account everything would be ok. If only I had more friends I wouldn't have such a low view of myself.We believe that a new car will help our self-esteem. We think that a hefty retirement package will assuage the fear and trembling we experience in the present moment. As relational human beings, we were created to relate to something during times of distress. More often than not, we turn to things in this world that seem to give us hope to overcome what is presently taking over us.

Instead of turning to other things, we have to realize that only God can bring us the comfort and support we really need

Verse 6 is beautiful.

6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.

In the midst of walking through the valley of the shadow of death, David realizes that nothing in all creation will be there for him except God. Financial gain, sexual pleasure, material comfort- none of these - can provide the comfort and support that David longs for in the midst of his hectic existence.

As it is for us. We will look for comfort and support in tangible possesions that promise many things. It is not that finances, sex or material possessions are evil in and of themselves. They are actually wonderful things created by God. They can bring us joy and delight, but not the comfort and support that out souls long for.

David knew that the valley of the shadow of death would not ultimately crush him because God was with him. David was referring to God's intimate gospel-presence.No matter what David was experiencing, he knew his life was ultimately framed within the context of God's presence - and this presence would bring him reliable comfort and support.

Like David, let us praise God that he has come to be with us in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ knows our sufferings and hardships far better than we could ever articulate. Not only is Jesus present among us- he is willing and able to comfort and support us.








Friday, February 1, 2008

Evangelism as Process

We live in an instant society. We want something now, or not at all.

As Christians, we have been more heavily influenced by the "separate-all-things" world-view of the Greeks than the "holistic" world-view of the Hebrews. According to the Greek world-view, the world is a collection of component parts. If one is creative, these parts can be roughly assembled alongside one another. But this is not necessarily ideal.

The Hebraic world-view is all about unity- things organically connected. One can make distinctions but never fully separate.

These two world-views have grand implications for soteriology (the doctrine of salvation applied) and evangelism.

Soteriology

Modern American Christianity is obsessed with the theological concept of conversion or new birth (when an individual turns away from a lifestyle of disobedience to God and moves forward by faith to a lifestyle of obedience to God).

There is nothing inherently wrong with valuing conversion. In fact, conversion is an integral part of what it means to be an authentic Christian.

However, we run into problems when we overemphasize conversion at the expense of valuing any other aspect of salvation. Not all American Christians do this, but many have.

The Hebraic world-view helps us to see that although conversion is a necessary component of the Christian life, it can never be divorced from sanctification (the process where a Christian dies more and more to sin and becomes more and more like Jesus Christ).

In this world-view, the experience of conversion is a turning point (not an end in itself) where an individual begins to serve the Lord for the rest of their life.

Evangelism

If we overvalue conversion, we may interpret evangelism as an instant event. Under this assumption, we'll communicate the gospel in such a way that the person listening to us "accepts Jesus in his heart". After this, we may never see the person again. He/she may or may not ever commit themselves to a local church.

But if we see salvation as a process, we will also see evangelism as a process. Seeing evangelism as a process helps us to understand that evangelism is not the bridge toward conversion, but the gateway to discipleship/spiritual formation and worship.

We may be in a relationship with a non-believer for many years before we feel there is an adequate level of trust to winsomely present the gospel. But even this can lead to a misunderstanding of evangelism. At the end of the day, evangelism is not the moments when we tell people about their sin and the salvation offered to them in Christ (although this is a part of evangelism). Instead, evangelism is a lifestyle of continual gospel-communication (both in word and in deed). From the time one spends building trust in a relationship to the moments where we apply the gospel to a friend's desperate need - these are all evangelism.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

This will just take a moment...

Let me start off by saying that I have heard beautiful stories of people genuinely converting to Christianity after receiving a tract, listening to a brief presentation of the gospel by a total stranger, etc. I am not saying that the Lord never uses these methods to draw people into his church. What I am saying is that we have to ask our selves, "should this be our normative method?"

I don't think that it should. Before getting into what evangelism should look like in our post-Christian culture, it is helpful to think about why quick/impersonal presentations of the gospel should not be our primary evangelistic tool.

There are two major reasons.

1) Why is it that we all hate it when sneaky businessmen knock at our door and try to get us to buy something? You know what I'm talking about. A person tries to sell us some particular product and communicates the value of the product, its benefits for us and its cost in less than three minutes.

On one level we feel violated. We are all intelligent human beings who like to think about alternatives. We want to be able to think about something before we make a rash decision.

This stems ultimately from our being created in the image of God. Everyone (yes- including non-Christians!) are created in the image of God. This means that we have inherent dignity and worth. People should respect our intelligence and our dignity when they communicate something to us. Are we respecting the dignity and intelligence of non-Christians when we give them the 3 minute gospel presentation?

If we, as Christians, are going to respect the imago Dei (image of God) of our fellow neighbors, we need to make sure that any presentation of the gospel is clear, charitable and never forced. We have to let those we evangelize think about what we have said and give them time to struggle with its implications.

2)

The second reason is that our post-Christian culture has undergone a radical [postmodern] epistemological* shift. We are no longer living in a culture where people believe that truth can be received from raw statements/propositions. Instead, people believe that truth (if it even exists) is discovered/experienced through communal interaction. This means that people will probably be more receptive to hearing the gospel within the context of a healthy relationship than from a tract given to them by a total stranger.


* Epistemology: the study of how we know things

Evangelism: Toward a Definition

As I've been thinking about coming on staff at a nascent church plant in a rapidly growing city, I've been struggling a lot with the concept of evangelism.

I hope to reflect on evangelism in the next few posts.

For the last couple of days, I've been reading Robert Webber's Ancient-Future Evangelism. In this book, Webber maps out a template for evangelism - in a post-Christian world - informed by various principles and models derived from the ancient church.

The church today is a mile long but only an inch deep. As a church, we have witnessed many "conversions" but have not given much effort to disciple and train those individuals who have supposedly been "born again".

Webber thinks that we need to rediscover the three "b's" of evangelism highlighted in the ancient church: believe, belong, behave. As Americans, we are influenced far more by the compartmentalized world-view of the Greeks than the holistic world-view of the Hebrews. We want to separate evangelism, discipleship/spiritual formation and worship. But this can't be done.

Here is my definition of evangelism:

communicating the gospel in word and in deed to those who are outside the circle of faith in expectation that they will believe in Jesus Christ, belong to his church, and behave in light of his Kingdom ethic.

Hello

Hi.

My name is Quique Autrey.

I am a senior at the University of Houston. I will be graduating this May. (Yahoo!!!) I will be joining Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Sugarland, Texas (www.redeemersl.org) as their Director of Ministries. Redeemer is a church plant of the PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), my denomination.

I embrace Anselm's epistemological principle- fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). It is within this framework that I will be reflecting on theology, philosophy, and culture.

Enjoy!