I'm currently taking a fairly interesting class - I think its called Religion & the Media - which I need to finally finsih my undergrad. Its most about reading, watching and/or perusing websites, and writing commentaries on what these various media sources say about religion & faith. Not a very difficult class, I can assure you, and the majority of my classmates pieces run something like this, which is a review of the Da Vinci Code:
The idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and carried on a bloodline that was the true church. Obviously this goes against the Catholic view and brings questions to my mind. Like, who is God? and what is the true message of Jesus. After reading this book an answer that I found was one of harmony. the true meaning of church and spirit is harmony and balance between all creatures. The peace you find in love is the peace that God would want. Not the rules and guidelines laid down by the church.
From such pithy comments, we are supposed to write a 10 page paper at the end of the semester on religion & faith in America today. I can hardly wait. We also have to read A New Religious America by Diana Eck, upon which I will reflect more in the future. But this quote got me thinking:
"In a sense, [Christianity] became stronger precisely because the churches no longer had any support from public tax coffers; they had to compete with one another in the free market of Christian ideas in order to thrive, and one of the consequences of this unprecedented approach to religious freedom was the proliferation of churches."
As a society, it is clear that capitalism has informed and permeated virtually every nook & cranny of our public and private lives. We certainly live in a consumer society, but I had never regarded the institutional church as producer of religious goods, so to speak. But, of course, why shouldn't we think about it in this way? Churches clearly brand themselves and attempt to use marketing to bring people in the door - which likely means more money to do more things. Now, I'm not questioning anyone's motives (except, maybe teleevangelists and the like) because I do not doubt that most churches want to reach people with the Gospel and regard the additional resources offered by new members as a blessing they will use to reach even more people. But, to what extent do churches regard each other as competition? The reality is that "people" is the resource the church industry must mine, and particularly in areas with less population density, "people" is a relatively scarce resource, especially after other factors are brought into the equation.
I will have to develop this thought further (I don't have much time to do so right now) but a workable solution towards unity is to not regard other churches as competition for a resource. We have to move beyond a capitalist model of church.
9.25.2004
9.23.2004
I saw this through a link on The Revealer yesterday, and was simultaneously disgusted by this person's arrogance and intrigued by my sympathy for his position on some things. Read the article and you'll see what I mean - I've talked to too many people trying to play-up the Bible's more difficult passages as some kind of pretext for dismissing Christianity and/or God, to give his points on "Bible porn" much weight. It was the other half of his beliefs that intrigued me.
Because I didn't really want anybody to have a conversion experience, I went to be a counselor at [the youth conference] to save the children from being saved.
I certainly share his dim view of mere intellectual or emotion driven converstion experiences. I became a Christian at a Younglife camp in California, and years later, I came to understand how I had been psychologically manipulated into that decision. For me, and I'm sure for a great many others, these decisions were real and lives changed because of them. But I'm equally sure that these "decisions" aren't real for a significant segment of kids that go to such camps or conferences and this alienates them from faith. It seems clear that the author falls firmly into the latter and we can see how this has poisoned his view of Christ and Christianity. In my current position as a youth pastor, I really try go a different way in teaching kids about Christ, and not just because it could create people like this.
From Kierkegaard I knew that "Truth is Subjectivity," from Nietzsche that Christians were pop-Platonists, and from Rene Girard that the New Testament revealed the scapegoat mechanism secretly present in all other myths. I knew Christianity, like life, was something far more complex and messy and hard and weird than you could explain to teens in a week. And I knew that it was condescending and wrong to make teens feel dysfunctional if they did not have a Jesus experience in just the way [the youth conference] had pre-ordained for them.
While I agree with the latter half of this statement, it is ironic (and hypocritical) to malign the conference for "condescension" towards kids who do not fit the conference's mold, and yet turn around and display that exact same attitude towards the kids that do. As for his philosophical musings, I can only point out that if you need someone to "reveal" Christ being offered in our place in a "scapegoat mechanism" in the NT, you probably shouldn't be trying to write articles on religion, much less counsel highschoolers.
I still considered myself a Christian, but I had no statement of belief. I wasn't even sure if belief itself was very Christlike.
I'm still dumbfounded by this. If you have no statement of belief, I'm not sure you are actually able to describe yourself with a label that is defined by a statement of belief. And that last sentence - well, I'm almost speechless. I suppose one could argue that Christ, being God, *knew* about Himself and as such, did not require any belief, but I don't think this is what the author is trying to say.
My logic, as I explained it to Dale, was that not every kid at [the youth conference] was going to connect with the rah-rah, happy shiny form of evangelicalism. I felt that it was my role to reach out to these kids. And if it took a few shenanigans to win them for Jesus, I thought it was worth it. I don't really know if I believed any of this.
Right up until that last sentence, I was with him. Like it or not, "church" is a dirty word to some people and their perception of God is mediated by their animosity towards shiny, happy Christians and our stainless steel church. Unless we can break down those (I can't really say misconceptions because there is an unfortunate degree of accuracy in their views) barriers, the love of Christ will ever be hidden behind our peppy songs, coffee carts in the lobby and catchy sermon titles. And I really do believe that.
I was nervous about desanctifying this, the most sacred point of...many young people's lives. But [my teenagers] were mock-sobbing, loudly blowing their noses, hardly able to keep from busting out laughing.
Ahhh, the value of derision and arrogance to achieve existential bliss. The thing that really bothers me is that these kids were assigned to him - they were not necessarily the disillusioned, disaffected youth that he believes would not connect with the message of the youth conference. These kids could have been me! They could have been someoen whose life was forever changed by a momentary experience that would not let them go, by the haunting memory of joy and the pursuit of love, and this guy destroyed that opportunity. And for what? So he could make a point? So he could make himself feel better about his own bad experiences by forcing them on someone else? I sincerely hope that I never fall victim to this kind of mentality, and I'm not saying that in a "thank God I'm not like that sinner" way. I have been like that at times in my past - thought I knew more, was too cool, or whatever, to listen to what others are saying and dismissed them without a second thought - I hope I never fall back into that place again.
I asked my kids what they thought of the altar call. No one had been paying enough attention to even know what was being said. Disgusted, I went to explain the whole program: just how and why [the youth conference] had been trying to save them, and how I had been trying to save them from that. What I had been trying to teach them that week was that salvation isn't enough. You aren't altogether without merit before you accept Jesus and you certainly aren't altogether good once you do accept him. You can't judge others based on whether or not they call themselves Christian or if they've had some special experience where Jesus entered their life. I don't know what happens after you die, I told them, but if Jesus is up there separating the sheep from the goats based on whether or not they get all weepy when Amy Grant songs are played soft, I don't want anything to do with it.
Salvation isn't enough. This idea has been rolling around in my head since I read this article. If he means merely getting saved isn't enough, that knowing (or just thinking) "I've got a ticket into heaven" but that doesn't translate into any real change in ourselves or in our lives, then yeah, salvation isn't enough, because quite frankly, that ain't salvation. And this, I think, is the central deficiency of Protestant salvation theology. It is granular, happening at a single point of time, which renders verses like Philippians 2:12 utterly meaningless. How can you "work out your salvation" if it happened in a split second? I think the irony in this whole article is that it is the minimalist understanding of faith, salvation & theology that permeates evangelical thought, and its willing cooperation with pop culture in the name of Christ, that produced this author and influenced his actions. Would he have had the same struggles in a fuller tradition? Would he have regarded Christianity as facile & unthinking had he faced the weight of Patristic thought? For the sake of the kids entrusted to me, what can I learn from this?
Because I didn't really want anybody to have a conversion experience, I went to be a counselor at [the youth conference] to save the children from being saved.
I certainly share his dim view of mere intellectual or emotion driven converstion experiences. I became a Christian at a Younglife camp in California, and years later, I came to understand how I had been psychologically manipulated into that decision. For me, and I'm sure for a great many others, these decisions were real and lives changed because of them. But I'm equally sure that these "decisions" aren't real for a significant segment of kids that go to such camps or conferences and this alienates them from faith. It seems clear that the author falls firmly into the latter and we can see how this has poisoned his view of Christ and Christianity. In my current position as a youth pastor, I really try go a different way in teaching kids about Christ, and not just because it could create people like this.
From Kierkegaard I knew that "Truth is Subjectivity," from Nietzsche that Christians were pop-Platonists, and from Rene Girard that the New Testament revealed the scapegoat mechanism secretly present in all other myths. I knew Christianity, like life, was something far more complex and messy and hard and weird than you could explain to teens in a week. And I knew that it was condescending and wrong to make teens feel dysfunctional if they did not have a Jesus experience in just the way [the youth conference] had pre-ordained for them.
While I agree with the latter half of this statement, it is ironic (and hypocritical) to malign the conference for "condescension" towards kids who do not fit the conference's mold, and yet turn around and display that exact same attitude towards the kids that do. As for his philosophical musings, I can only point out that if you need someone to "reveal" Christ being offered in our place in a "scapegoat mechanism" in the NT, you probably shouldn't be trying to write articles on religion, much less counsel highschoolers.
I still considered myself a Christian, but I had no statement of belief. I wasn't even sure if belief itself was very Christlike.
I'm still dumbfounded by this. If you have no statement of belief, I'm not sure you are actually able to describe yourself with a label that is defined by a statement of belief. And that last sentence - well, I'm almost speechless. I suppose one could argue that Christ, being God, *knew* about Himself and as such, did not require any belief, but I don't think this is what the author is trying to say.
My logic, as I explained it to Dale, was that not every kid at [the youth conference] was going to connect with the rah-rah, happy shiny form of evangelicalism. I felt that it was my role to reach out to these kids. And if it took a few shenanigans to win them for Jesus, I thought it was worth it. I don't really know if I believed any of this.
Right up until that last sentence, I was with him. Like it or not, "church" is a dirty word to some people and their perception of God is mediated by their animosity towards shiny, happy Christians and our stainless steel church. Unless we can break down those (I can't really say misconceptions because there is an unfortunate degree of accuracy in their views) barriers, the love of Christ will ever be hidden behind our peppy songs, coffee carts in the lobby and catchy sermon titles. And I really do believe that.
I was nervous about desanctifying this, the most sacred point of...many young people's lives. But [my teenagers] were mock-sobbing, loudly blowing their noses, hardly able to keep from busting out laughing.
Ahhh, the value of derision and arrogance to achieve existential bliss. The thing that really bothers me is that these kids were assigned to him - they were not necessarily the disillusioned, disaffected youth that he believes would not connect with the message of the youth conference. These kids could have been me! They could have been someoen whose life was forever changed by a momentary experience that would not let them go, by the haunting memory of joy and the pursuit of love, and this guy destroyed that opportunity. And for what? So he could make a point? So he could make himself feel better about his own bad experiences by forcing them on someone else? I sincerely hope that I never fall victim to this kind of mentality, and I'm not saying that in a "thank God I'm not like that sinner" way. I have been like that at times in my past - thought I knew more, was too cool, or whatever, to listen to what others are saying and dismissed them without a second thought - I hope I never fall back into that place again.
I asked my kids what they thought of the altar call. No one had been paying enough attention to even know what was being said. Disgusted, I went to explain the whole program: just how and why [the youth conference] had been trying to save them, and how I had been trying to save them from that. What I had been trying to teach them that week was that salvation isn't enough. You aren't altogether without merit before you accept Jesus and you certainly aren't altogether good once you do accept him. You can't judge others based on whether or not they call themselves Christian or if they've had some special experience where Jesus entered their life. I don't know what happens after you die, I told them, but if Jesus is up there separating the sheep from the goats based on whether or not they get all weepy when Amy Grant songs are played soft, I don't want anything to do with it.
Salvation isn't enough. This idea has been rolling around in my head since I read this article. If he means merely getting saved isn't enough, that knowing (or just thinking) "I've got a ticket into heaven" but that doesn't translate into any real change in ourselves or in our lives, then yeah, salvation isn't enough, because quite frankly, that ain't salvation. And this, I think, is the central deficiency of Protestant salvation theology. It is granular, happening at a single point of time, which renders verses like Philippians 2:12 utterly meaningless. How can you "work out your salvation" if it happened in a split second? I think the irony in this whole article is that it is the minimalist understanding of faith, salvation & theology that permeates evangelical thought, and its willing cooperation with pop culture in the name of Christ, that produced this author and influenced his actions. Would he have had the same struggles in a fuller tradition? Would he have regarded Christianity as facile & unthinking had he faced the weight of Patristic thought? For the sake of the kids entrusted to me, what can I learn from this?
9.21.2004
Not the only one
I just had lunch with the gentleman doing the in-town church plant in conjunction with my church. He had expressed some things he did not like about the way church is done here and ways he would like to do things differently with the plant, but I had no idea how deep his misgivings really went. Today he brought up our complete lack of depth and the worshitainment* we do on Sunday morning that tends to only nominally include the Bible, and the fact that we as a staff never get into the Bible together. (The most we do is pray at staff meetings, and that is normally focused on specific prayer requests.) He pointed out our lack of growth both numerically and in the spiritual maturity of our congregation, which is what has sent alarm bells ringing in my head in the past.
Now, in my mind, the most interesting part is how the plant is being viewed by him and by our church, and by extension our denomination. I've noted in the past how his vision seems to be a significant departure from the way our senior pastor describes his vision for our multi-site approach. The planter wants a worshipful, Bible-plumbing church that is deeper, more spiritually mature and that has a stronger commitment to the Gospel than it does to being relevant. Whereas our senior pastor and the head of church plants for our denomination has gone so far as to suggest the church plant be a video venue** for the senior pastor's sermons. As he pointed out, our lack of numerical growth kind of indicates that what we're doing isn't really working, so why should we try to make an exact copy in your plant? All 3 of them have a meeting tomorrow and the CP says he is going to address these issues and state in no uncertain terms that he will not be reproducing a carbon copy of this church because he cannot get on board with what we do here. I asked him what he would do if the respective positions were too far apart and no compromise could be reached and he said he didn't know. What I do know is that his denominational financing will be running out and our church can't afford to finance this church plant on its own, so it may end up being a on/off kind of thing with no middle ground.
I cannot tell you how much relief I feel knowing that someone else on staff shares our concerns and problems with this place. The CP is a very mature, dedicated, prayerful man, so it encourages me to a great extent that he shares my misgivings. But damn! we had just resolved ourself to staying here for a couple of years and now I'm wondering if that was the right decision.
*I don't know if anyone has ever used that word before (someone probably has) but dang if I dont' like it! I may need to look into a copyright or something. :)
**For those of you who don't know, a video venue is a site that plays a tape, either of a complete service or just the sermon, to a group. Some churches have experienced good success with the video venue approach. Personally, I think it is antithetical to what church is about and should be avoided except under very specific situations that render it better than nothing.
Now, in my mind, the most interesting part is how the plant is being viewed by him and by our church, and by extension our denomination. I've noted in the past how his vision seems to be a significant departure from the way our senior pastor describes his vision for our multi-site approach. The planter wants a worshipful, Bible-plumbing church that is deeper, more spiritually mature and that has a stronger commitment to the Gospel than it does to being relevant. Whereas our senior pastor and the head of church plants for our denomination has gone so far as to suggest the church plant be a video venue** for the senior pastor's sermons. As he pointed out, our lack of numerical growth kind of indicates that what we're doing isn't really working, so why should we try to make an exact copy in your plant? All 3 of them have a meeting tomorrow and the CP says he is going to address these issues and state in no uncertain terms that he will not be reproducing a carbon copy of this church because he cannot get on board with what we do here. I asked him what he would do if the respective positions were too far apart and no compromise could be reached and he said he didn't know. What I do know is that his denominational financing will be running out and our church can't afford to finance this church plant on its own, so it may end up being a on/off kind of thing with no middle ground.
I cannot tell you how much relief I feel knowing that someone else on staff shares our concerns and problems with this place. The CP is a very mature, dedicated, prayerful man, so it encourages me to a great extent that he shares my misgivings. But damn! we had just resolved ourself to staying here for a couple of years and now I'm wondering if that was the right decision.
*I don't know if anyone has ever used that word before (someone probably has) but dang if I dont' like it! I may need to look into a copyright or something. :)
**For those of you who don't know, a video venue is a site that plays a tape, either of a complete service or just the sermon, to a group. Some churches have experienced good success with the video venue approach. Personally, I think it is antithetical to what church is about and should be avoided except under very specific situations that render it better than nothing.
A disturbing new reality
As the situation in Iraq either deteriorates, improves or remains constant depending on whom you listen to for your news, one thing is abundantly clear; the remaining "Axis of Evil" states are making a mad-dash for the nuclear finish line while we are tied up in Baghdad. Which only makes sense - up until the Iraq situation, America's military was considered so vastly superior to any other force on the planet that no nation would have thought about risking open conflict with the US. But now, our military superiority, while still unmatched in actual war-fighting, has shown its soft underbelly in post conflict management and counterinsurgency. A point aptly made in this month's Atlantic Monthly in an article by James Fallows (subscription required for the online article - I read it last week at Border's) who points out that the threat of our military was more effective than actual combat in some ways.
So now we have Iran and North Korea moving towards uranium enrichment for "peaceful" reasons while the US is hamstrung in Iraq. Yes, we can destroy those nuclear facilities with longrange missiles or a direct air strike, but the consequences in both cases could be disastrous. North Korea could respond with a conventional attack on South Korea, and considering it has several thousand artillery pieces and rocket launchers within striking distance of Seoul, a conventional response could be as equally devastating to the South Korean capital as an actual nuclear weapon. And this before a single troop crosses the DMZ. With Iran, a strike would likely result in thousands of Iranian fighters moving into Iraq causing even more destabilization in the Middle East - extending this conflict considerably and likely causing a huge increase in US casualties, not to mention Iraqi deaths. The reality is that a strike against these nuclear facilities is not a good option and the UN is being only slightly less ineffective than it normally is, so what real options are open to us? Not many. We may have to face the reality of a nuclear Iran, which is clearly going to destabilize the region more than a democratic Iraq (still little more than a dream at this point) can hope to counter. Iraq may prove to be the single greatest strategic blunder in US history.
So now we have Iran and North Korea moving towards uranium enrichment for "peaceful" reasons while the US is hamstrung in Iraq. Yes, we can destroy those nuclear facilities with longrange missiles or a direct air strike, but the consequences in both cases could be disastrous. North Korea could respond with a conventional attack on South Korea, and considering it has several thousand artillery pieces and rocket launchers within striking distance of Seoul, a conventional response could be as equally devastating to the South Korean capital as an actual nuclear weapon. And this before a single troop crosses the DMZ. With Iran, a strike would likely result in thousands of Iranian fighters moving into Iraq causing even more destabilization in the Middle East - extending this conflict considerably and likely causing a huge increase in US casualties, not to mention Iraqi deaths. The reality is that a strike against these nuclear facilities is not a good option and the UN is being only slightly less ineffective than it normally is, so what real options are open to us? Not many. We may have to face the reality of a nuclear Iran, which is clearly going to destabilize the region more than a democratic Iraq (still little more than a dream at this point) can hope to counter. Iraq may prove to be the single greatest strategic blunder in US history.
9.16.2004
Workable Solutions - IV
Hat tip to neothelogue for this link. There is also some commentary on Christianitytoday's news blog - scroll down a bit to find it.
From the article - "Yet such discussions [about communion] are important because they go to the heart of the Christian faith, say clergy and denominational officials. They affect the way believers perceive and take part in one of the most sacred events in Christian history: the meal Jesus shared with his disciples the night before his crucifixion. And they affect efforts to foster unity among Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians and end theological and liturgical disputes that have created deep divisions in Christianity."
This quote is a bit broader than the topics of my posts, which is finding workable solutions towards the problem of Protestantism's schismatic tendencies. But it does highlight another key area that will have to be addressed, one that follows closely in parallel with the other issues discussed thus far.
Historically, Protestantism has tended to relegate communion to a secondary status, probably in an overreaction to all things Catholic. This has meant communion being downgraded to a symbol and not a sacrament, and being practiced infrequently. My church, for instance, practices communion every 4-6 weeks and even then it is not the focus of the service. One of my biggest problems with our approach is the fact that communion is inserted where its "appropriate" in a sermon series, but it normally doesn't feel appropriate to me, and it usually doesn't relate very well to the topic of the sermon. I'm not sure how typical this is across the Protestant spectrum (which ostensibly includes Anglicans, who seem to be of a variety of opinions on communion according to Pontificator), but I'm pretty certain it is not at all out of the ordinary.
Finding a workable solution on this issue requires us to ask: How central is communion to our worship and why? How does communion fit in with and compare to other worship practices? How should we view communion - symbol, sacrament or somewhere in between? How frequently should we take communion? And, of course, is our communion open or closed?
Step IV - Develop a broad consensus on exactly what communion is, how we should practice it and membership/faith requirements necessary to receive it.
From the article - "Yet such discussions [about communion] are important because they go to the heart of the Christian faith, say clergy and denominational officials. They affect the way believers perceive and take part in one of the most sacred events in Christian history: the meal Jesus shared with his disciples the night before his crucifixion. And they affect efforts to foster unity among Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians and end theological and liturgical disputes that have created deep divisions in Christianity."
This quote is a bit broader than the topics of my posts, which is finding workable solutions towards the problem of Protestantism's schismatic tendencies. But it does highlight another key area that will have to be addressed, one that follows closely in parallel with the other issues discussed thus far.
Historically, Protestantism has tended to relegate communion to a secondary status, probably in an overreaction to all things Catholic. This has meant communion being downgraded to a symbol and not a sacrament, and being practiced infrequently. My church, for instance, practices communion every 4-6 weeks and even then it is not the focus of the service. One of my biggest problems with our approach is the fact that communion is inserted where its "appropriate" in a sermon series, but it normally doesn't feel appropriate to me, and it usually doesn't relate very well to the topic of the sermon. I'm not sure how typical this is across the Protestant spectrum (which ostensibly includes Anglicans, who seem to be of a variety of opinions on communion according to Pontificator), but I'm pretty certain it is not at all out of the ordinary.
Finding a workable solution on this issue requires us to ask: How central is communion to our worship and why? How does communion fit in with and compare to other worship practices? How should we view communion - symbol, sacrament or somewhere in between? How frequently should we take communion? And, of course, is our communion open or closed?
Step IV - Develop a broad consensus on exactly what communion is, how we should practice it and membership/faith requirements necessary to receive it.
9.15.2004
Workable Solutions - III
(See parts I and II)
Step I in workable solutions towards Protestant unity is to redefine sola scriptura across Protestant boundaries that will get everyone on the same page on exactly what is authoritative. Ideally (though I did not discuss this), such a redefinition would also include a theory on the nature of inspiration and resolve any issues about textual variations within the canon, including potentially "uninspired" parts - like Acts 8:37 or the alleged "extra" ending to Mark. Step II was to figure out a way to overcome the diversity of interpretations in such a way that Protestant groups are able to fully recognize other group as legitimately Christian. This would likely require an abandonment of key distinctives in some, or many, areas and a near total ecclesial & theological reformation of some churches.
Though it may sound a little odd, Step III is figuring out how we are going to view history, because quite frankly, Protestantism is departure on many points of Christian history. Some of these departures are major and some are minor, but any way we look at them, we have to have a comprehensive way of receiving and interpreting history. I think the majority of Christian sects & denominations believe in a specific Golden Age of Christianity. For some, this age could only be during the life of the Apostles. When St John finally died on Patmos, the Golden Age ended and thus began the Church's long slide into corruption and apostasy. For other groups, the first 4 centuries are normative and they may accept some of the Ecumenical Councils as authoritative (to what degree varies by group). There is a continuum here, with Catholic and Orthodox on one end (who arguably don't believe that, in essence, the Golden Age ever really ended) and very strict Protestants on the other that may even suspect some of the teachings that cropped up during the Apostles' time.
As I said before, history is important because Protestantism departs from historic Christian thought in many areas. We are not liturgical, sacramental, hierarchical (for the most part) or overtly mystical. We believe in sola scriptura, though no such doctrine was ever embraced by the church-historic, reject many sources of authority early Christians fully accepted, and we are, quite frankly, inherently schismatic. Read through the earliest Church Fathers (those most likely to be favorably considered across the spectrum), and you will see an emphasis on unity, mutual submission and loving cohesion that seems impossible to achieve in our day and age, and that is not the focus of the majority of Christians. Early Christians viewed the Church as the mediator of their faith, in that the only true experience of Christ was found within His body. We tend to hold similar views about the Bible, and not the church, because we find the church intrinsically untrustworthy. It is only a human endeavor, and one that does not appear to be specially favored by the Holy Spirit, at least not the same way Scripture is.
So we have to figure out exactly what is normative for us. If a belief in sacarmental worship can be proven of the earliest Christians (and I think it can), should we change our services and your theology to conform to this historical standard? If the early church embraced a clear hierarchy of male-only leadership, should be conform to that as well? And perhaps the real sticking point - if the early church regarded extra-biblical material as authoritative, how do we deal with that? We have left history unengaged for too long, simply assuming we are modeling ourselves after NT worship, but this is not the case. We may have captured certain parts of it, and we may be doing a good job of what we're doing, but we need to figure out if it is what we are supposed to be doing.
Step III is developing a consistent view & interpretation of history across Protestantism. One that deals with questions of worship & ecclesiology, extra-biblical authority and the sacraments.
Step I in workable solutions towards Protestant unity is to redefine sola scriptura across Protestant boundaries that will get everyone on the same page on exactly what is authoritative. Ideally (though I did not discuss this), such a redefinition would also include a theory on the nature of inspiration and resolve any issues about textual variations within the canon, including potentially "uninspired" parts - like Acts 8:37 or the alleged "extra" ending to Mark. Step II was to figure out a way to overcome the diversity of interpretations in such a way that Protestant groups are able to fully recognize other group as legitimately Christian. This would likely require an abandonment of key distinctives in some, or many, areas and a near total ecclesial & theological reformation of some churches.
Though it may sound a little odd, Step III is figuring out how we are going to view history, because quite frankly, Protestantism is departure on many points of Christian history. Some of these departures are major and some are minor, but any way we look at them, we have to have a comprehensive way of receiving and interpreting history. I think the majority of Christian sects & denominations believe in a specific Golden Age of Christianity. For some, this age could only be during the life of the Apostles. When St John finally died on Patmos, the Golden Age ended and thus began the Church's long slide into corruption and apostasy. For other groups, the first 4 centuries are normative and they may accept some of the Ecumenical Councils as authoritative (to what degree varies by group). There is a continuum here, with Catholic and Orthodox on one end (who arguably don't believe that, in essence, the Golden Age ever really ended) and very strict Protestants on the other that may even suspect some of the teachings that cropped up during the Apostles' time.
As I said before, history is important because Protestantism departs from historic Christian thought in many areas. We are not liturgical, sacramental, hierarchical (for the most part) or overtly mystical. We believe in sola scriptura, though no such doctrine was ever embraced by the church-historic, reject many sources of authority early Christians fully accepted, and we are, quite frankly, inherently schismatic. Read through the earliest Church Fathers (those most likely to be favorably considered across the spectrum), and you will see an emphasis on unity, mutual submission and loving cohesion that seems impossible to achieve in our day and age, and that is not the focus of the majority of Christians. Early Christians viewed the Church as the mediator of their faith, in that the only true experience of Christ was found within His body. We tend to hold similar views about the Bible, and not the church, because we find the church intrinsically untrustworthy. It is only a human endeavor, and one that does not appear to be specially favored by the Holy Spirit, at least not the same way Scripture is.
So we have to figure out exactly what is normative for us. If a belief in sacarmental worship can be proven of the earliest Christians (and I think it can), should we change our services and your theology to conform to this historical standard? If the early church embraced a clear hierarchy of male-only leadership, should be conform to that as well? And perhaps the real sticking point - if the early church regarded extra-biblical material as authoritative, how do we deal with that? We have left history unengaged for too long, simply assuming we are modeling ourselves after NT worship, but this is not the case. We may have captured certain parts of it, and we may be doing a good job of what we're doing, but we need to figure out if it is what we are supposed to be doing.
Step III is developing a consistent view & interpretation of history across Protestantism. One that deals with questions of worship & ecclesiology, extra-biblical authority and the sacraments.
9.08.2004
Dangerous Knowledge
After work yesterday, I went home and took some time to read a bit and to pray about the issues I mentioned in the previous post. I decided the best place to start reading my 38 volume Church Fathers birthday present (still the best ever!) was, oddly enough, at the beginning. The very first work is the First Epistle of Clement, which I have almost finished. Its a telling experience to read the words of someone who lived 1900 years ago - the style, content and focus of the work can be difficult obstacles since they are so different from modern texts. For having to write by hand, I have noticed that these writers were actually very verbose, frequently readdressing the same point several times from different angles. I don't know if this was a conscious decision to stress the importance of what they were trying to say, or merely conforming to the style of the day, but I like the richness & depth it produces. It does not presume the reader will know or think about all of these angles & nuances, and so the author is a like a tour guide taking the much longer but vastly superior scenic route, pointing out all the details and giving the reader a chance to savor and ponder what is before him.
Clement writes:
"These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves [sic] us to do all in order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform....Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed." Chapters 40 & 41
Clement here is not speaking about danger from an external source - from heretics, the Roman government or even the devil himself - no, Clement is speaking about the danger God poses to us. He says, "[t]hose, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished..." Having been entrusted with the gift of divine knowledge, we must make every effort to see it is handled and treated with the respect & reverence it so clearly deserves. I think this is one of the fundamental differences I see between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Protestantism doesn't treat divine knowledge disrespectfully, but they do handle it in a familiar fashion. They treat it as a family member instead of a respected house-guest. The priest of the parish my wife and I attended for a few months used to describe this is as "putting Jesus in your pocket," which I think is an apt description. There is undoubtedly love, devotion and commitment to Christ, but the tone is frequently casual, and there is certainly little perception of the danger of the knowledge we have been given.
Hebrews 2:1-3a "For this reason we must pay much closer to attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (NASB)
Will our familiarity breed contempt, as the saying goes? I fear that it might, because we have lost sight of the dangerous glory of God. A recent article in Relevant Magazine hightlights an interview with John Fischer, who says:
"Faith is necessary for a more dangerous life...It finally dawned on me that the message of ‘Safety’ was really bugging me. It almost starts to appear that the bulk of the Christian sub-culture, all these Christian products in the Christian world, however it got started, it appears to exist today out of a fear of the world and a desire to be safe within a subculture where we can still enjoy all those worldly things, but they have been made safe for us and for our consumption. Like a Good Christian Seal of Approval...I think in terms of individual faith it has also affected us. Faith itself has to come in the midst of some kind of tension, pressure, fear, whatever. If everything is fine and we’re comfortable and we’re only around people of faith, in an environment of faith, then who needs faith?"
I think Fischer is right. There is an effort to scrub things clean and make them safe for more consumption (which he explores later in the article), but we are forgetting that what we need is not cleanliness but redemption. The ideas & things we surround ourselves with are in just as much need of regeneration and salvation as we are, and we have forgotten that. We have taken the glory & knowledge of God and turned them into cheesy t-shirts, Christianized comic books and consumer driven churches. We have, in short, neglected so great a salvation.
Clement writes:
"These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves [sic] us to do all in order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform....Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed." Chapters 40 & 41
Clement here is not speaking about danger from an external source - from heretics, the Roman government or even the devil himself - no, Clement is speaking about the danger God poses to us. He says, "[t]hose, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished..." Having been entrusted with the gift of divine knowledge, we must make every effort to see it is handled and treated with the respect & reverence it so clearly deserves. I think this is one of the fundamental differences I see between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Protestantism doesn't treat divine knowledge disrespectfully, but they do handle it in a familiar fashion. They treat it as a family member instead of a respected house-guest. The priest of the parish my wife and I attended for a few months used to describe this is as "putting Jesus in your pocket," which I think is an apt description. There is undoubtedly love, devotion and commitment to Christ, but the tone is frequently casual, and there is certainly little perception of the danger of the knowledge we have been given.
Hebrews 2:1-3a "For this reason we must pay much closer to attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (NASB)
Will our familiarity breed contempt, as the saying goes? I fear that it might, because we have lost sight of the dangerous glory of God. A recent article in Relevant Magazine hightlights an interview with John Fischer, who says:
"Faith is necessary for a more dangerous life...It finally dawned on me that the message of ‘Safety’ was really bugging me. It almost starts to appear that the bulk of the Christian sub-culture, all these Christian products in the Christian world, however it got started, it appears to exist today out of a fear of the world and a desire to be safe within a subculture where we can still enjoy all those worldly things, but they have been made safe for us and for our consumption. Like a Good Christian Seal of Approval...I think in terms of individual faith it has also affected us. Faith itself has to come in the midst of some kind of tension, pressure, fear, whatever. If everything is fine and we’re comfortable and we’re only around people of faith, in an environment of faith, then who needs faith?"
I think Fischer is right. There is an effort to scrub things clean and make them safe for more consumption (which he explores later in the article), but we are forgetting that what we need is not cleanliness but redemption. The ideas & things we surround ourselves with are in just as much need of regeneration and salvation as we are, and we have forgotten that. We have taken the glory & knowledge of God and turned them into cheesy t-shirts, Christianized comic books and consumer driven churches. We have, in short, neglected so great a salvation.
9.07.2004
Houses, decisions and where do we want to be?
My wife and I went looking at houses this weekend, partially because our lease is up on our apartment (and we're very low on storage space in it) and partially because we were bored. We found a nice little 2 bedroom, 2 bath number with a good sized yard and a lot of updates. The owner was something of a handyman, so there is some nice woodwork, and several rooms have had new drywall & paint in the last year or so. It would still need a little work, but in our price range we're not going to find anything that doesn't. From the numerous crucifixes and the small Mary statuette in the front yard, I gathered that the homeowners are Catholic, which could explain why its priced a bit under the market. He could probably get another 5-10% on it, but he told the realtor he "didn't want to be greedy."
The question for my wife and I is not whether we want the house - it seems like a good deal and would be pretty well suited for the youth ministry. No, the question is how long we are going to be here. Right now I don't think either one of us is partiuclarly happy, with either our church or our social life. We don't feely strongly connected here and there aren't many couples our age. A young-marrieds small group is starting up, so hopefully things will change with that, but right now we don't have any friends. We know plenty of people, but they are mostly the parents of the kids that are in my youth group.
For me, the biggest question is how long can I stick this out? How long before I know this isn't the right place and am satisfied that I can leave? For all its shortcomings, there are some great things happening at this church and it feels like some momentum is starting to build in the youth group. I'm learning areas I need to improve in and am actively seeking to introduce new & challenging ideas to these kids, but I still struggle as to whether or not I'm really cut out for this job, if I'm actually good at it. I don't know if those doubts are warranted or not, but there is so much upheaval in our life right now it is hard not to hear them. Couple that with the issues I have with this church in particular, and my larger seeking for the truth about Christ and His Church, and you've got one confused puppy. (Speaking of which, getting a house would be great because then we could get a dog. I miss my dog. If ever there is a doubt about the goodness of God, just look at a dog and be encouraged.)
The question for my wife and I is not whether we want the house - it seems like a good deal and would be pretty well suited for the youth ministry. No, the question is how long we are going to be here. Right now I don't think either one of us is partiuclarly happy, with either our church or our social life. We don't feely strongly connected here and there aren't many couples our age. A young-marrieds small group is starting up, so hopefully things will change with that, but right now we don't have any friends. We know plenty of people, but they are mostly the parents of the kids that are in my youth group.
For me, the biggest question is how long can I stick this out? How long before I know this isn't the right place and am satisfied that I can leave? For all its shortcomings, there are some great things happening at this church and it feels like some momentum is starting to build in the youth group. I'm learning areas I need to improve in and am actively seeking to introduce new & challenging ideas to these kids, but I still struggle as to whether or not I'm really cut out for this job, if I'm actually good at it. I don't know if those doubts are warranted or not, but there is so much upheaval in our life right now it is hard not to hear them. Couple that with the issues I have with this church in particular, and my larger seeking for the truth about Christ and His Church, and you've got one confused puppy. (Speaking of which, getting a house would be great because then we could get a dog. I miss my dog. If ever there is a doubt about the goodness of God, just look at a dog and be encouraged.)
9.03.2004
GetReligion: Honest questions for W
GetReligion: Honest questions for W
I saw this piece over on Get Religion. I'm not overly surprised by this, but I think it speaks volumes to the disconnect between the Republican's base and the true motivations and actions of Republican leadership. George Bush claims he is a Christian (something I am certainly in no position to deny or question), and yet he is failing in regards to one of the most important signifiers of Christian thought - love your enemies. The problem is not just that he is failing in this regard; I think there are probably tens of thousands of evangelical Christians who are also failing to shoulder the burden of loving their enemies and praying for those who persecute them. Can we truly assume "God is on our side" if we are failing to uphold one the central tenets of our faith?
I saw this piece over on Get Religion. I'm not overly surprised by this, but I think it speaks volumes to the disconnect between the Republican's base and the true motivations and actions of Republican leadership. George Bush claims he is a Christian (something I am certainly in no position to deny or question), and yet he is failing in regards to one of the most important signifiers of Christian thought - love your enemies. The problem is not just that he is failing in this regard; I think there are probably tens of thousands of evangelical Christians who are also failing to shoulder the burden of loving their enemies and praying for those who persecute them. Can we truly assume "God is on our side" if we are failing to uphold one the central tenets of our faith?
9.02.2004
Emerging Worship or Repackaged Consumerism?
I got the book "Emerging Worship" by Dan Kimball a few weeks ago and have been reading through it a bit sporadically. I read his prevous book, "The Emerging Church" and found it interesting. So far, EW has been more a primer on re-thinking how the church does worship and how we, as church leaders particularly, should redirect our efforts towards a more holistic, Spirit-led worship experience and away from the slick, packaged show ideal that dominates right now. A move and an idea I'm all for. The content & style of our Sundary morning worship service (which is obviously the central communal act at virtually every church in the US, much less the world) is largely market-driven. What do the people want? What will they respond to? In this area, I think a delicate balance must be struck. No one is going to come to a church that includes a 4 hour head-standing period as part of its worship experience, but putting too much emphasis on numerical growth can lead to a consumeristic church. One that plays to people's tastes instead of their needs, which means the church mostly becomes a sanitized reflection of the exterior culture.
A guy in my office gave me a copy of an article from the Sep 02 GQ magazine. In it, the author commits himself to entering the Christian sub-culture for a week to see what there is to see. Walter Kirn writes:
"The new Ark, the cultural Ark, built to save the chosen from the Great Media Flood [of secular culture], also has two of
everything, I'm learning. You say you're a Pearl Jam fan? Check out Third Day. They sound just like them...with a slightly different message: Repent! You say you like Grisham and Clancy-style potboilers? Grab a copy of Ted Dekker's Heaven's Wager-same stick-figure characterizations, same preschool prose, just a slightly different message: Repent!...That's the convincing logic of the Ark. If a person is going to waste his life cranking the stereo, clicking the remote, reading paperback pulp and chasing diet fads, he may as well save his soul while he's at it."
The same can equally be true of many seeker-sensitive or Willowcreek type churches. Like a good concert or motivational speaker? Come to Sunday morning service and hear similar songs and an oddly familiar thereapeutic talk with a slightly different message: Repent! Emerging worship is meant to be an antidote to that, and it sounds like it is, but at a certain level its just the same thing with different props. If only a few people come to an emergent worship gathering, what pastor isn't going to start changing elements here and there to make it more appealing to people? If the majority of the regular attenders all say they want to use some old hymns or that they think the incense is too strong - what pastor isn't going listen to that? I honestly think its a very short step from emerging worship to just another form of consumerized Christianity for a new generation. What about emerging worship is timeless or transcendent? What about it draws the individual out of themselves into a direct experience of God? How will it avoid the emotionalism that, in my opinion, plagues modern worship?
A guy in my office gave me a copy of an article from the Sep 02 GQ magazine. In it, the author commits himself to entering the Christian sub-culture for a week to see what there is to see. Walter Kirn writes:
"The new Ark, the cultural Ark, built to save the chosen from the Great Media Flood [of secular culture], also has two of
everything, I'm learning. You say you're a Pearl Jam fan? Check out Third Day. They sound just like them...with a slightly different message: Repent! You say you like Grisham and Clancy-style potboilers? Grab a copy of Ted Dekker's Heaven's Wager-same stick-figure characterizations, same preschool prose, just a slightly different message: Repent!...That's the convincing logic of the Ark. If a person is going to waste his life cranking the stereo, clicking the remote, reading paperback pulp and chasing diet fads, he may as well save his soul while he's at it."
The same can equally be true of many seeker-sensitive or Willowcreek type churches. Like a good concert or motivational speaker? Come to Sunday morning service and hear similar songs and an oddly familiar thereapeutic talk with a slightly different message: Repent! Emerging worship is meant to be an antidote to that, and it sounds like it is, but at a certain level its just the same thing with different props. If only a few people come to an emergent worship gathering, what pastor isn't going to start changing elements here and there to make it more appealing to people? If the majority of the regular attenders all say they want to use some old hymns or that they think the incense is too strong - what pastor isn't going listen to that? I honestly think its a very short step from emerging worship to just another form of consumerized Christianity for a new generation. What about emerging worship is timeless or transcendent? What about it draws the individual out of themselves into a direct experience of God? How will it avoid the emotionalism that, in my opinion, plagues modern worship?
9.01.2004
Hostage Children
I don't even know what to say about terrorists taking hundreds of children hostage. Let us hope the Russians don't undertake another innovative rescue operation like they did at that theater in Moscow. The narcotic gas they used to knock the hostage takers out ended up killing more people than the terrorists did, and it would certainly kill small children.
While I certainly agree that only a monster would put the life of a child on the line for political motives, it still remains that what these terrorists are after are entirely rational motives - the release of fellow "freedom fighters", maintaining instability in Chechnya which will hopefully drive the Russians out and, of course, to influence the Russian people. The question, of course, is will tactics like this work? I don't know. Like 9/11, it could rally the Russian people to their leader and strengthen their resolve. Then again, Russia is a very different country and both the history of and threat of continued violence could very well sap their resolve.
Right now, though, those hostages AND those terrorists need our prayers.
Lord have mercy
Lord have mercy
Lord have mercy
While I certainly agree that only a monster would put the life of a child on the line for political motives, it still remains that what these terrorists are after are entirely rational motives - the release of fellow "freedom fighters", maintaining instability in Chechnya which will hopefully drive the Russians out and, of course, to influence the Russian people. The question, of course, is will tactics like this work? I don't know. Like 9/11, it could rally the Russian people to their leader and strengthen their resolve. Then again, Russia is a very different country and both the history of and threat of continued violence could very well sap their resolve.
Right now, though, those hostages AND those terrorists need our prayers.
Lord have mercy
Lord have mercy
Lord have mercy
8.31.2004
Can the war on terror be won?
I saw a snippet of an interview with President Bush on the Today show this morning, wherein he tells Matt Lauer that the war on terror cannot be won (rough paraphrase). Which, unfortunately, in my opinion, is true. We cannot win a *total* victory in the war on terror because terrorism is not a disease that we can inoculate the world against. We have wiped out small pox and are on the verge of taking care of polio, but similar results cannot be gained in regards to terrorism. At best, we can diminish terrorism and make it very difficult, possibly contain it or vastly reduce its effectiveness, but I think we are fooling ourselves if we think victory is truly possible, much less inevitable.
First, terrorists do not require a friendly country or territory to use as a base of operations. It certainly helps and makes terrorist operations easier to plan & execute, but a fairly large group or group of cells can easily operate in a neutral or even hostile environment. It requires more careful planning & procurement, particularly for plots that use chemical or biological weapons since manufacturing these components requires specific kinds of equipment and material. But as the Oklahoma City bombing proved, a terrorist does not need exotic materials to carry out an exceedingly deadly strike. And as we learned with the DC sniper case, 2 people in a beat up old car can easily terrorize a city with nothing more than a rifle and a box of ammo. If terrorists will resolve themselves to smaller, less grandiose attacks, then there is little than can be done to stop them without incurring huge security costs.
Second, even if we manage to get the right security mix here at home and actually make it exceedingly difficult to execute an attack on American soil (something we certainly have not done yet), all we are doing is pushing the terrorists' target matrix to softer targets elsewhere. Even then an attack does not have to directly target US facilities or personnel in order to cause the US a lot of problems. For instance, a significant attack in Saudi Arabia that destabilized the regime could cut off our oil supply or cause oil prices to sky-rocket. A biological attack in Mexico could potentially cause hundreds of thousands of Mexicans to flee northward, destroying even our currently meager concept of border security. Unless we are able to effectively secure the world, or at least the portions that interest the US the most, terrorists will continue to have thousands of viable targets.
Third, terrorism is an ideological virus. It is generally cheap, effective and coupled with radical Muslim theology (which is spreading throughout the world thanks in large part to the Saudis), it has a fertile soil in which to take root. Additionally, some of the very actions which we undertake to eliminate certain threats will only breed more terrorists in other areas. Whatever your position on the war with Iraq, it is clear that anti-Americanism has deepened and spread, and created either more terrorists or more potential terrorist. If the US is forced to make a move against Iran due to its possible nuclear weapons program, it will only spread the virus of terrorism even more. Also, it makes no sense for the US to continue to believe that terrorists do not have rational political goals. It sounds very nice to say "they hate us because we are free" but that doesn't say anything about the ends they are actually pursuing. One of the things that initially drove al Qaida was the presence of US troops in a Muslim holy land. 9/11 was, in part, an effort to force the US out of Saudi Arabia, which is an entirely rational political goal. While certainly driven by fanatical hatred, terrorists continue to have goals for which they develop specific strategies. Until we come to grips with the fact that blind hatred does not mean irrational actions, we will fail to develop comprehensive actions & responses that will quell the rising tide of terrorism.
First, terrorists do not require a friendly country or territory to use as a base of operations. It certainly helps and makes terrorist operations easier to plan & execute, but a fairly large group or group of cells can easily operate in a neutral or even hostile environment. It requires more careful planning & procurement, particularly for plots that use chemical or biological weapons since manufacturing these components requires specific kinds of equipment and material. But as the Oklahoma City bombing proved, a terrorist does not need exotic materials to carry out an exceedingly deadly strike. And as we learned with the DC sniper case, 2 people in a beat up old car can easily terrorize a city with nothing more than a rifle and a box of ammo. If terrorists will resolve themselves to smaller, less grandiose attacks, then there is little than can be done to stop them without incurring huge security costs.
Second, even if we manage to get the right security mix here at home and actually make it exceedingly difficult to execute an attack on American soil (something we certainly have not done yet), all we are doing is pushing the terrorists' target matrix to softer targets elsewhere. Even then an attack does not have to directly target US facilities or personnel in order to cause the US a lot of problems. For instance, a significant attack in Saudi Arabia that destabilized the regime could cut off our oil supply or cause oil prices to sky-rocket. A biological attack in Mexico could potentially cause hundreds of thousands of Mexicans to flee northward, destroying even our currently meager concept of border security. Unless we are able to effectively secure the world, or at least the portions that interest the US the most, terrorists will continue to have thousands of viable targets.
Third, terrorism is an ideological virus. It is generally cheap, effective and coupled with radical Muslim theology (which is spreading throughout the world thanks in large part to the Saudis), it has a fertile soil in which to take root. Additionally, some of the very actions which we undertake to eliminate certain threats will only breed more terrorists in other areas. Whatever your position on the war with Iraq, it is clear that anti-Americanism has deepened and spread, and created either more terrorists or more potential terrorist. If the US is forced to make a move against Iran due to its possible nuclear weapons program, it will only spread the virus of terrorism even more. Also, it makes no sense for the US to continue to believe that terrorists do not have rational political goals. It sounds very nice to say "they hate us because we are free" but that doesn't say anything about the ends they are actually pursuing. One of the things that initially drove al Qaida was the presence of US troops in a Muslim holy land. 9/11 was, in part, an effort to force the US out of Saudi Arabia, which is an entirely rational political goal. While certainly driven by fanatical hatred, terrorists continue to have goals for which they develop specific strategies. Until we come to grips with the fact that blind hatred does not mean irrational actions, we will fail to develop comprehensive actions & responses that will quell the rising tide of terrorism.
8.24.2004
Workable Solutions - II
So step 1 of a workable solution towards unity was determining a consistent definition of sola scriptura across Protestant lines. Certainly not an easy task, and one that, in my humble estimation has a probability of success free-falling towards nil. There are about as many definitions of sola scriptura as there are denominations, and as Daniel pointed out in the comments of the last post, there are some denominations that are even moving away from this standard of Protestantism. Which, of course, raises a very serious problem - even assuming a consistent definition of sola scriptura, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will produce either agreement in interpretation between diverse groups, or the right interpretation.
As an aside, I realize from reading blogs from younger Christians, particularly those from the pomo-emergent church culture, that there is a strong suspicion of calling any intrepretation objectively true or right. It is a view I once shared, thinking agreeing to disagree or leaving enough fudge room for everyone to get along was a good thing. To a certain extent I still think this is true, however, I am increasingly coming to the convictiont that at least on some things, there is an objectively true & right understanding. But I do not think this understanding is mine, but that of the church catholic, so whenever I say "right" or "true", I don't mean what I personally think is this, but what the church has, at least hypothetically, stated as such. This introduces questions of ecclesiology and the precise nature of the church, which will come in a later post.
Interpretational disagreement is abundantly clear in comparing the 2 classical examples of Protestantism - Lutheranism and Calvinism. These 2 systems rely on the same Bible, and yet have radically distinct understandings of grace, faith, justification and the sacraments, to list off a few of the biggies. For other groups, there are variations on these and other issues; some big, some small and some so subtle as to be almost undetectable to the naked eye. But, and this is a huge but, it is precisely these differences that give each group or denomination a distinct identity. It is how they "brand" themselves in relation to other Christian groups. Even for local churches that are non-denominational or only loosely affiliated with a group, there normally exists differences in theology between it and the church down the road. Needless to say, these theological differences stem from conflicting interpretations & emphases, and asking a church or denomination to give up these differences for the sake of unity is to request a doubly difficult task. They must not only melt away their disctinctiveness, but also, at least tacitly, admit that they do not and did not have it right. The only reason a denomination exists is because they think their way of doing church and theology is best, or at least not as bad as the way other groups do them. To the members, these differences are important and any move away from their standard of faith is potentially a move in the wrong direction. And in conversations I have had with other Christians, I know for a fact that some would view worshipping with other groups that believe differently as a violation of conscience a la Romans 14 and therefore sinful.
So the next step is even more complicated than the first. At the very least we would have to get Protestants to move away from their brandedness or somehow de-emphasize that. In a way, it would be re-defining "Christian" as a term not involving denominations or church affiliations. Which is, of course, what the term meant in the first place but has seemingly become intextricably intertwined with such nuances now. Step 2 - redefine "Christian."
As an aside, I realize from reading blogs from younger Christians, particularly those from the pomo-emergent church culture, that there is a strong suspicion of calling any intrepretation objectively true or right. It is a view I once shared, thinking agreeing to disagree or leaving enough fudge room for everyone to get along was a good thing. To a certain extent I still think this is true, however, I am increasingly coming to the convictiont that at least on some things, there is an objectively true & right understanding. But I do not think this understanding is mine, but that of the church catholic, so whenever I say "right" or "true", I don't mean what I personally think is this, but what the church has, at least hypothetically, stated as such. This introduces questions of ecclesiology and the precise nature of the church, which will come in a later post.
Interpretational disagreement is abundantly clear in comparing the 2 classical examples of Protestantism - Lutheranism and Calvinism. These 2 systems rely on the same Bible, and yet have radically distinct understandings of grace, faith, justification and the sacraments, to list off a few of the biggies. For other groups, there are variations on these and other issues; some big, some small and some so subtle as to be almost undetectable to the naked eye. But, and this is a huge but, it is precisely these differences that give each group or denomination a distinct identity. It is how they "brand" themselves in relation to other Christian groups. Even for local churches that are non-denominational or only loosely affiliated with a group, there normally exists differences in theology between it and the church down the road. Needless to say, these theological differences stem from conflicting interpretations & emphases, and asking a church or denomination to give up these differences for the sake of unity is to request a doubly difficult task. They must not only melt away their disctinctiveness, but also, at least tacitly, admit that they do not and did not have it right. The only reason a denomination exists is because they think their way of doing church and theology is best, or at least not as bad as the way other groups do them. To the members, these differences are important and any move away from their standard of faith is potentially a move in the wrong direction. And in conversations I have had with other Christians, I know for a fact that some would view worshipping with other groups that believe differently as a violation of conscience a la Romans 14 and therefore sinful.
So the next step is even more complicated than the first. At the very least we would have to get Protestants to move away from their brandedness or somehow de-emphasize that. In a way, it would be re-defining "Christian" as a term not involving denominations or church affiliations. Which is, of course, what the term meant in the first place but has seemingly become intextricably intertwined with such nuances now. Step 2 - redefine "Christian."
8.19.2004
Workable Solutions - I
Daniel over at neotheologue has an ongoing series of posts on Christian unity which are both brutally honest and insightful. His posts have gotten me thinking about unity but also about one of my personal obsessions - workable solutions. All the theorizing and pondering in the world are utterly useless unless they lead us towards a workable solution. Not a perfect solution, mind you, I'm not so naive as to think we will ever obtain perfection until Christ returns in glory. No, with any problem that confronts me, especially the bigger and much harder to solve spiritual/ecclesial types, I'm really only interested in finding concrete steps that will take us forward. Maybe only a few inches of the miles we have yet to travel, but forward nonetheless.
Of course, we can't find those steps until we've identified the cause of the problem. Only with a correct diagnosis of the illness can a treatment be prescribed. I think for the Protestant world the answer is abundantly clear: sola scriptura (I now hereby officially open the sola scriptura issue for public debate). Personally, I am not yet ready to abandon SS and for the vast majority of Protestants it doesn't even have a chance of being an option for the possibility of potential future consideration. But the fact remains that SS is effectually one of the largest contributors to the disunity of the Protestant church in general. I'm not saying SS is wrong or an incorrect, ahistorical doctrine; I'm speaking only about the practical consequences.
Part of the problem is that the same definition of SS is not universally held by Protestant churches. The basic idea is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to know enough about God, Jesus, sin, faith, etc, for the individual to find salvation in Christ and that they are clear on areas relating to salvation though some areas might be more obscure. But wait, that isn't the basic idea. Some churches require all doctrine to be based explicitly on Scripture or ideas that have a short chain of logical deductions from the text. Some are more flexible, accepting doctrines that aren't found explicitly in the Bible, but aren't excluded by it either. In the former, the Bible thus becomes very restrictive and limiting. For instance, the office of "priest" is not found in the New Testament, and thus cannot be legitimately used by Christians. Between these two poles are various other positions, but in essence, this lack of clarity on the precise meaning of SS and the boundaries of legitimacy create division. A strict SS church could not commune with a flexible SS because some of that flexibility can only be regarded as unbiblical, and conversely, the rigidity of the strict church would likely put off the other group.
So step 1 of a workable solution towards unity is getting widespread agreement on the precise definition of, and the theological & ecclesiological boundaries implied by, sola scriptura. If various groups can regard each others' practices (so long as they are not obviously heretical or unbiblical) as legitimate expressions of their respective churchs' beliefs, a huge door to unity would be kicked open.
(cont)
Of course, we can't find those steps until we've identified the cause of the problem. Only with a correct diagnosis of the illness can a treatment be prescribed. I think for the Protestant world the answer is abundantly clear: sola scriptura (I now hereby officially open the sola scriptura issue for public debate). Personally, I am not yet ready to abandon SS and for the vast majority of Protestants it doesn't even have a chance of being an option for the possibility of potential future consideration. But the fact remains that SS is effectually one of the largest contributors to the disunity of the Protestant church in general. I'm not saying SS is wrong or an incorrect, ahistorical doctrine; I'm speaking only about the practical consequences.
Part of the problem is that the same definition of SS is not universally held by Protestant churches. The basic idea is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to know enough about God, Jesus, sin, faith, etc, for the individual to find salvation in Christ and that they are clear on areas relating to salvation though some areas might be more obscure. But wait, that isn't the basic idea. Some churches require all doctrine to be based explicitly on Scripture or ideas that have a short chain of logical deductions from the text. Some are more flexible, accepting doctrines that aren't found explicitly in the Bible, but aren't excluded by it either. In the former, the Bible thus becomes very restrictive and limiting. For instance, the office of "priest" is not found in the New Testament, and thus cannot be legitimately used by Christians. Between these two poles are various other positions, but in essence, this lack of clarity on the precise meaning of SS and the boundaries of legitimacy create division. A strict SS church could not commune with a flexible SS because some of that flexibility can only be regarded as unbiblical, and conversely, the rigidity of the strict church would likely put off the other group.
So step 1 of a workable solution towards unity is getting widespread agreement on the precise definition of, and the theological & ecclesiological boundaries implied by, sola scriptura. If various groups can regard each others' practices (so long as they are not obviously heretical or unbiblical) as legitimate expressions of their respective churchs' beliefs, a huge door to unity would be kicked open.
(cont)
8.18.2004
St Vincent of Lerins
I got my birthday wish - the 38 volumes of Early Church Fathers (the best birthday gift ever, and still at $200 at Christian Books Direct through Sept 1st - normally $1100!), and due to a discussion elsewhere, started reading through St Vincents Commonitory, which continues his famous rule for determining correct tradition - everyone, always and everywhere. A great quote from chapter 9 (emphasis mine):
Which being the case, is there any one either so audacious as to preach any other doctrine than that which the Church preaches, or so inconstant as to receive any other doctrine than that which he has received from the Church? That elect vessel, that teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet of the apostles, that preacher whose commission was to the whole earth, that man who caught up in heaven, cries and cries again in his Epistles to all, always, in all places, "If any man preach any new doctrine, let him be accursed." On the other hand, an ephemeral, moribund set of frogs, fleas, and flies, such as the Pelagians call out in opposition, and that to Catholics, "Take our word, follow our lead, accept our exposition, condemn what you used to hold, hold what you used to condemn, cast aside the ancient faith, the institutes of your fathers, the trusts left for you by your ancestors and receive instead, - what? I tremble to utter it: for it is so full of arrogance and self-conceit, that it seems to me that not only to affirm it, but even to refute it, cannot be done without guilt in some sort.
This is one of those times when Providence seems to be very active in small details. This kind of anti-heresy thinking, which suggests that even in the refutation of heresy one may somehow be contaminated by its stink, dovetails neatly into what I was talking about with the "radically inclusive" church. It is the abandonment of the "ancient faith, the institutes of [our] fathers" and the condemnation of what they held. But St Vincent's work also brushes up against a series of discussions over at Pontifications and other linked blogs, which has detailed the problems with sola scriptura and the problems the Anglican communion is currently experiencing in its implementation. There is also a great article over on Tituseonenine, again from an Anglican perspective but exploring the idea that sola scriptura inevitably leads to schism. St Vincent points out quite eloquently that even heretics quote scripture:
Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics appeal to Scripture? [sic] They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture, - through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavor to shelter under words of Scripture.
Which also happens to describe a debate between any two differing Protestants over who is right. "To the Proof-Text-Mobile, Bible-man!" Check out any of a number of Christian message boards, and you will see what I mean. Which raises the unavoidable point that it is not just a question of authority, but of interpretation. All Christians regard the Bible as authoritative, but if it can be used to support heretical ideas, how can we be sure that any interpretation is or is not correct? One answer is, of course, abundantly clear, but not always easy to embrace.
(I'm really not trying to get into that whole sola scriptura discussion, only pointing out the congruence of these different things.)
Which being the case, is there any one either so audacious as to preach any other doctrine than that which the Church preaches, or so inconstant as to receive any other doctrine than that which he has received from the Church? That elect vessel, that teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet of the apostles, that preacher whose commission was to the whole earth, that man who caught up in heaven, cries and cries again in his Epistles to all, always, in all places, "If any man preach any new doctrine, let him be accursed." On the other hand, an ephemeral, moribund set of frogs, fleas, and flies, such as the Pelagians call out in opposition, and that to Catholics, "Take our word, follow our lead, accept our exposition, condemn what you used to hold, hold what you used to condemn, cast aside the ancient faith, the institutes of your fathers, the trusts left for you by your ancestors and receive instead, - what? I tremble to utter it: for it is so full of arrogance and self-conceit, that it seems to me that not only to affirm it, but even to refute it, cannot be done without guilt in some sort.
This is one of those times when Providence seems to be very active in small details. This kind of anti-heresy thinking, which suggests that even in the refutation of heresy one may somehow be contaminated by its stink, dovetails neatly into what I was talking about with the "radically inclusive" church. It is the abandonment of the "ancient faith, the institutes of [our] fathers" and the condemnation of what they held. But St Vincent's work also brushes up against a series of discussions over at Pontifications and other linked blogs, which has detailed the problems with sola scriptura and the problems the Anglican communion is currently experiencing in its implementation. There is also a great article over on Tituseonenine, again from an Anglican perspective but exploring the idea that sola scriptura inevitably leads to schism. St Vincent points out quite eloquently that even heretics quote scripture:
Here, possibly, some one may ask, Do heretics appeal to Scripture? [sic] They do indeed, and with a vengeance; for you may see them scamper through every single book of Holy Scripture, - through the books of Moses, the books of Kings, the Psalms, the Epistles, the Gospels, the Prophets. Whether among their own people, or among strangers, in private or in public, in speaking or in writing, at convivial meetings, or in the streets, hardly ever do they bring forward anything of their own which they do not endeavor to shelter under words of Scripture.
Which also happens to describe a debate between any two differing Protestants over who is right. "To the Proof-Text-Mobile, Bible-man!" Check out any of a number of Christian message boards, and you will see what I mean. Which raises the unavoidable point that it is not just a question of authority, but of interpretation. All Christians regard the Bible as authoritative, but if it can be used to support heretical ideas, how can we be sure that any interpretation is or is not correct? One answer is, of course, abundantly clear, but not always easy to embrace.
(I'm really not trying to get into that whole sola scriptura discussion, only pointing out the congruence of these different things.)
Olympics
Anybody see the women's gymnastics team finals last night? I was disappointed for the US team that they only got silver, but then again, those Romanian gymnasts were excellent and fully deserving of gold.
Just one thing - what was up with Courtney Kupets backing out of her balance beam routine at the last minute, and then coming back a few minutes later to do the floor exercise?! She told a reporter after the finals that her "injury" only bothered her at one point during her routine. Does that sound fishy to anyone else? Personally, I don't think she should be able to compete in the all-around now, especially if her backing out wasn't legitimate. There are other gymnasts on the team, maybe not as good, but who definitely have the heart to compete.
Just one thing - what was up with Courtney Kupets backing out of her balance beam routine at the last minute, and then coming back a few minutes later to do the floor exercise?! She told a reporter after the finals that her "injury" only bothered her at one point during her routine. Does that sound fishy to anyone else? Personally, I don't think she should be able to compete in the all-around now, especially if her backing out wasn't legitimate. There are other gymnasts on the team, maybe not as good, but who definitely have the heart to compete.
8.17.2004
Question & Denominational Hoopla
I spent Thursday, Friday and Saturday morning at the Willowcreek 2004 Leadership Summit. On the whole, I was impressed with the speakers and the content of their seminars. Only one of the speaker wasn't very good and that more because she appeared uncomfortable with public speaking - the content of her talk was good, just poorly presented. I feel like I got some good tools for my current ministry and am pretty motivated to start putting some of them into play.
There were some moments of subtle irony. For instance, Bill Hybel's (senior pastor of Willowcreek) gave a talk on volunteers within the church and used 2 examples to illustrate his points. One was from what he described as an "Ephesians 4 church"(E4) and the other from a "clergy controlled church" (CCC). Basically, in the E4 church, volunteers play a prominent role in serving the congregation & the mission of the church and people are able to put their passions and talents to good use, which is very satisfying for them and makes them feel really connected. In the CCC, volunteers are valued only for their ability to do jobs the staff don't want to do, like janitorial duties, and everything of import is handled by paid staff pastoral staff. Bill spoke encouragingly of the E4 and disparagingly of the CCC - too much top-down hierarchical control and too much reliance on paid staff, or something like that. Now, the irony - Willowcreek has over 450 paid staff people. Additionally, several of the speakers, including Bill himself, talked about times when leaders have to step out in obedience to God's calling regardless of what the people think, say or do - which is, of course, top-down hierarchical control.
Irony aside, this comparison got me wondering - how do volunteers and the laity normally participate in the lives of their local church in Orthodoxy? If any Orthodox readers would care to fill me in, I'd greatly appreciate it, because I think to a certain extent Bill is correct. The church should be a place where people not only connect with God, but are able to find ways to use their God-given talents to serve the Lord, serve His church and their fellow Christians.
I also spent Friday night and Saturday afternoon at a delegate session for our denomination. First, I must say that I have absolutely no stake in this group. This denomination does not have a very distinct identity, and its member churches run the gamut from very traditional conservative congregations to small rural churches to larger seeker-sensitive enterprises. So I really could not get myself very fired up about what was going on - namely re-electing our current denominational president, various elders and passing our budget. Second, and I hate to sound negative, I sat back watching all of this wondering why this relatively small denomination was so intent on going it alone. Our theology is pretty run-of-the-mill, so I don't understand why they aren't joined up with some other denomination or conference. Why are we putting the time and money into our own little organization when there would seem to be many other areas that could put them both to better use? And quite frankly, whose idiotic idea was it to schedule a 5 hour delegate session in a building without air-conditioning after a 9 hour summit day and then not serve any flippin' coffee?!?!?!?!?!
The real upside to the whole ordeal was getting to see my wife's extended family. My in-laws are 2 of the nicest people you could hope to meet, and her uncle is a real hoot. My father-in-law and her uncle both have a ton of ministry experience, so we had a good long talk over dinner about the difficulties I'm having at my current position. And my wife got to talk to her mother Saturday morning for a while, and actually brought up some of our thoughts about Orthodoxy. I didn't know she was going to do this, so I was pretty blown away that she would bring it up, especially to her folks.
There were some moments of subtle irony. For instance, Bill Hybel's (senior pastor of Willowcreek) gave a talk on volunteers within the church and used 2 examples to illustrate his points. One was from what he described as an "Ephesians 4 church"(E4) and the other from a "clergy controlled church" (CCC). Basically, in the E4 church, volunteers play a prominent role in serving the congregation & the mission of the church and people are able to put their passions and talents to good use, which is very satisfying for them and makes them feel really connected. In the CCC, volunteers are valued only for their ability to do jobs the staff don't want to do, like janitorial duties, and everything of import is handled by paid staff pastoral staff. Bill spoke encouragingly of the E4 and disparagingly of the CCC - too much top-down hierarchical control and too much reliance on paid staff, or something like that. Now, the irony - Willowcreek has over 450 paid staff people. Additionally, several of the speakers, including Bill himself, talked about times when leaders have to step out in obedience to God's calling regardless of what the people think, say or do - which is, of course, top-down hierarchical control.
Irony aside, this comparison got me wondering - how do volunteers and the laity normally participate in the lives of their local church in Orthodoxy? If any Orthodox readers would care to fill me in, I'd greatly appreciate it, because I think to a certain extent Bill is correct. The church should be a place where people not only connect with God, but are able to find ways to use their God-given talents to serve the Lord, serve His church and their fellow Christians.
I also spent Friday night and Saturday afternoon at a delegate session for our denomination. First, I must say that I have absolutely no stake in this group. This denomination does not have a very distinct identity, and its member churches run the gamut from very traditional conservative congregations to small rural churches to larger seeker-sensitive enterprises. So I really could not get myself very fired up about what was going on - namely re-electing our current denominational president, various elders and passing our budget. Second, and I hate to sound negative, I sat back watching all of this wondering why this relatively small denomination was so intent on going it alone. Our theology is pretty run-of-the-mill, so I don't understand why they aren't joined up with some other denomination or conference. Why are we putting the time and money into our own little organization when there would seem to be many other areas that could put them both to better use? And quite frankly, whose idiotic idea was it to schedule a 5 hour delegate session in a building without air-conditioning after a 9 hour summit day and then not serve any flippin' coffee?!?!?!?!?!
The real upside to the whole ordeal was getting to see my wife's extended family. My in-laws are 2 of the nicest people you could hope to meet, and her uncle is a real hoot. My father-in-law and her uncle both have a ton of ministry experience, so we had a good long talk over dinner about the difficulties I'm having at my current position. And my wife got to talk to her mother Saturday morning for a while, and actually brought up some of our thoughts about Orthodoxy. I didn't know she was going to do this, so I was pretty blown away that she would bring it up, especially to her folks.
8.11.2004
Radically Inclusive - Part III
Now, perhaps it is understandable why the early church was "exclusive" and why this is a good thing after all. But that was then and this is now. The church was befuddled by a pre-modern understanding of the world and restrained by obsolete cultural mores, but now we have the benefit of science and have abandoned those outdated paradigms. We have, in short, evolved, grown-up, become an adult church able to seriously reflect on our more childish past. We can now see that the early church was emerging into a largely pagan culture, so a conservative approach was necessary to make sure the church was not subsumed into the larger religious landscape. But now, the church is losing relevance in a post-Christian culture and so must turn to a more progressive paradigm in order to salvage itself and march boldly forward into the future.
Or so the theory goes, anyways. It is true that every generation must reappropriate Christianity and come to express it in terms they can understand. I think the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea is a perfect example of this. By the 4th century, the church had expanded considerably and had emerged from a back-waters offshoot of Judaism in a dirty little corner of the empire, into a more urban, educated and Gentile faith. It had grown large enough that the government had taken notice of it, and not always favorably, and the considerable weight of pagan thought was being brought to bear on the Way. Heresies within the ranks had also started to pop up, and were in serious need of redress. In short, the Church had a whole lot to deal with and needed to be decisive about it. So they have a council, come up with the creed and define the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the language used to describe the Trinity is not biblical and, if memory serves me correctly, has only scant use in patristic texts, so the question is - would the Apostles have accepted this definition? I think it is safe to say that after breaking out a dictionary, maybe a couple of glasses of wine and some prayers, that yes, the Apostles would accept it even though they may not have defined it in precisely those terms.
Every subsequent Ecumenical Council was a similar process of a taking the Apostolic deposit, and re-expressing it more precisely and more clearly delineating the boundaries of right-belief. A similar, though certainly not authoritative in the sense of the councils, process takes place with each generation. The Apostolic deposit and the accumulated understanding of the past is re-expressed, but in such a way that it does not deny that accumulation (except in the case of the Reformation, but that is a whole nother series of posts). The problem with those advocating "radical inclusivity" today is that it attempts to invalidate the understanding and knowledge of past generations. Its basically thumbing its nose at hundreds of thousands of Christians as corrupt, inept or just plain stupid. The RI church assumes it can know either what the genuine Apostolic deposit was, or that the current culture somehow re-defines the content of the deposit.
The perils of the latter are clear. If culture says slavery is fine, then the Apostles did, too. If culture says abortion is cool, then the Apostles did, too. If culture says atheism is great, then...well, that might be stretching it some, but you get my point. The unchanging standard of truth, ie God, is constantly changing based on what our particular society is doing. It also negates any serious moral critique of another culture's practices since culture is the lens through which God is viewed. The former has its own problems. How do you determine what is authentically Apostolic and what is not? How can you be sure that your determination is not being influenced by emotion or bias? Is a doctrine you don't like not Apostolic because its a later addition, or because you don't like it?
The problem with the RI church is not just that it splits from the past understanding of the church, but that it effectively separates itself from the church in history and eliminates one of the greatest treasures available to modern Christians, specifically, 2000 years of the accumulated wisdom, experience and guidance of other Christians. The paradigm that says the past was wrong, and possibly wrong to such an extent it was sinful, really stands as a final divorce from historic Christian thought. It is more than merely saying we need to re-express Christianity in meaningful terms for today - it is saying we need to invent a totally new faith. In forging out ahead, they are actually forging out alone.
Or so the theory goes, anyways. It is true that every generation must reappropriate Christianity and come to express it in terms they can understand. I think the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea is a perfect example of this. By the 4th century, the church had expanded considerably and had emerged from a back-waters offshoot of Judaism in a dirty little corner of the empire, into a more urban, educated and Gentile faith. It had grown large enough that the government had taken notice of it, and not always favorably, and the considerable weight of pagan thought was being brought to bear on the Way. Heresies within the ranks had also started to pop up, and were in serious need of redress. In short, the Church had a whole lot to deal with and needed to be decisive about it. So they have a council, come up with the creed and define the doctrine of the Trinity. However, the language used to describe the Trinity is not biblical and, if memory serves me correctly, has only scant use in patristic texts, so the question is - would the Apostles have accepted this definition? I think it is safe to say that after breaking out a dictionary, maybe a couple of glasses of wine and some prayers, that yes, the Apostles would accept it even though they may not have defined it in precisely those terms.
Every subsequent Ecumenical Council was a similar process of a taking the Apostolic deposit, and re-expressing it more precisely and more clearly delineating the boundaries of right-belief. A similar, though certainly not authoritative in the sense of the councils, process takes place with each generation. The Apostolic deposit and the accumulated understanding of the past is re-expressed, but in such a way that it does not deny that accumulation (except in the case of the Reformation, but that is a whole nother series of posts). The problem with those advocating "radical inclusivity" today is that it attempts to invalidate the understanding and knowledge of past generations. Its basically thumbing its nose at hundreds of thousands of Christians as corrupt, inept or just plain stupid. The RI church assumes it can know either what the genuine Apostolic deposit was, or that the current culture somehow re-defines the content of the deposit.
The perils of the latter are clear. If culture says slavery is fine, then the Apostles did, too. If culture says abortion is cool, then the Apostles did, too. If culture says atheism is great, then...well, that might be stretching it some, but you get my point. The unchanging standard of truth, ie God, is constantly changing based on what our particular society is doing. It also negates any serious moral critique of another culture's practices since culture is the lens through which God is viewed. The former has its own problems. How do you determine what is authentically Apostolic and what is not? How can you be sure that your determination is not being influenced by emotion or bias? Is a doctrine you don't like not Apostolic because its a later addition, or because you don't like it?
The problem with the RI church is not just that it splits from the past understanding of the church, but that it effectively separates itself from the church in history and eliminates one of the greatest treasures available to modern Christians, specifically, 2000 years of the accumulated wisdom, experience and guidance of other Christians. The paradigm that says the past was wrong, and possibly wrong to such an extent it was sinful, really stands as a final divorce from historic Christian thought. It is more than merely saying we need to re-express Christianity in meaningful terms for today - it is saying we need to invent a totally new faith. In forging out ahead, they are actually forging out alone.
8.10.2004
Unity
Daniel over at Neothelogue has been producing some good posts on Christian unity lately, and his latest is particularly good.
After detailing the biblical vision of unity, he writes:
"But to the average person without the Spirit, it sure doesn't look like there's much unity, much one-ness to the Church."
I think Daniel is only half-right here. To the average person WITH the Spirit there is still little evidence of true unity within the church as a whole. While there are certainly those who cling to ideas of an "invisible unity" or some similar concept, its obviously a delusion. How can groups that refuse to worship together be unified? How can groups that regard each other as only nominally Christian be considered part of the same body? Members of these groups who still consider each other to be unified have a very flawed definition of unity.
Daniel goes on to point out the effect Christian schism has on non-believers:
"So here's my question: If the unity God intends for Christ's Church is a "spiritual" unity, one that's not really visible to the uninitiated, then how can it reveal anything to them? How can something that cannot be sensed physically have revelatory value to people who are spiritually blind?
That's right. It can't. God, have mercy on us."
Which is, of course, the whole point. Our unity is not just meant to be something fun for us, that makes our lives easier - it is meant to be a pointer towards God. The world is meant to see the unity of our love & fellowship, and see it in a way that they realize that it can be found nowhere else. This is one of the deepest problems I am having with Protestant Christianity right now. We are not only failing to strive for unity, we are nonchalantly accepting our discord. The question I continually ask myself is one of priorities - why is this a priority and that not? For instance, why is a church plant a priority, but joint ministry with other churches not? In this case, why is unity not a priority? So far, I haven't been able to find an answer.
After detailing the biblical vision of unity, he writes:
"But to the average person without the Spirit, it sure doesn't look like there's much unity, much one-ness to the Church."
I think Daniel is only half-right here. To the average person WITH the Spirit there is still little evidence of true unity within the church as a whole. While there are certainly those who cling to ideas of an "invisible unity" or some similar concept, its obviously a delusion. How can groups that refuse to worship together be unified? How can groups that regard each other as only nominally Christian be considered part of the same body? Members of these groups who still consider each other to be unified have a very flawed definition of unity.
Daniel goes on to point out the effect Christian schism has on non-believers:
"So here's my question: If the unity God intends for Christ's Church is a "spiritual" unity, one that's not really visible to the uninitiated, then how can it reveal anything to them? How can something that cannot be sensed physically have revelatory value to people who are spiritually blind?
That's right. It can't. God, have mercy on us."
Which is, of course, the whole point. Our unity is not just meant to be something fun for us, that makes our lives easier - it is meant to be a pointer towards God. The world is meant to see the unity of our love & fellowship, and see it in a way that they realize that it can be found nowhere else. This is one of the deepest problems I am having with Protestant Christianity right now. We are not only failing to strive for unity, we are nonchalantly accepting our discord. The question I continually ask myself is one of priorities - why is this a priority and that not? For instance, why is a church plant a priority, but joint ministry with other churches not? In this case, why is unity not a priority? So far, I haven't been able to find an answer.
8.09.2004
Radically Inclusive - Part II
Which brings us to the second question; is the view of the church as "exclusive" through history accurate? There seems to be 2 views that permeate the radically inclusive camp. The first is that the Church was very inclusive during the New Testament period and perhaps for a few centuries afterwards, and the second is that things actually got screwed up pretty early on with the coming of that homophobic misogynist Paul. From a cursory review of history and a certain point of view, the first actually has a ring of truth to it, while the second - from any standpoint - is laughably ridiculous. If you take Paul at his word, and I see no reason why anyone should not, he was specifically chosen by God to be a missionary and, though it is not explicitly stated, to write much of the New Testament. For Paul's theology and ecclesiology to be a mistake, one would have to accuse God of stupidity, ignorance or downright ill-temperedness to foist such a problematic authority on the church.
So let's examine the first - the church started out following Jesus' example and did so successfully for a few hundred years, but over time a bunch of man-made traditions, mostly sponsored by power-hungry male bishops and church leaders, were heaved upon the church and a spirit of exclusionary zeal came to prominence. As I said, from a certain point of view and a skimming of history, this sounds true. By the end of the 2nd century, the church was starting to express its belief in apologetical materials, which served as exclusionary vehicles in some ways. Saying "THIS is what we believe" necessarily implies that if you believe "THAT", you are not one of us. The church was also facing some of the initial gnostic heresies, which resulted in a great deal of exclusion if you are among the Pagels' camp that thinks the gnostics had as much of a claim to orthodoxy as the Christians did. Of course, this tendency to define the limits of right-belief only became more pronounced in the face of greater and more insiduous heresies like Arianism, which came later. Was the church "exclusive"? Yes, it was. But....
But this can only be understood in the negative sense if you have a flawed understanding of Jesus and misunderstand that nature of theology. First, theology is not merely "stuff we say about God," which is a definition I have heard several times from the pomo-emergent arena. That definition moves theology from being God-centered, to being self-centered, and allows us to define God by our own predilections and tastes. A necessary move if you want to be radically inclusive, since we have already seen that Jesus was not. But, if theology is kept God-centered, then theology becomes objectively true and it is more than a mere descriptor of God-in-our-image; it describes God-as-who-he-is. Admittedly, such a definition of theology is all but impossible in Protestantism since there are so many variations. While a Calvinist or a Lutheran may truly believe that their theology is correct, their theology also requires that they acknowledge the Christianism (to coin a sour phrase) of other different-believing Christians. Such acknowledgement subtlely undermines a God-centered theology, since you are in effect admitting that the other point of view may actually be correct, thus leading to relativism. Second, God-centered theology that is objectively true and is an accurate description of God requires us to believe that right-belief is actually very important, since anything other than right-belief must be wrong! Truth becomes of paramount importance and necessitates that the church mobilize itself in defense of it. The exclusionary zeal of the church - in its apologetics, in the persecution of heresy and the definition of right-belief - is a good thing in the context of a proper understanding of theology, since anything less is compromise. In certain circumstances, one could easily argue that the church, rather than being too exclusive, was not exclusive enough!
(cont)
So let's examine the first - the church started out following Jesus' example and did so successfully for a few hundred years, but over time a bunch of man-made traditions, mostly sponsored by power-hungry male bishops and church leaders, were heaved upon the church and a spirit of exclusionary zeal came to prominence. As I said, from a certain point of view and a skimming of history, this sounds true. By the end of the 2nd century, the church was starting to express its belief in apologetical materials, which served as exclusionary vehicles in some ways. Saying "THIS is what we believe" necessarily implies that if you believe "THAT", you are not one of us. The church was also facing some of the initial gnostic heresies, which resulted in a great deal of exclusion if you are among the Pagels' camp that thinks the gnostics had as much of a claim to orthodoxy as the Christians did. Of course, this tendency to define the limits of right-belief only became more pronounced in the face of greater and more insiduous heresies like Arianism, which came later. Was the church "exclusive"? Yes, it was. But....
But this can only be understood in the negative sense if you have a flawed understanding of Jesus and misunderstand that nature of theology. First, theology is not merely "stuff we say about God," which is a definition I have heard several times from the pomo-emergent arena. That definition moves theology from being God-centered, to being self-centered, and allows us to define God by our own predilections and tastes. A necessary move if you want to be radically inclusive, since we have already seen that Jesus was not. But, if theology is kept God-centered, then theology becomes objectively true and it is more than a mere descriptor of God-in-our-image; it describes God-as-who-he-is. Admittedly, such a definition of theology is all but impossible in Protestantism since there are so many variations. While a Calvinist or a Lutheran may truly believe that their theology is correct, their theology also requires that they acknowledge the Christianism (to coin a sour phrase) of other different-believing Christians. Such acknowledgement subtlely undermines a God-centered theology, since you are in effect admitting that the other point of view may actually be correct, thus leading to relativism. Second, God-centered theology that is objectively true and is an accurate description of God requires us to believe that right-belief is actually very important, since anything other than right-belief must be wrong! Truth becomes of paramount importance and necessitates that the church mobilize itself in defense of it. The exclusionary zeal of the church - in its apologetics, in the persecution of heresy and the definition of right-belief - is a good thing in the context of a proper understanding of theology, since anything less is compromise. In certain circumstances, one could easily argue that the church, rather than being too exclusive, was not exclusive enough!
(cont)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
