Essays
- Reduce Jew and Gentile to the same level of need (Rom 1:18–3:20)
- Announce a new way forward for all, Jew and Gentile: the way of faith (Rom 3:21–4:25)
- Unite all in a common story, with four illustrations: Adam, baptism, slavery, and remarriage (Rom 5:1–7:6)
- Unite all in a common struggle and a common victory, illustrated by two stories: the Story of Me and the Story of We (Rom 7:7–8:39)
- Address Jewish and gentile problems, showing God as God of all (9:1–11:36)
- Engage all in a common life and mission (Rom 12:1–13:14)
- Call everyone to unity in the kingdom of God (Rom 14:1–16:27)
- The scientific mess (68)
- The ethical mess (68)
- The peace mess (69)
- What is the overarching story line of the Bible?
- How should the Bible be understood?
- Is God violent?
- Who is Jesus and why is he important?
- What is the gospel?
- What do we do about the church?
- Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?
- Can we find a better way of viewing the future?
- How should the followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
- How can we translate our quest into action?
- I enjoy Pastor Mark and am thankful for the role he plays in the Christian world.
- I agree with Pastor Mark’s assessment that Na’avi of Avatar practice pantheism.
- I agree with Pastor Mark’s assessment that pantheism is an incorrect worldview.
- I agree with Pastor Mark that the film is promoting a worldview that does not jive with the Biblical worldview.
- I agree with Pastor Mark that the film does not portray an exact representation of Jesus.
- My guess is that Pastor Mark went down a rabbit trail in his sermon on this one and did not think it through.
- Kinnon: Brian, I have these questions.
- Brian: Bill, you don’t understand me.
- In following the spirit of the law are we negating the law completely?
- In following the spirit of the law are we taking seriously the reasons for the law?
- In following the spirit of the law are we doing so for our own selfish gain?
- In following the spirit of the law are we simply not willing to accept the consequences for breaking the law?
- People in disagreement are encouraged to discuss one on one.
- If there is continued disagreement three or four are brought together.
- If there is continued disagreement the acknowledged leaders are brought into the conversation.
- If there is continued disagreement the issue is brought before the whole church.
- “Compassion and love — we agree with all that stuff, too,” said Brandon Beals, 37, the lead pastor at Canyon Creek Church outside of Seattle. “But what led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter.”
- These pastors say the marriage of faith and fighting is intended to promote Christian values, quoting verses like “fight the good fight of faith” from Timothy 6:12. Several put the number of churches taking up mixed martial arts at roughly 700 of an estimated 115,000 white evangelical churches in America.
- “The man should be the overall leader of the household,” said Ryan Dobson, 39, a pastor and fan of mixed martial arts who is the son of James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, a prominent evangelical group. “We’ve raised a generation of little boys.”
Extra, Extra, Good News!!! or the Gospel Question
This is the fifth post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.
The Gospel Question: What is the Gospel
The question of the gospel is critical. It is critical because in his letter to the Galatians, Paul says it is. McLaren specifically sets out to refute the following line of reasoning:
I had always assumed that “kingdom of God” meant “kingdom of heaven, ” which meant “going to heaven after you die,” which required believing the message of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, which I understood to teach a theory of atonement called “penal substitution,” which was the basis for a formula for forgiveness of original sin called “justification by grace through faith.” (138)
This description of the gospel now explicitly clarifies what McLaren believes the six-line diagram of Christianity to be teaching. He calls those that hold to the six-line diagram to “repent” as he has done (138).
So what is the gospel? McLaren calls us to read Paul through the Gospels because as we do so we will ultimately be reading Paul through Jesus. This means then that the gospel becomes very clear, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (Mark 1:15) So, what does this mean?
First, the free gift of God is being born again into a new life into a new participation in a new Genesis. Second, it means beginning a new Exodus by passing through the waters of baptism (as opposed the Red Sea). Finally, it means receiving the kingdom of God to become a “citizen of a new kingdom, the peaceable kingdom imagined by the prophets and inaugurated in Christ, learning its ways (as a disciple) and demonstrating in word and deed its presence and availability to all (as an apostle). (139). ”
McLaren argues this from an exposition of Romans where he argues for seven moves that Paul makes (Chapter 15):
Reflections
This chapter was tough for me. It was tough because for the first time I am having a hard time finding the connection. However, I think that there is something that we need to remember and be reminded of over and over. McLaren says, “Jesus’s gospel of the kingdom must welcome Jews in their Jewishness and Gentiles in their goyishness, and Paul whats to show how that can be. (144)” I say to that a hearty, “AMEN!” We too often ignore the issues related to social identity and that the fact that in Christ, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are on in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)” This points to the fact that “converting” is not converting away from one aspect of your identity but becoming something new, something other.
I struggle though with the bulk of McLaren’s answer to this question. I think that here McLaren has made a move away from what the scriptures teach concerning the gospel. First, I think McLaren contradicts himself. He says that Romans is not a linear text, yet he treats it as such with seven linear moves. He says Paul is not moving from A to Z, yet this is exactly how he treats Romans in his exposition of it. Why? Because Paul actually did think through how he wanted to describe the core beliefs of the Christ following community.
Second, while I appreciate the idea of reading Paul through the gospels this seems to be poor exegesis. We should not reading anything through anything else. We ought to read texts alongside one another. Why do we always have a need to find a “controlling” text? Is it not possible to set these texts next to one another and allow them to inform us? This is especially important due to the reality that the epistles were written prior to the gospels. I understand that there was an oral tradition regarding the gospel narratives that informed Paul’s writing. However, it also seems that Paul had direct influence on Matthew (who most likely wrote from Antioch, Paul’s home church), Mark (who probably traveled with Paul), and Luke (who definitely traveled with Paul). So, it makes sense to all these text to inform one another and not to give primacy to any one of them. If we follow this method we will see that the gospel is not ONLY concerned with penal substitutionary atonement but it is also concerned with victory, liberation, and re-creation.
Finally, to set aside issues of propitiation and to never once deal with Christ’s death and resurrection is deeply problematic. Anyone genuine reading of the gospels points to the cruci-centric nature of the ministry of Jesus. The epistles all point to the crucifixion and the resurrection as the central tenets of the faith.
I think, sadly, McLaren has made a move that authentic followers of Christ cannot make. In his gospel paradigm there is no means by which people are reconciled to their creator and to his creation. He calls for peace, liberation, and re-creation but there is no means by which that is achieved. It is here that we must part ways.
Who’s the long haired freak? or The Jesus Question
This is the fourth post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.
The Jesus Question: Who is Jesus and why is he important?
In this the fourth question, the Jesus question, McLaren seeks to find an authentic representation of who Jesus is in the Scriptures. The issue is particularly stated:
Among those who become more self-aware about the danger of distortion, and understandable fear arises: if all of us (not just “all of them”) are tempted to make Jesus in our own image, then we should be extremely cautious about compromising, letting Jesus be reimaged according to contemporary tastes…By holding a presumptive hostitlity to new views of Jesus, which may indeed reflect contemporary biases, we may unwittingly preserve old views of Jesus, which also reflect dangerous and compromising biases — just biases of the past rather than the present (121–122, italics original).
The old way of understanding Jesus that McLaren spars with is once again founded in his Greco-Roman construct. The Jesus of the Gospels is replaced by the Jesus of Revelation: the angry, sword wielding, Caesar look-a-like Jesus. While Jesus failed the first time around, there is no fear, he will come back and bring the sword and lead a great militaristic victory. This is the Jesus imaged after Caesar in all his glory and splendor. Finally, Pax Christus will match up with Pax Romana.
If this is not Jesus then who is he? McLaren argues that Jesus is the bringer of a new Genesis, a new Exodus, and a new kingdom come. His arguments are derived by comparing the gospel texts to the narratives found in Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah. In these places he finds parallels between Jesus and Moses and the peaceable kingdom. The difference is that in Jesus we have a greater depth of the realization of creation, liberation, and peace. This most clearly evidenced in the dream of the peaceable kingdom found in the prophets. In Jesus, we no longer have a dream, but a kingdom actually inaugurated.
McLaren summarizes what Jesus does in this way:
…Jesus…did not come merely to “save souls from hell.” No he came to launch a new Genesis, to lead a new Exodus, and to announce, embody, and inaugurate a new kingdom as the Prince of Peace (Isa 9:6). Seen in this light, Jesus and his message have everything to do with poverty, slavery, and a “social agenda.” (135)
Reflections
This was one of the most challenging sections of McLaren’s book for me. I think it is because I find myself so often shrinking Jesus into a box that keeps him purely in the business of saving souls. I see him only as the sacrificial lamb whose blood I paint on my door frame so that I am passed over on the day of judgment. My life is so much easier that way. This approach protects me from “losing my life to save it.” This approach to Jesus makes it easy to “win” debates about spiritual things. This approach relegates Jesus to gymna-sanct-a-toriums and the first day of the week. If Jesus is more than a sacrifice for me, if he is the victor, the liberator, the one who brings about my re-creation, then a relationship with Jesus will be painful, real, passionate, beautiful, and transformative.
That being said I have a very real concern about the picture that McLaren paints. It is due to the fact that he does not include any discussion regarding the atonement. He says that he painting a picture of Jesus outside the lines of the six-line diagram and that he seeking to bring “Christ and him crucified” to the fore. However, he does not interact with the cross of Christ. What we have is a focus on the other aspects of Jesus’s work.
In a text that is painting a new vision of Christianity it is sloppy, at best, to ignore the crucifixion and it’s atoning work. Is it possible that McLaren simply accepts Steve Chalke’s representation of the atonement? Is he simply affirming liberation theology? I hope not. He says in the quote above that Jesus did not “merely” save souls. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is “balancing the scales”, so to speak. However, this is very dangerous turf upon which to walk. I hope in future texts that he will clarify his position on Christ’s work on the cross.
Who’s the Big Guy Upstairs? or The God Question
This is the third post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.
The God question: Is God violent?
God is a tribalistic, violent, cosmic child abuser. Do you believe that? This is the question that McLaren undertakes in the third part of A New Kind of Christianity. He says that as you read the Bible we bump into God doing or at least sanctioning genocide and violence. This seems to contradict the picture that we find in the life and person of Jesus. This leads to the natural question, “how can this be?”
Beginning with this question, McLaren, begins to apply to theological questions his understanding of the overarching storyline of the Bible and his understanding of authority (how the Bible should be read). In theological terms (and here’s your ten cent word for the day) we see his prolegomena being applied. This is where the rubber meets the road (add another cliche of your choice here). We do not have two perspectives fleshed out in this section of the text, what we have is an argument that is developed for an evolutionary perspective on the revelation of God.
McLaren uses a math text book as his analogy and it makes sense to quote it at length here.
“Consider the Bible a collection of math textbooks. There’s a first-grade text, a second-grade text, and so son, all the way up to high-school texts that deal with geometry, algebra, trigonometry, maybe even calculus. Imagine opening the second-grade text and reading this sentence about subtraction: “You cannot subtract a larger number from a smaller number.” Then you open a sixth-grade text and see a chapter entitled “Negative Numbers.” The first sentence reads: “This chapter will teach you how to subtract larger numbers from small numbers.” How do we reconcile the statements? Were the authors of the second-grade text lying? Or were the authors of the sixth-grade text relativists, doubting the absolute truth of an earlier text? (104)“
The point of the analogy is that educational experts have determined that a second-grader is not cognitively able to understand the concept of negative numbers yet. Therefore, the second-grade text is teaching them where they are and preparing them for further teaching in the future. McLaren argues that this is how God has theologically trained the human race.
He argues that in the Bible what we have are developing or maturing or evolving perspectives of who God is. God is then constantly taking us through a process of understanding more of who he is based on where we are in our understanding of him. Therefore we as people are constantly on a trajectory of change and growth and never coming to the place where we have arrived. He says, “what if, in order to understand the character of God that lies behind, beneath, above, and within the agency of God, we must similarly pass through some stages in which our understanding is imbalanced and incomplete? (105)”
How does this answer the question? Like this:
“In light of the unfolding understanding of biblical revelation, when we ask why God appears so violent in some passages of the Bible, we can suggest this hypothesis: if the human beings who produced those passages were violent in their own development, they would naturally see God through the lens of their experience. The fact that those disturbing descriptions are found in the Bible doesn’t mean that we are stuck with them, any more than we are stuck with ‘You cannot subtract a larger number from a smaller number’ just because that statement still exists in our second-grade textbook. Remember the Bible is not a constitution. It is like the library of math texts that shows the history of the development of mathematical reasoning among human beings.(106)”
McLaren goes on to argue that this causes us to necessarily evolve in our understanding of God. This means that we must constantly be “trading up” in our perspective of who God is. This brings clarity to the “absolute refusal of among the Jewish people to tolerate idols: idols freeze one’s understanding of God in stone, as it were. (111)” As better understandings of God develop around us we must “trade-up” and embrace the clearer and better understanding of God. Ultimately what we are going to find is that for Christians Jesus is the highest and best revelation of God.
Reflections
There are some things that I find helpful in this section of McLaren’s quest. I am thankful that he is seeking to deal with head-on an issue that is often set aside. I think that his approach here is creative and provides us with some things to consider. I also appreciate how he points to Christ as the high point. Just yesterday, my bride and I, were talking about people who place the Bible as their object of worship. McLaren’s positioning of Christ as the highest form of revelation is a helpful guard against this. I also appreciate the nuances perspective that is taken here. He does not make the easy jump to “God is evolving” but argues for development in human understanding of God.
I do have a concern though. While there are small things that I could nit-pick the greater issue for me is one of authority. With the position that McLaren is positing here we must ask who determines the better or more evolved view of who God is? Where do we get this information? Clearly (from McLaren’s perspective) we cannot find this information in the Bible for it is merely a record of human thought and development. I think that he would say we find this through conversation with one another and the “other”. However, I think that this is problematic. Should we say that Islam has a better understanding of God because it came later? And then that should be replaced by Mormonsim because it came after that? Where does this end?
If we want to say that Jesus is the climax, the best revelation of God, then all we have is the Bible. The Bible cannot simply be a collection of human thought development. It has to be something more. This means that we cannot just discard the “violent God” passages and chalk it up to those less evolved people back then. This is arrogance of the highest order. What do we do with 1 Corinthians 10 if this is the case?
I do not agree that we have evolving perspectives of God in the Bible. I think that we have God revealing himself progressively and acting in ways that he chooses. I am not comfortable with the violence that God does in the Bible. I do know that God acts justly and purposefully. I also know that with the coming of Jesus and his death and resurrection there was a radical change. The rest of it requires me to live with mystery and tension.
That’s OK. I am good with mystery.
Baseball. Redemption, and a Hospital Room (re-post from May 29,2009)
Today I have a little procedure to deal with some scar tissue in my esophagus. It is no big deal. Last summer though our family dealt with a big deal medically. I won’t be writing a new post today but I thought that this was a timely one to re-post (it just so happens that the first Tigers telecast of the season is today). This post is from May 29, 2009.
A week ago yesterday my bride received a phone call. It was one of those calls that you dread. Her dad, Dennis, was in the hospital due to a stroke. It was “minor” but for a man like Dennis and for a family like ours it is major. Dennis is an athlete (at times becoming a scratch golfer!). Dennis is the life of the party. Dennis is the picture of the entrepreneurial spirit. Dennis is the kind of man that other men want to be. This is seen in the respect that his four son-in-laws have for him and the tender love that he bestows on his four daughters.
Amy left Detroit early last Thursday morning and drove (I am sure more quickly than she cares to admit) directly to the hospital room in Evansville, IN where Dennis was beginning his recovery.
But wait, that’s not the whole backstory.
The beloved St. Louis Cardinals were about to finish their three game homestand against the hated Chicago Cubs. The Cards had won the first two games of the series and were in position to sweep and return to first place in the division. In business like fashion they dispatched the Cubs and welcomed to town their cross state rivals, the Royals for a weekend set.
Every single day there was baseball. Every single day there was time spent in a hospital room. Every single daay there was a conversation over lunch or dinner that took place between Amy and Dennis about the Cards.
You see baseball was the beginning of healing. It was normalcy brought into an abnormal situation. It was the pastoral balm that allowed father and daughter to sit and talk and be. Baseball. Not doctors. Not a golden tongued preacher. Not a good book. Baseball. It was the context. The rhythm of life that never stops. It’s six on, one off created rhythm that touches us deep.
Some say the season is too long. Some say the games are too long. Some say it’s boring. Some say it’s day in and day out grind take away from it.
I could not disagree more. It is redemptive. It is ongoing. It is always with you. It provides passion, joy, pain, sorrow, elation. Most of all, it provides time. Time for a father and daughter to be together. Time for them to get lost together and forget that they are in a hospital room. Time for them to be transported to that place they both love. That place where the buzz of the crowd, the warmth of the sun, and smell of the hot dog fill you.
Baseball.
Redemption.
A Hospital Room.
Beautiful.
Who’s the Boss? or The Authority Question
[caption id=“attachment_771” align=“alignleft” width=“300” caption=“Well that’s not quite how it works…”]
[/caption]
This is the second post interacting with Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. Please remember that I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.
The Authority Question: How should the Bible be understood?
As with the narrative question, McLaren, sets up two opposing views of how to understand the Bible. The first is what he calls the “Constitutional View (78).” He sees this view as the cause for three critical problems he highlights regarding our use and understanding of the Bible:
We come out on the “wrong side” of these issues over and over again because we have missed the very nature of the Bible. McLaren argues his case by using the issue of slavery and comparing how Christians in the South used the Bible to defend slavery. As a result, “We must find new approaches to our sacred texts, approaches that sanely, critically, and fairly engage with honest scientific inquiry, approaches that help us derive constructive and relevant guidance in dealing with pressing personal and social problems, and approaches that lead us in the sweet pathway of peacemaking rather than the broad, deep rut of mutually assured destruction (70).”
McLaren goes on to argue that as a result of our understanding the Bible in a constitutional matter we read it like lawyers in a courtroom. In so doing we create a case for a particular and then look to find how to support our case by the precedents found in the text. This approach, it is argued, creates tensions in the text that have to be reconciled and in so doing damage is done to the Bible. The greatest problem is that unlike constitutions which can be amended, the Bible is the word of God and therefore cannot be.
This is in opposition to the nature of the Bible that McLaren proposes, that of a library of culture and community. This means that it is a “carefully selected group of ancient documents of paramount importance for people who want to understand and belong to the community of people who seek God and, in particular, the God of Abraham, Moses, David, the prophets, and Jesus (81).”
The Bible then should be expected to have tension and even contradictions. Why? Because it is a library with different works of literature that are coming from different perspectives. This is what we expect in any library and the biblical library is no different. Internal discrepancies within a constitution are great problems but they are signs of “vitality and vigor in the literature of a culture (82).”
How does then apply out to understanding the issue of authority? If the Bible is not full of propositional truth, then how does revelation work? It works, says McLaren, through conversation. The basis for his argument comes from the book of Job. He sees in Job proof that, “revelation occurs not inthe words and statements of individuals, but in the conversation among individuals and God, we might say (italics original, 89–90).” How does he get here? He does so by seeing that Job’s companions are chastised by God even though they were quoting from the Bible in their responses to Job. Job is not chastised and yet he was the one questioning God. The problem continues for McLaren because in Job we have Satan speaking and God speaking and these other characters. Are their words inspired by God? Certainly not, McLaren says. These words are used by God to draw us into conversation with the text to leave us in a place of wonder.
He contrasts his view with conservatives who seek to “put us ‘under’ Scripture (96).” He also contrasts his view with liberals who seek to “put us ‘over’ Scripture (96).” McLaren’s desire is to “put us ‘in’ Scripture (96).”
Reflections
I really appreciate the call that McLaren makes in regard to how we understand the Bible. I have seen this constitutional view in action and it is disheartening. I also appreciate how he desires us to come to the Bible with awe and wonder. This is good, nay, very good. I really like how he closes this section out, “I hope this approach can help us enter and abide in the presence, love, and reverence of the living God all the days of our lives and in God’s mission as humble, wholehearted servants day by day and moment by moment (97).” Any approach to the Bible that short circuits this response is flawed and yet often times the lack of this response is not due to our approach but to our hearts.
I think that where I struggle with McLaren’s approach is that, in my opinion, he does not give the Scriptures their due. It seems that he has made them less than what they are. To relegate them as a mere conversation partner in our spirituality pushes them to the periphery, by definition. Looking at Job it seems that revelation comes through God’s self-disclosure, not as result of conversation. The Scriptures are a special revelation of the transcendant God to his creation and in so doing help us experience his immanence. It is here where our sense of awe is derived, the immanence of the transcendant God before us in the Bible.
When we read the Bible we interact with God. We must ask questions and seek him in the midst of this. We must engage fully. Dare I say even converse? Yes. In so doing though we must acknowledge that this interaction is more along the lines of a student conversing with a professor as opposed to a peer. The Bible is not an ongoing conversation. It is not changing. When the authors wrote they wrote with purpose. They had an intended meaning. We engage with the Bible and ask questions to understand this meaning, then we must understand how it applies to our world now. This process does not change the Bible. It changes us.
What’s the Story Jack? or The Narrative Question
This is the first of ten posts on Brian McLaren’s, “A New Kind of Christianity”. As we begin this little quest of ours I want you to know that I am not commenting on the introductory chapters and just diving into the “red meat”, so to speak. Also, I cannot reproduce the book in these posts. I will do my best to summarize without being overly simplistic or reductionistic. Each post will be two parts. The first will be a summary of McLaren’s discussion and the second will be my reflections.
Without further ado…
The Narrative Question: What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?
For us to make sense of any book we must come to some conclusion about what is its main idea. We do this so that we can make interpretive decisions regarding a text’s finer details. To answer this question McLaren contrasts two ways of understanding the overarching storyline. The first way is that of the “Six Line Diagram”:
[caption id=“attachment_762” align=“aligncenter” width=“410” caption=“Six Line Diagram (34)”]
[/caption]
This diagram, states McLaren, is the dominant understanding of the Bible from the “fifth or sixth century” (33). He argues that this storyline is brought about through isogesis by forcing upon the biblical texts “the Greco-Roman narrative” (37). What exactly does this mean? Succinctly, it is the application of Platonic thought to the Bible and specifically taking the cave illusion and adding biblical themes. He goes on to argue that the god that is represented by this story shall be called, “Theos” who “loves spirit, state, and being and hates matter, story, and becoming, since, once again, the latter involve change, and the only way to change or move from perfection is downward into decay. (42)” Theos is the christianized version of Zeus.
In this context McLaren argues against the concept of “the Fall”. This is because the term is never used in the Bible and is inherently “un-Jewish (en 15).” Theos stands at the ready to destroy because people are changing and becoming and imperfect. Salvation then is the return to perfection and to stasis. Those who are not saved are eternally punished because Theos will not destroy the Spirit.
To summarize, the good news in the six line diagram is, “Theos, plus perfected souls of the redeemed in heaven, plus everyone else suffering the absolute, ‘perfect’ torment of eternal, unquenchable, pure, and unchanging hate from Theos, getting what they deserve for being part of the detestable fallen universe. (44)”
McLaren provides a counter-story. He argues for developing the story by reading “forwards through Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets to Jesus. (46)” For the sake of his text he focused on Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah to grasp the story arch of the Bible which can be understood in three dimensions. The first is found in Genesis. Genesis sets the table for the rest. This first dimension is “Creation and Restoration”. Here, McLaren argues that what we see in the Creation narrative is the Jewish concept of “goodness” as opposed to the Platonic “perfection” (47). Goodness, it is argued, is a relative term as opposed to the absolutism of perfection. It is from this platform that McLaren argues against the ontological fall (i.e. original sin).
To that end he states that what is seen in Genesis 3 is a “coming of age story” (49). In this story Elohim gives his daughter greater and greater freedom and she responds with greater and greater foolishness. His response is not judgment but a patient lovingkindness (this is seen in the fact that Adam and Eve do not actually die on the day they eat the fruit contra God’s own words earlier in Genesis 3).
The movement throughout the story of Genesis is from garden to city. This could be understood as “development” or ascending in progress. However, it is an ironic ascent “because with each gain, humans also descend into loss. They descend (or fall — there’s nothing wrong with the word itself, just the unrecognized baggage that may come with it) from the primal innocence of being naked without shame in one another’s presence.”
It is in the story of Abraham that we see this reversed. It is ultimately experienced through the life of Joseph and the reconciliation that he makes with his brothers.
The second narrative dimension is the Exodus’ liberation and formation. The people are liberated from their city-dwelling bondage and returned to the primal wilderness where they are formed. This narrative “situates us in humanity’s oppressive, resistant world in which God is active as liberator — freeing us from external and internal oppression forming us as the people of God. (58)” This narrative ends in progress.
The third narrative is exemplified in the prophet Isaiah. It is the narrative of “the sacred dream of the peaceable kingdom.(59)” The dream becomes ever more encompassing as time goes by and moves from a physical concept to that of the “Day of the Lord”. Here we experience the liberation and reconciliation and the return to the good. This narrative, McLaren argues, free us from a deterministic future and draw us into a realization that, “history is unscripted, unrehearsed reality, happening now — really happening. (63)”
Reflections
So what do we do with all this? I am thankful for McLaren’s gracious and creative approach to the storyline of the Bible. I appreciate that he desires to moves us away from a purely propositional reading of the Bible. This approach is the product of modernist epistemology (whether we want to admit it or not, it’s true). He also does a nice job of helping to move us from a foundationalism that is unhelpful when one considers the depth and interconnectedness of the biblical narrative. I also think that McLaren has hit on significant themes: Creator, Reconciler, and Liberator. I am grateful for his deconstruction of the modern isogesis.
I do have some concerns. Firstly, I am concerned with the move away from an ontological fall. I agree with McLaren that the six line diagram is overly simplistic, however, I think that we can rightly understand Genesis 3 as an ontological fall if we choose to take a nuanced view. What I mean is this: while we as people on this side of Genesis 3 are indeed born into sin we are also born as image bearers of God. This means that while we are radically corrupted we also bear the marks of our creator. I think that McLaren falls prey to his own critique here in that while he seeks to move away from a Platonic reading he simply substitutes it with the Aristotelian. To argue away the ontological fall one must deal with Romans 1–6 and he does not.
Secondly, I think that he needs to do more with the issues of justice. While Theos is first-rate tool, McLaren’s Elohim is a spineless parent who chooses not to discipline his children. The pastor to the Hebrews in his sermon says, “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons (Heb 12:7–8). ” It is notable that McLaren chooses not to discuss the slaying of animals on behalf of Adam and Eve and that in so doing God made a way to atone for their sin.
Finally, I am concerned about the fact that McLaren seems to be using the fundamentalist Christian movement as his foil and lumps all of Christianity from the “5th or 6th century” on into that same category. I would argue that Edwards, Calvin, and the like had much more nuanced understandings of the story line of the Bible than what is presented in the six line diagram. I would also argue that what we find in the writings of those doing work in the field of social identity theory provide for us this nuanced vision that we need (for a great example see Dr. J. Brian Tucker’s work).
Leave your church? Yeah, he really said it.
OK, so before I get into A New Kind of Christianity, I had to write about this. Yesterday I ran across this story (this is a summary and includes some audio) about Glenn Beck thanks to Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed. In a nutshell he is arguing that churches which practice “social” or “economic” justice are covers for communism and nazism. I know, I could not believe it either. I am hoping that there is more to this. I have only the little clip on the link above. I want to believe the best in Mr. Beck, however, it is a bit disheartening when people like him choose to set aside the Bible for their political gains.
Jesus cared deeply for the poor, the dispossessed, and the broken. The scriptures are very clear about the role of justice and how it so closely connects to the heart of God. Let us look at but one verse, Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
Simple question, “what does God require of us”? Answer: DO JUSTICE. Friends, the heart of God is just and he is seeking to bring about justice. This is why Jesus himself had to die on the cross, so that justice could be done. Read the Psalms and you will find that justice is a key theme. Read the gospels and you will find that justice is a key theme. Justice is a core principle in the economy of God.
We tack on terms like “social” or “economic” and then try to run away from our responsibility. No. Justice is required of us. Finally, I would recommend reading Leviticus 25 and then tell me that God does not care about justice. Justice is not a cover for communism or nazism. Justice is the response of a grateful people who have been transformed by a resurrected savior.
A New Kind of Christianity
I have been reading Brian McLaren’s newest book, A New Kind of Christianity. It has totally engaged me. My mind is wrestling through the challenges that he has laid out. I am about half way through the text and I am very frustrated that he end-noted instead of foot-noted, I have a callous now from marking my place at the end-notes (OK not really, but you get my point). I am going to write ten more posts on the book and in each one I am going to interact with the question that McLaren proposes.
Here’s your chance to look into the future:
These will be my next ten posts. I hope that you will interact in the comments and that we can have a good and lively conversation about what McLaren is bringing to the table.
YOUR preacher is DEAD.
Holograph (left), Tony Morgan (right)
Is the title a little extreme? Probably. But, that’s the point. Yesterday Tony Morgan sported some new technology on his website. It’s the same kind of technology that we saw on CNN during the presidential coverage, that’s right, holograms. Tony believes that this technology will be coming down in price such that it will become a regular in churches in the next year.
I think that this is a sad commentary on the state of discipleship in the church today. We already have pastors of “multi-site” churches preaching via video screen because they are unwilling or incapable of training others up. This takes it to the next level. I can see the sales pitch coming now, “Imagine having Rob Bell or John Piper preaching at your church EVERY Sunday for the low, low price of…”
I am an early adopter of technology. I am also a believer in the necessary availability of the preacher to connect with his people. One of my mentors said, “The most important part of the sermon is the slow walk after the service out of the sanctuary.” Why? It is because in those few moments you are able to engage with the people God has entrusted you with. You are able to field questions, talk more deeply, or just hear an encouraging word. Let’s see a holograph do that!
It seems to me with this technology, as with many others, the question is not “can we” but “should we.” What say you? Should you replace your preached with a holograph?
The Most Demonic Movie EVER! Really?
When I opened up my RSS reader yesterday and saw Out of Ur’s article on Pastor Mark Driscoll’s comments on Avatar, I was intrigued. I clicked. I watched. I was amazed. I was sitting with my wife and my jaw dropped and she began wondering if I had lock jaw on the off chance that I did not get my tetanus updates. The reality is that I was surprised by comments like this coming from a person who holds tightly to a Reformed perspective of doctrine (which I am coming to learn does not equate to a Reformed worldview, I am so naïve!)
First, let me say a few things to set the stage for my concerns.
I want to make it clear: I agree with much of what Pastor Mark says in the clip.
However, I do struggle with some of Pastor Mark’s comments. I will briefly outline them here. First, I struggle with the way that Pastor Mark has chosen to set Christ against culture, the Reformed position is Christ transforms culture. I think that he has made an inappropriate good/bad split. Avatar in his mind is “all bad”. I am not sure that this is true. There are some helpful metaphors in the film. One example is the character of Grace Augustine. She promotes a gracious approach to the “fearsome” Na’avi as opposed to a law driven approach. This seems awfully familiar to the grace that Augustine espoused. Coincidence? Maybe. A second example is one of the things that Pastor Mark argues against as a “false incarnation”. I thought the film did a nice job representing the incarnation. Here we have an incarnated being learning and becoming part of a culture and community that is not his own after leaving the relative ease of his previous life. Is it perfect or ideal? No. It is not written from a Biblical worldview. Is it a bridge to the subversive and radical life of Jesus? Yes.
I also struggle with the way that Pastor Mark portrays Genesis 1:27–28. He says that the Biblical teaching is “progress” and that we are not to remain “primitive”. The problem is that this is not nuanced enough. The Biblical mandate requires us to steward, tend , and care for the creation of the Creator. This means that we are not to support strip mining, clear cutting, and the destruction of the creation. We are to care for it and tend it. Are we to create culture and progress? Yes. However, we are to do so in such a way that honors God’s creation which he deemed good as opposed to seeing the creation as a hindrance or an inconvenience to our way of life.
Jumping off this point, is another one. Pastor Mark says that humanity does not have the “divine spark”. That’s simply not true. We are created in the image of God. All of us are image bearers. We are radically and completely corrupted by sin from the start. None of us are innocent. None of us are able to save ourselves. We need our sovereign God to graciously redeem us according to his plan. Yet every person in Hell is still a human created in the image of God.
At the beginning of the clip Pastor Mark is talking about consumerism and the world system. The funny thing is that Avatar agrees with him. Consumerism is the driving force behind the humans destroying the Na’avi. The consumerism drives them to destroy the creation and the culture of these beings. I am concerned that Pastor Mark is burning bridges to the gospel as opposed to building them.
Another struggle I have with Pastor Mark’s assessment is that he seems to be communicating from his politics as opposed to the Bible. The charges that he levies against Avatar could be very easily levied against The Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings. But, we “know” that these author’s were Christians and so we are OK with their metaphors. I mean seriously, Jesus is represented by a lion who lives out a false resurrection and a false incarnation. Narnia has witches and talking beasts. But, we all know that these are metaphors, illustrations of something else. Can we not build a bridge from the metaphors present in Avatar? I think we can and I think we should.
Avatar is not the most demonic movie ever (I would say the Exorcist is). It is an opportunity for the Christian world to speak to a world that desperately needs Jesus with metaphors and images that will make sense to them.
The Law of Stickiness
Have you ever felt as though what you say does not matter? I have this experience often. Many nights I come home and flop on the couch and wonder why I ever speak. It is as if nobody is listening. Then I read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell and the “Law of Stickiness”that he has identified. Gladwell shares the story of Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues and how both shows were developed in such a way that their messages would stick. I think that this might be my problem. I do not often think about how to make my message sticky.
Gladwell’s “Law of the Few” says you need the right people. The “Law of Stickiness” says you need the right message. Gladwell reasonably states that if Paul Revere were telling people about a sale at his silver shop the Massachusetts countryside would not have been mobilized, there was something sticky about “THE REDCOATS ARE COMING!”
I think that this is critical for the church today. We lament that people are leaving the church. We lament the shrinking number of people trusting Christ. We decry the youth for checking out by the time they hit Middle School. Our researchers point to all kinds of reasons for these realities from the postmodern shift to divorce rates. It is not very often that we evaluate our message.
Somehow we have turned the stickiest message in history into a sheet of ice.
The gospel is sticky. The Apostle Paul puts it this way, “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:22–24)” The message that has been entrusted to us is one that causes a reaction, a response. Unfortunately we have lost our communicative creativity and it has lost its stick.
The question we must ask ourselves as followers of Jesus is how do we get our “sticky” back? I think that we get our sticky back the same way that Jesus and Paul did. They spoke the language of the people. Jesus told short stories that got inside people’s heads. Paul understood the people he spoke to and bridged the gospel to their contexts. They used the right words.
What are the right words for us today? What is the language that the 21st century citizen of the United States speaks? I think that those around me speak in the language fo guilt ridden narcissism. The metaphors exist in film and popular music. This is the context we are speaking into.
In the midst of this how do we make our message stick? I think that the message will stick if we can become creative in our communication to create parables based in the metaphors of this generation’s context. We must not give over the metaphors and continue to speak a slippery message.
Jesus message is subversive. It cuts to the quick. It is by nature sticky. We have tamed it, we have set aside our imaginations, and as a result we have made it slick. I pray for a return to creativity, a return to cultural engagement, and a return to subversive preaching of the sticky gospel.
Law of the Few
I have recently finished reading Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. I was very impressed with the book and it has given me much to think about. Gladwell discusses epidemics and relates epidemiology to social movements. I am going to post a few of my reflections and I how think the ideas in the text relate to the local church because as we consider how to transform the world around us we need to be aware of these truths.
The first concept is “The Law of the Few” (30–88). The Law of the Few simply means that it does not take a large number of people to tip an epidemic. What you need to create a radical transformation is the right person. There are three kinds of people that can create a tipping point (in church language: the moment a ministry becomes a movement). The first kind of person is a “Connector”. A Connector is someone who moves in and out of many different social groups. Not only this they are able to connect the people in those groups to one another. There was a student at Illinois State University named Brad who was in my Bible study for a couple of years. Brad knew everyone. He did not just know names but he knew something about everybody. Almost every week Brad would talk about entering into a new realm of friends. It was incredible!
When a Connector catches a passion for something she is able to spread it fast into many different communities. We must identify the Connectors in our midst so that we can equip them to take the gospel message into their sphere of influence. When this happens a movement begins. People from many different backgrounds begin to interact and catch a similar passion and the movement grows.
The second kind of person is a “Maven”. Maven’s are the kind of people who know everything and they genuinely like to help you. A Maven is someone that people trust and turn to for advice. These are the people who correct Consumer Reports. When a Maven speaks you do what they say because you know they are right and that they have the done the research.
Imagine a Maven who comes to faith in Christ. When they go back to the people with whom they have relationships their testimony will have great power. It’s because those in their sphere of influence will respond to what they have to say. If Jesus works for the Maven, then Jesus will work for me. The power and influence would be incredible. However, they typically have smaller networks than a Connector.
The third person is the Salesman. A Salesman is the kind of person who gets results. They are larger than life personalities and they are able to win you over at “hello”. You know the kind of person that I am talking about. You are their best friend instantly. Salesmen have huge networks of shallow relationships. In spite of the shallow relationships they are highly effective at spreading an idea because people seemingly “can’t help but respond” to what they have to say.
A friend of mine named Darin is a Salesman. He said that everyone he ever met was his friend. People love to say yes Darin. It’s amazing to watch him have conversations with people. Within ten minutes they would trust Darin to care for their child (slight exaggeration, but you get my point)! People like Darin can tip a ministry into a movement. These are people who get tagged with “the gift of evangelism”.
In your community can you identify the Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen? If your community is going to become a movement you need must be able to do this. To do this requires you as a leader to be have a great interest in every single person in your ministry.
Simply put movements explode because of the Law of the Few.
Pressure Points
There are few things in life that frustrate me more than watching other parents do things that hinder their child’s spiritual growth. This may sound arrogant to you, it probably is. I am not a perfect parent, not even close. I get frustrated with my kids and I even yell at the little darlings every once in a while. I think over the last eight years (that’s how old our oldest is) I have asked for forgiveness more times than I can count (but that’s another issue for another post). This post is about pressure. Overbearing pressure does exactly this, it hinders spiritual growth.
I see parents all over the place putting undue and unrealistic pressure on children. This pressure broadens a relational rift between parents and children that naturally occurs at this age. This is many times seen in the context of education. Today more and more kids are pushed into AP classes. These classes are taught at a very high level and are preparatory classes to test for college credits. I took AP classes in High School but I had a Mom who understood that these classes were designed too teach me how to think and do research and that I would most likely not get an A. Her concern was that I simply worked hard and did my best.
I think that the disconnect has entered in because it seems that a B is not good enough anymore. That an A is required fare to prove that a kid is “working hard”. These grades have become the ultimate driving force in a parent’s life. They punish their child for a B in a college level course that they themselves would have no chance to pass. Students are then punished for doing well enough. Their punishment is often times limiting their involvement in social interactions. This limit is applied to the their faith community too. The youth group is seen as a “privilege” that can be taken away.
Please hear me, I am not saying that we should not push our children to excellence. I am not saying that we should not encourage them to take on academic or athletic challenges.
I am saying that we need to help them bring balance to their lives. If we push them to be all consumed with their academics or their athletics then we are clearly communicating something. We are communicating that these are the things around which life revolves. The center of life is your ability to “achieve”.
I have this sad image in my head of many parents standing before the God, whom they love, asking why their child is not spending eternity with them. Jesus’ face turns grim and says, “My brothers and sisters you taught them that a grade was better than me. You taught them that a grade was better than my people. You taught them to set me and my people aside to study and get a B+ instead of a B. You taught them that “the now” matters more than their eternity did. You taught them to love themselves over me. You taught them to love being apart from me and now what you have taught them has come to fruition.“
The Millenial Milieu Mops More Meaning
[caption id=“attachment_683” align=“alignleft” width=“300” caption=“A Case Study in Missing the Point!”]
[/caption]
That’s what I call alliteration! Gen Y, Millenials, whatever you want to call them are the example for future generations to follow. Pew Research has just published a very interesting study that looks at the lives of these teens and twenty somethings. The basic gist is that they are connected via technology, they are diverse, they are optimistic, and they becoming frustrated with the status quo.
Two things in particular stuck out at me. First, this generation cares about the same things that generations past cared about: marriage and family. This is something that I think is insightful. We must come to terms with the reality that at the core of their being the emerging generations are people who are created in the image of God and their longings are going to be similar to those of the past. This does not take away from the fact that they are going to express these longings differently. For example, this generation is waiting longer to marry and begin their families. Why? I think because men do not have a clearly defined entry into adulthood and because of “the economy stupid”.
The second thing that interests me is the fact that this generation is already getting frustrated with politicians. It was a generation that became highly motivated during the election and has not had their agenda delivered. They believe that the government should help but are coming to realize that it might not be the answer they are looking for.
These two issues highlight for me where we, as the church, can step in and speak directly to this generation if we are willing to speak their language. Will we show them the church of Jesus Christ that radically effects change or will we be another voice in the wilderness gonging away? Will we teach them the principles of healthy marriages and families? Will we demonstrate for them these principles? I hope so. If we are going to speak to this generation things will have to change in the church because we are not doing a very good job right now.
However, there is an example of this beginning to happen in my own little church. There is a woman, named Robin, who is a part of our small group. She is gathering young moms and empty nest moms together. This is a time for encouragement and love. This is a time for the young moms to realize that they are not alone and that others have walked their paths. This is a time when principles will be taught and demonstrated, not in some classroom, but in the context of life.
Friends, God is on the move and he cares about this generation and he wants them to hear his story and his message. He desires for them to respond. We are his ambassadors. Will we speak the language? Will show and demonstrate? I hope so.
Magic 150
I am currently reading Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. It’s a fascinating read. One of the things that has really stuck out to me is the chapter on Dunbar’s number, 150. This is the number of meaningful relationships that a person can have. Human beings tend to only be able to handle 150 or fewer meaningful relationships. Today, I ran across an article from MediaPost Publications that discusses the way that college students have their contacts broken down.
The study found that the average college student has, “Exactly 87 email contacts, 146 cell phone contacts, and 438 “friends” on social networks.“ What struck me was the cell phone contacts, 146. My guess is that the people in the cell phone are those who are considered “meaningful” relationships.
In this article they add these numbers up to come up with an influence circle of 671. However, I think that the real number is 146. These are the people who will actually respond to the student. These are the people who will trust what they hear from the person. My guess is that these 146 are duplicated in their social media and also in email.
146. That’s awful close to 150. More thoughts on this to come…
I gots it…I gots it…
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=danielmroseco-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=0525951369 A number of weeks ago I reviewed Tim Keller’s Counterfeit Gods. Over the next few days I am going to work through this little book with some thoughts of my own. I hope that you will find it to be a beneficial conversation. I hope that you will join in via the comments section. I think that these posts will be timely during Lent which is a time of preparation and setting aside idols in our lives.
The opening chapter discusses the story of Abraham from the perspective of “what happens when you get all you ever wanted?” This is a great question! As we consider our lives most of what we do is so that we can get what we want. We train and prepare for certain jobs so that we can make money. We take this money and we use it to buy what we want. It might be a house, a car, some tech toy, or even the right clothes or the right look to get the right girl (or guy).
Some people never get what they want and this desire drives them throughout their lives. Many get what they want. When you do the question is, “now what?” As I look around this world I think people just begin the process to get the next bigger and better version of whatever our desire is.
As Keller points out, God often asks for this back. Why? It’s because when we get what we want it becomes the center of our lives. This “thing” displaces God. This, according to Keller, is the center of the Abraham story. Abraham got his son. God asked for his son back and when Abraham was willing to give him it proved that Isaac was not the center of his life. I think that this is a legitimate interpretation of the story.
As I consider my own life I think that there are a two things right now that need to be given back to God. First, entertainment. I love to be entertained. I enjoy an evening at home relaxing on the couch and taking in my latest DVR’ed goodness. This time could be used to talk with my bride. It could be spent reading. It could be spent praying. It could be spent…well you get the point. I do not think that relaxing with a good television show is all that bad. I will continue to do so. However, I think that it needs to be put in proper perspective and I need to make sure that it is not choice numero uno!
Second, the internet. I love surfing the web and being in the know. If you check out my strength finder profile you will see that input is one my strengths. However, it can quickly become ruinous. This is because I can spend hours gaining input, reading news, anything that will find my mind with new facts and details. Information gathering becomes central. Part of the reason for this blog is to help me slow down and communicate out some of what I am inputting through out my daily routine.
What about you? What is displacing God in your life?
[youtube=[www.youtube.com/watch](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqbOkvxpIDE&w=425&h=350])
Coming Apart at the Seams: Hebrews 1:5–2:4
A sermon on Hebrews 1:5–2:4
[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-100221-reduced.mp3[/podcast]
Coming Apart at the Seams — Hebrews 1:1–4
A sermon on Hebrews 1:1–4
[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-100214-reduced.mp3[/podcast]
Shall I…think?
One of the things that I have been struck with over the past few months is that many people are unwilling to think and even more unwilling to listen. We have been trained to process what we will say next and as a result we do not hear what is being said to us. It is this phenomenon that I think leads us to the place where we no longer actually think. Thinking requires listening and processing. One of the places that I have been finding this to be true is in the context of book reviews. Most recently has been the discussion that has been going on over Brian McLaren’s most recent book, “A New Kind of Christianity”. I do not have this book. I have not read this book. My point is not to enter into conversation about McLaren or his writing but to look at the way that the conversation has been going forward.
The men and women who have responded to McLaren’s latest title are brilliant people (at least the ones I have read) and have presented critiques that I am sure need to be made. What I found most interesting was the interaction between McLaren and Bill Kinnon. This is the first time I have read Kinnon’s blog and so I do not have a vast working knowledge of his writing.
The posts between the two men are long. So let me summarize:
Is this a bit of reductionistic, tongue-in-cheek, hyperbole? Sure. But, the point is that it seems that Kinnon and McLaren simply speak past one another. It is as if they both have a perspective and they are not willing to think the other person’s point. This is a microcosm of what we see on Capitol Hill everyday in the “bipartisan” conversation.
It seems to me that we would be much better served to slow down and listen. This listening will cause us to think. Thinking might lead us to realize that there is much middle ground upon which we can agree on. Will there be outliers that we will ALWAYS disagree about? Yes. But, what if, and I am just spit-balling here, what if we found common ground and moved forward?
Oh wait, that last idea does not sell books or drive site traffic. (Sorry that might be a bit too cynical or not.)
The Spirit vs The Letter
I have had a few conversations over the last couple of days about rule following. What does it mean to follow the rules? What is the line between the letter and spirit of the law? How do we determine this? What is the impact on our spiritual lives? What if following the letter of the law causes injury? What if following the spirit of the law is just our way of undermining authority? These are the questions that have been batted around in my world. These conversations have been stimulating and interesting. I am not sure though if we have dealt with the issue well.
I think that the biggest question that needs to be dealt with is that of determination. How do we determine when to set aside the letter of the law in favor of its spirit? This line is gray. There is no ideal or final answer in my opinion. However, I think there are some principles that we can follow.
These questions are the ones that I believe need to be answered as we try to determine when we are indeed following the spirit of the law as opposed to simply breaking the law. If we can answer these questions appropriately then we are indeed in line with an ethically acceptably response to the law.
What say you? How do you determine whether or not you are in step with the spirit of the law?
The Quest to Be Unconventional
I like to think. I like to think new things and seek to develop original ideas. I also enjoy reading and interacting with those who think in fresh ways. One of the people who I enjoy reading is David Fitch. He is a missiologist who is calling the church to be local and missional. He understands that the gospel needs to be contextualized to particular local contexts without undermining its narrative truth.
That being said, I think that David does something in a recent post which is not authentic. He is discussing how to deal with conflict in the community of believers. He evaluates two approaches which are highlighted in the work of Al Mohler and Brian McLaren. He argues that neither of their approaches (autocratic or democratic) fit with the biblical model and he calls for a “new” approach, the incarnational.
I want to briefly summarize this approach:
If this sounds strangely familiar it is because it is. This is what we find in Matthew 18. It is also the methodology outlined in the Book of Order for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I appreciate that David is calling the church back to this reality. I agree with his conclusions. What I struggle with is that he encapsulates the call in language that makes it sound like a “new” thing.
I think we need to be careful about a quest for the unconventional that does not credit the past rightly. I also think that we need to look around and notice that many of the processes put in place by those who have come before us are good and helpful.
Give it away, Give it away, Give it away now!
I love the moment when an idea flashes in my mind and I grab hold of it and it turns into something worthwhile. This happened a number of weeks ago when I was hanging out with a friend of mine named Zak. I was asking him about his friends and what kind of context they would most likely come out to for a conversation about spiritual things. He said that a coffee house would be best. In that moment, what would come to be called Coffee/Doubt, was born.
An idea became a vision which became a mission.
Things started slow but momentum has been growing and continues to grow. The beautiful thing though is that it’s not really mine. It’s Zak’s. He own this things. Last Thursday there were sixteen adults and kids sitting at Starbucks for a conversation and Zak led it. Zak is a 16 year old guy who gets fat lips in mosh-pits and has two rings in his lower lip. He is not evangelical Christendom’s poster child which looks likes this:
I love the fact that this is not mine. I love that it’s Zak’s! For an idea to become mission it requires ownership. Who owns your ideas? Are you giving it away?
To Age or Not to Age
Time/CNN recently published an article about scientists who are trying to figure out the “peter pan” gene. They are trying to understand how to slow down and even cease the aging process. While this sounds like a very cool idea I have to wonder if this is a good idea. I think we must ask the simple question, “Should we?”
We come face to face with issues regarding global climate change which is in part due to world population growth. Sustainability is also a buzz word that we hear on an almost daily basis. We must find ways to use natural resources in such a way that we can sustain their use over the long term. We are told that by living longer we are making this more difficult. What if we are able to unnaturally extend the lives of people? What would this mean for our world?
I think that it is time for us to slow down and begin asking some questions about the effects of our endeavors. Wendell Berry in his collection of essays called Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community often says that as we seek to find solutions through science we will inevitably create even more problems. I think that this is often true. When it comes to any scientific and technological “breakthroughs” we must determine their value not only based on the immediate impact but also on the ramifications of the breakthrough.
What do you think? How do we answer the question of “should we?”
I am good enough, smart enough, and…oh, never mind!
Do you want to know what I really hate? I really hate coming to the realization that I do not know what to do. I can not stand that feeling of helplessness that comes over me when I am out of my depths.
I had that feeling this past weekend. I was driving home from a youth retreat and pulled off the highway to get a tank of gas. After filling the tank the car would not start. I had someone with me and I just wanted to be able to get this guy home. We were stuck. I could not fix it because I know nothing about cars. Then I had to enter into the process of asking people for help. It’s embarrassing because most of the times the issue that is causing my car problems is some “easy” fix. That feeling is horrible.
I had a conversation that Sunday with a man I deeply respect named Jim, he was taking me to buy a battery and to help me install it. He said, “Dan, you spend your whole life serving others, why do you have such a hard time letting other people serve you?” That has been the question that has stuck in my mind since. Why?
I don’t like letting people serve me because I believe I live an amazing life. I believe that God has so graciously given me all I need to provide for my family. I see the body of Christ constantly meeting any need my family has and it is an honor to serve them. It seems that it is not fair to keep asking.
Yet, this is what being in a community is all about. It is about people with differing gifts and skills serving one another. Helping one another. Caring for one another. Consider what Paul says in 1 Corinthians:
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many.15 If the foot should say, Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body, that would not make it any less a part of the body.16 And if the ear should say, Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body, that would not make it any less a part of the body.17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.19 If all were a single member, where would the body be?20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
God has, in his goodness and grace, given me gifts of leadership and teaching. I am not a mechanic. I can barely change a light bulb. According to Paul this is God’s intention for us. I think this is so that we will never be able to “know ourselves by ourselves” as Wendell Berry says. We are designed to be in a community and we can only be who we are in a community. It must be time to embrace this reality.
What holds you back from entering into community?
Kicking Butt for Jesus or “I Smacked the Other Cheek” or “I am Going to Beat the Hell (literally) Out Of You”
The New York Times published an article recently about the rise of Mixed Martial Arts being used as an outreach by evangelical churches for men. I know that guys like Mark Driscoll are all over this and that men are drawn to MMA and that God is using it. I am not going to lie to you, I enjoy a little Fight Club and some MMA myself. However, I am concerned by some of the statements that I read in the article. Here a few of them:
First, I agree that the church has “wussified” men. We have cut men’s legs out from underneath them and have asked them to be “nice”. We want them to share their “feelings” and hold hands, yada, yada. Second, I agree that we must change the way we do things and bring masculinity back to the church and help men to embrace who they are as men: leaders, strong, and kind.
[caption id=“attachment_609” align=“alignleft” width=“134” caption=“Pretty Jesus”]
[/caption]
However, I grow concerned when we begin training men in the way of violence. This is in such contrast to the life of Jesus that we will be doing more harm than good. Jesus is not the feminine, blue eyed, long haired pretty boy but a rough necked, back woods Jewish carpenter. He was strong. He had convictions that he was willing to die for. He also displayed compassion, grace, restraint and kindness. We must realize that kindness is very different from being “nice”. Being “nice” means that you are a push over. You are a doormat that people walk all over. Being kind means that you are strong enough to tell people what they need to hear and how they need to act with honesty, compassion, and gentleness. It means that you can love well in spite of the potential of loss.
Jesus demonstrated ridiculous amounts of restraint. Have you ever wondered what it must have been like to be in possession of the full power of God? Jesus could have wiped out his enemies with one fell swoop. He did not. He held back. He taught the value of restraint and that in his restraint there was great power. It was in his restraint where he chose to bear the cross, “scorning it’s shame for the joy set before him.” Jesus did not need to beat the tar out of someone to prove he was a man.
[caption id=“attachment_610” align=“alignright” width=“121” caption=“Fighting Jesus”]
[/caption]
He did it by being strong in the face of adversity. He did it by standing up to the imperial and religious leaders at the cost of his life. He did it by choosing to live a life of obedience to his father. He did it by demanding respect through his words and deeds.
So, we raise a generation of Spartan-like boys into Spartan-like men for Jesus. What does this get us? It gets us men who subdue their wives through anger and rage. It gets us men who do not understand kindness but only power. It gets us men who are willing beat their opponents into submission through violence as opposed to loving well with powerful kindness, compassion, and mercy.
Finally, I would suggest that the MMA Church take some time to study and understand the ramifications of their actions in light of Matthew 5, I will quote it below (oh and this is Jesus speaking, just saying):
Matthew 5
1 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
13 You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.
14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
21 You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, You fool! will be liable to the hell of fire.23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison.26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
27 You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery.28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
31 It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.37 Let what you say be simply Yes or No; anything more than this comes from evil.
38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
43 You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.