All posts tagged Brian Zahnd

  • Following Jesus: A Brief Look at the Word of Life Church Story

    People are crazy and times are strange 
    I’m locked in tight, I’m out of range
    I used to care, but things have changed
    – Bob Dylan

    Come follow me.
     – Jesus

    The Word of Life Church story has been 33 years in the making. It has been a story filled with drama, mystery, certitude, and searching and seeking with an evolving cast of characters. I have been on staff, serving as the Pastor of Discipleship, for only three years, but I know the story. I attended this church in the 1990s during a  time of numeric growth and now I have the privilege of serving this church as one of the pastors during a more mature time of spiritual growth. It has been nothing more than the story of a people following Jesus.

    Our church began in St. Joseph, Missouri without much fanfare in 1981. Brian Zahnd, our lead pastor, was 22 years-old and he, and his wife Peri, hadn’t been married very long when they started the church. Brian had been leading Bible studies since he was 15 and as a young adult he was one of the leaders of a coffee house style ministry in St. Joseph. Brian and Peri started the church because they were following Jesus. They were products of the Jesus Movement of the 1970s, a nation-wide resurgence of vibrant Christian faith among young people interested in all things Jesus. Our church was born out of the hearts of people who were enthusiastically following Jesus. The atmosphere in those days was revivalistic. Jesus was capturing the attention of so many and we wanted so desperately to be a part of what he was doing. The mood was electric among the meager congregation who believed God was at work in our church.

    The close affinity between the Jesus Movement and the Charismatic Renewal led us to incorporate charismatic distinctives into our faith and practice. In the late 80s and early 90s the church began to experience numeric growth which was accompanied by changes. Staff was added. We relocated to a larger venue for our worship services. Our journey through charismatic Christianity brought us into the “word of faith” branch of that movement. We wanted to follow Jesus in what we saw him doing: preaching the gospel, healing the sick, establishing people in the victory of God, and bringing people into an authentic experience with God. By the mid-1990s the atmosphere was thick with excitement. The general tone of our preaching and teaching was one of faith and victory. It wasn’t long before we became a mega church of the charismatic word-of-faith variety. We bought land. Built (through much struggle) a large ministry complex and continued to add people who wanted to be a part of our church.

    By the turn of the century, we had experienced success as a church, at least “success” as defined by the church growth experts of the 1990s. In 2004, things began to change…again. In the midst of our outward success, there was a growing longing for something more substantive than we were experiencing. Our lead pastor had for some time been reading historical theology and the church fathers, men who were following Jesus a long time ago. He started with Augustine and then moved on to Athanasius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and the other Cappadocian Fathers. He stumbled on a deeper, richer, sacramental faith. We began to remove layers of varnish from the Jesus we were following and we found a Jesus much more compelling, much more challenging than the Jesus we knew. Without the cultural assumptions we had thrust upon him, we discovered a beautiful Jesus and a beautiful Gospel. We couldn’t stay the same; things had changed. So we packed our bags and moved on from the charismatic/word of faith movement. Some people wrestled with the changes and stayed; others wrestled and left. Jesus has continued to be gracious to us and we are beginning to see a depth of growth and spiritual formation we hadn’t seen in years past. It seems like we are growing up.

    So what has changed in the last ten or eleven years? The simple answer is much has changed, but one thing has remained consistent: our desire to take up our cross and follow Jesus wherever he is leading.

    We learned much from the charismatic movement, but we discovered that Jesus’ work is not limited to that one single stream. Jesus has been building his church for 2,000 years and it is filled with diverse beauty. We have come to discover Jesus among the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, Evangelical, and Charismatic Christians. We have rediscovered the central and essential practice of communion in our worship gatherings. We have seen Jesus in his reign over a peaceable kingdom. We have rejected the divisive “us vs. them” way of looking at people and conflicts. We have learned to be quiet and contemplative in addition to being raucous and celebratory. We have grown in appreciation of the liturgical calendar and the ancient practices that have sustained the church from the beginning. We have grown to see God’s work in community within our church instead of measuring success by the crowds at our events. We have rejected certitude and embraced mystery, while being guided by the creeds and ecumenical councils of the church. We now hear the Gospel not as the instructions on how to go to heaven when we die, but a bold proclamation of a new day, a new creation coming with the reign of Jesus as the world’s true Lord. We have learned to love the Bible as the inspired witness to Jesus who is the Word made flesh. We have not arrived, so we continue to pray the Jesus Prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. We continue to learn and grow and struggle as Jesus is being formed in us. So we wait to see where Jesus will lead us next.

    For more information on our journey, check out this interview by Trevin Wax: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2012/06/28/from-word-faith-to-the-church-fathers-a-conversation-with-brian-zahnd/

  • The Peaceable Jesus I Have Come to See: A Response to Michael Kennedy

    I am thrilled to be able to move a Twitter conversation (with its 140-character limitation) to the blog. This post is a response to my friend Pastor Michael Kennedy who leads Crosspoint Community Church in Dublin, Georgia. We began a conversation on Twitter in response to Brian Zahnd’s blog post: “What if Hitler Invaded Your House?,” a discussion on the two common objections to Christian nonviolence, i.e. what about Hitler and the Nazis? and what about an intruder in your home?

    Michael wrote a respectful, biblical critique of Brian’s vision of Christian nonviolence: “A Jesus I Don’t Recognize (My Response to Brian Zahnd)” a response which critiques Brian position. Brian and I share the same view of Christian nonviolence, and because Michael and I are friends, I gladly offer my response. (Please read Michael’s blog post before continuing with mine.)

    Michael’s critique is organized around three points:

    • Championing a Jesus of peace without emphasizing the justice of God is problematic.
    • We are both Jesus and Pilate.
    • Lasting peace will only be present when Jesus returns to set up his kingdom.

    I am not going to respond line-by-line to everything in Michael’s post, but I will respond to each of these main points.

    1) Championing a Jesus of peace without emphasizing the justice of God is problematic; true, but justice can be accomplished without war.
    Brian does preach a Jesus of peace and while he may not have emphasized justice in the blog post on home invasion or in his book A Farewell to Mars, he did address the issue of justice in Unconditional? in Chapter 6 “Forgiveness and Justice.” Justice is indeed the other side of the coin and is connected inextricably to peace. In Jesus “justice and peace kiss” (Psalm 85:10). Jesus is the one Isaiah spoke of calling him both the “prince of peace” and the one who would rule with justice (Isaiah 9:5-7). Rejecting war as a plausible means of shaping the world is not the same thing as rejecting justice. The justice of God can come upon the earth without the shedding of blood. Indeed the reign of Messiah according to Isaiah would be a rule where the “every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire” (Isaiah 9:5). Where Michael and I disagree perhaps is when Jesus’ rule begins, but I will save my comments on this disagreement for the end. The justice of God—God setting to right a world gone wrong—is connected to the Jesus’ primary teaching theme: the kingdom of God. Therefore there is no separating peace from justice.

    My question about justice is: Do we see the justice of God in Christ as more punitive or restorative? I suppose Michael sees justice as more punitive, but I see Jesus—in the tradition of God’s dealings with Israel—as promoting a justice that is restorative. More of a punitive view of justice led to Michael’s statement: “The entire reason Jesus came to this earth was to satisfy the justice of God.” This is a bit of an overstatement. It seems like Michael’s views on atonement theory (i.e. penal substitutionary atonement) has overshadowed the gospel writers’ presentation of Jesus and why he came. Atonement theories are numerous and important. I am fine with making room at the table for a certain version of penal substitution, but we cannot allow our theories to overshadow the Jesus revealed in the gospel texts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not present a Jesus whose central role in the incarnation was to satisfy the justice of God. In John’s gospel, for example, we see Jesus who comes to reveal God. “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (John 1:18). Jesus comes primarily to show us what God is like, to save the world, to be the bread from heaven that brings eternal life. In this revealing, saving work, there is justice, a condemnation upon those who do not believe (John 3:17), but not a condemnation without the declaration of love (John 3:16) and the extension of mercy.

    Furthermore, mercy-giving and peace-making are not acts of passivity. At this point it would be helpful to define some terms. By “peace,” I am referring to “non-violence” and by “violence” I mean “exertion of physical force so as to injure, harm, or abuse.” Jesus was consistently non-violent. Yes, Jesus drove out the money-changers from the temple. Yes, he turned over their tables. Yes (according to John and John only), he did so with a homemade whip in hand. My question is this: Was the actions of Jesus in the temple an act of mafia-style intimidation or an act prophetic judgment upon the temple itself? To say Jesus was trying to use force to intimidate people would be inconsistent with the Jesus we see everywhere else throughout the gospels. His actions in the temple with the money-changers were dynamic. They were demonstrative, but they were not “violent” in that he was not attempting to harm or injury anyone either physically or psychologically. Jesus’ actions in the temple would not be considered violent in his historic context. Many Galilean would-be Messiahs had already come, waged wars (armed revolts), and were dead and gone. The zealots (Jews ready to liberate Israel by violence) were popular in the day of Jesus, but Jesus did not join their ranks. Whenever Jesus was given the opportunity to use violence or sanction violence he refused. He taught us to love our enemies not kill them (Matt. 5:44). He rebuked James and John who suggested calling down fire from heaven to consume a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54). He refused to stone the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:11). He challenged the Judeans who were seeking to kill him, condemning their intentions as of the devil (John 8:44). At his arrest he shouted “No more of this!” when disciples wanted to strike with the sword (Luke 22:49-50). Then at the cross he chose the supreme act of non-violence by dying with words of forgiveness, and not vengeance, on his lips (Luke 23:45). At the cross, Jesus demonstrated for us that non-violence is anything but passive. In his suffering, he gave us an example to follow (1 Peter 2:21).

    2) We are both Pilate and Jesus; sorta, but ultimately we are followers of Jesus.
    I understand the use of the metaphor “We are both Pilate and Jesus,” but I am a bit uncomfortable with seeing ourselves as Pilate. Michael’s point is that we, as citizens as a republic-style government, are much more involved in the State than Christians in the days of the Roman Empire, so we should see ourselves as Pilate the representative of the State. Michael’s argument is: God has put the sword in the hands of the State. We, as US citizens, are the State. Therefore the sword is in our hands.

    We are citizens in a republic where we have a voice in the State, but the way the New Testament talks about the State is as an entity separate from the church. Indeed this was the Church/State relationship for the first three centuries of the church until Constantine and the subsequent merging of the Christian Church with the Roman Empire, a horrible disaster for the church which I do not have the space to address in this blog post. My point is we have to read the texts (like Romans 13) in their historical context seeing the Church as distinct from the State. If not, I fear we will misunderstand Romans 13 and other texts and miss some of the central teachings of Jesus.

    One helpful practice is to separate out the Christian “we” from the American “we,” when talking about political theology. We, the Christian “we,” should be the voice of Christ to the nation in which we reside. We should be a prophetic voice for truth and justice. We should feel free to participate (or not participate) in the politics of this nation as our consciences allow because we, the American “we,” are citizens here. BUT our core identity comes from our position in Christ. Our most primary citizenship is from heaven. Our deepest allegiance is to his kingdom. The kingdom of Christ—which is not here in fullness—is, nevertheless, a kingdom of peace as Michael noted. In the overlap of ages between this present evil age and the age to come shouldn’t we be informed by the age to come making ethical decisions based on kingdom values? I agree “it is necessary for someone to stand up against evil,” but we, the Christian “we,” can stand up against evil without violence. Isn’t this the example we see in Jesus at the cross? He made a stand against evil without a single act of violence. Can nations do this in the modern world? I think post-apartheid South Africa is a modern example of how evil can be defeated and justice be served non-violently. Of course Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi are examples too. We may indeed have to suffer. Our children may indeed have to suffer, but Jesus invited us to follow him carrying crosses—implements of execution—on the way.

    The problem with Constantinianism (and to a lesser degree the Just War Theory) is we become scripted to see war as a legitimate response to global problems. When war (or violent acts) are an option, we lack the imagination (and yes imagination, a renewed imagination, is essential for Christians who submit to a King who is ruling the earth from heaven and will come again to rule on earth) to think through non-violent solutions.

    Michael’s comment: “In every war, there is a side that is right and a side that is wrong” is a sweeping generality, which does not hold up to historical evidence. I am no expert in the history of war but from my limited knowledge it seems that Solzhenitsyn’s axiom is true: the dividing line between good and evil does not run between nations but through the heart of every human being. It seems to me that most (maybe “most” is a generality on my part?) nations in a war see themselves as “good” and the enemy as “wrong/evil.” This is the fundamental flaw of war in general, and Constantinianism (i.e. “God’s on the side of my nation”) in particular, we normally justify our acts of violence, which only fuels the ongoing cycle of war. Never has this flaw been so clearly seen as in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides see themselves as recipients of injustice. Both sides see the justness of their cause and the evilness of the enemy. Both sides sense a god-given responsibility to condone good and punish evil and so the un-banned cannonballs continue to fly and innocent people suffer. Jesus is the judge of the nations and he will judge the masters of war. When we mistakenly see ourselves as both Pilate and Jesus, we fool ourselves into thinking we can always judge the right side and the wrong side in a war. Jesus will come to judge the living in the dead. Until then, Jesus has already showed us a better way than war; it is the way of enemy-love, the way of reconciliation and justice, the way of peace. I imagine Jesus weeping now as he did as he entered into Jerusalem, lamenting that humanity has not learned the things that make for peace.

    3) Lasting peace will only be present when Jesus returns to set up his kingdom, yes, but Jesus has already begun setting up his reign through the church.
    I agree with Michael’s comment he made regarding our dual identity as Pilate and Jesus: “We submit to our government until the government requires from us what we cannot do as citizens of the God’s kingdom.” But I ask: Is the kingdom of Christ a violent or non-violent kingdom? It is a kingdom of justice (even punitive justice) and peace, but is it a violent kingdom where Jesus rules by war and violence? Scripture demands we answer “no.” I am a citizen of a peaceable kingdom and therefore I cannot, in good conscience, kill on behalf of the nation where I live. While those of us who advocate peace are accused of an over-realized eschatology those who subscribe to a Constantinianism-view of political theology can be accused of an UNDER-realized eschatology. It seems that Micahel and I are viewing things from opposite ends of the classic “already/not yet” spectrum. We may disagree to what degree the kingdom has come but we cannot disagree on the nature of the kingdom. If we are being formed by a non-violent kingdom then it follows we would live as a non-violent people.

    Before I am accused of holding to an over-realized eschatology, let me make this clear: I understand we live in a violent world. If an intruder enters my home intent on doing my family harm, I will use all the strength I have to subdue him, but I not making any plans to kill him. On a large scale, I understand we need law enforcement, men and women, who use the act of force to “condone good and punish evil,” ( I am reading Romans 13 in the context of a State policing its own citizens and not waging war against other nations), but as followers of Christ we should be the voice of moral constraint calling for the least amounts of violence as possible. We should look at acts of violence with shock and disgust. They are a part of the world that is passing away. We are being formed into the image of a peaceable Jesus who is presenting ruling over a peaceable kingdom. His kingdom will come in its fullness and so we wait and pray “May your kingdom come, may your will be done.” And until then, we embody his peaceable kingdom in the way we live, which leads us enviably down a path of non-violence.

  • Reflections on the Prince of Peace

    We are coming to the end of the second week of Advent in 2013 and the theme for this week is peace. So my thoughts this week, as we prepare ourselves for Christmas, has been upon one of the titles given to Jesus, the title “Prince of Peace.” The title comes from Isaiah’s prophecy, one of the many we evoke during the Advent/Christmas season:

    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).

    How are we to interpret the peace of which Jesus is prince? More often than not it seems like we tend to interpret this word in a sentimental way, peace as inner peace, emotional peace, or “spiritual” peace. Certainly I would not argue against the claim that Jesus reigns over his people whereby inner peace is made possible by the Holy Spirit; but maybe there is more to the peace mentioned here in Isaiah 9:6.

    If we look at the context of this reference by looking at the previous verse, we see a larger definition of the peace provided by the son who was given. The context for “Prince of Peace” is:

    for every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire (Isaiah 9:5).

    The Prince of Peace comes to rule not only over a kingdom of inner peace, but of a real, physical, nonviolent kingdom. The kingdom of the Prince of Peace is a peaceable kingdom where war, conflict, fighting, violence, force, and harm comes to an end. In other words, peace means “nonviolence.”

    Why such an emphasis on nonviolence?

    I have heard this murmured-complaint more than once. Christians understand there are other topics within the scope of Christian ethics beyond nonviolence. I agree. The Jesus Way is paved with other things to do (and not do) than rejecting the assumption of violence as a means to conduct ourselves in a fallen world, but we do live in a world of violence. Even as a write this blog post, I am listening to reports of another school shooting. This shooting has happened just today at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado in the same school district as the tragic Columbine High School shooting fourteen years ago. Another school shooting and this one on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the horrific Newtwon school shooting.  May God have mercy on us.

    Elevating the value of Christian nonviolence as a way to reduce violence in our world is noble, but my embrace of Christian nonviolence has not occurred as a knee-jerk reaction to violent shooting sprees.For me, the virtue of nonviolence has grown brighter as I have become much more serious about being gospel-driven and cross-centered. The heart of the gospel is the proclamation that Jesus has become the world’s true Lord, and indeed the Prince of Peace, by his death upon the cross. Isaiah paints the picture of his death in the vilest of terms:

    He was DESPISED and REJECTED by men; a man of SORROWS, and acquainted with GRIEF; and as one from whom men HIDE THEIR FACES he was DESPISED, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our GRIEFS and carried our SORROWS; yet we esteemed him STRICKEN, SMITTEN by God, and AFFLICTED. But he was PIERCED for our transgressions; he was CRUSHED for our iniquities; upon him was the CHASTISEMENT that brought us peace, and with his WOUNDS we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was OPPRESSED, and he was AFFLICTED, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the SLAUGHTER, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By OPPRESSION and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was CUT OFF out of the land of the living, STRICKEN for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:3-8)

    We are jumping from Advent to the end of Lent by looking toward the cross, but it will be helpful as we attempt to make sense of this peace Jesus is prince over. His throne was a cross and his inaugural celebration was a violent pain death and yet, Isaiah writes: they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth (Isaiah 9:8). Jesus committed no violent acts to deserve the death he received and he remained nonviolent in his death. At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light…the way of nonviolence is the way of peace.

    Nonviolence is not merely a good idea in response to a violent world.

    Nonviolence is an essential Christian virtue because of the cross of Jesus Christ.

    I first began to see this a few years ago. While living and pastoring in South Georgia, I began to read and listen to “America’s best theologian,” Stanley Hauerwas. (When Time magazine named him “America’s best theologian,” he responded that “best” is not a theological category! Perfect response.) I was listening to a lecture he gave at the 2007 Convocation & Pastor’s School at Duke University entitled, “Call for the Abolition of War.” I was listening to Hauerwas via podcast while driving to a birthday party and as I drew near to the house hosting the party, I heard Hauerwas say “We call for the abolition of war, because, at the cross, God in Christ has abolished war.” This statement stunned me. My eyes were beginning to see a hint of a great truth.

    My vision of Christian nonviolence has grown from reading Hauerwas and others. My understanding of Christian nonviolence has continued to develop from my ongoing conversations with my pastor, Brian Zahnd. He has been on quite a journey himself from being pro-war to embracing Christian nonviolence. He has preached on this subject and we have talked at length about it. I just finished reading a manuscript copy of his latest book where he tell his story. (The book is entitled A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor’s Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace. It will be released in June 2014.) His insight has been helpful.

    We who call ourselves “Christian” believe Jesus is our savior, the savior of the world. His saving act was to die a violent death upon a cross so we may see fully and most assuredly what God is like. We see God as the benevolent King who dies for us even while were yet sinners. We see God who would rather suffer and die than respond in violent retaliation. We see the suffering God; the nonviolent God. And in suffering for us, Jesus has left for us an example “that you (all) might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

    I understand the message of Christian nonviolence comes with a whole host of questions:
    What about self-defense?
    What about an intruder in my home?
    What about law enforcement? Police? The military?
    What about protecting my family?
    What about gun ownership?
    What about gun laws?
    What about Word War II?

    We all have our questions (I have mine too!), but before we begin to answer these questions we need to let our imaginations be shaped by Isaiah and his picture of a Prince of Peace who will reign over a peaceable kingdom, where he invites all the nations to the mountain of the LORD where “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4); where “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together” (Isaiah 11:6); where “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:9)

    Once our minds have been thoroughly renewed, then we are ready to work towards answering some of our questions. Finding solutions will be difficult, because we live at a time when the kingdom of God has come, but it is also still coming. During this in-between time we can talk about moments when force is necessary, but as faithful followers of Jesus, we must begin at the place of nonviolence. If we start from a place where violence is always an option, then we will lack the imagination to come up with nonviolent solutions. By centering our discussion around nonviolence, any act of violence would be deemed an unpleasant anomaly.

    I hope such discussions will make our world less violent, but maybe not. As Stanley Hauerwas has often said, “Christians are not nonviolent because we believe our nonviolence is a strategy to rid the world of war. Indeed our nonviolence may make the world more violent. But rather because as faithful followers of Christ in a world of war we cannot imagine being anything else than nonviolent” (paraphrase). I do not have all the answers, but one thing I do know. Jesus is Lord. He is the reigning Prince of Peace and in him do I put my trust.

  • Resurrecting my Blog

    The time has come to resurrect my blog.

    I have to make a confession. It has been (a shocking) 271 days since my last blog post. Shame. Shame. Shame. Truthfully I have not blogged much in the last two years. I want to blame my lack of blogging on my increased activity on Facebook and Twitter, but the fact remains that I have not been blogging because I have grown lazy in the discipline of writing.

    I do have some excuses. My family did move. I started a new job. My wife and I renovated a house. Blah. Blah. Blah. It is like my Spanish teacher in college would tell me when I told him that I did not have my homework: ninguna excusa (absolutely no excuse). So I am looking to resurrect my blog or rather resuscitate it. I do feel that my blogging will come to an end at some time, so this is more of a resuscitation. I have a couple of reasons for resuming the blog.

    First, I am in-between writing projects and I need the “writing exercise.”  My primary calling is that of a teacher, both verbally through preaching and teaching in the context of the local church and through writing. I have self-published two books and I am still hold out hope to get them re-worked and re-released by a mainstream publisher. Currently, I am not working on a manuscript (although if you are a publisher interested in seeing a manuscript or book proposal let me know!). While I am not working on a book manuscript, blogging serves as a great way to keep me in the habit of writing.

    Second, I have posted some good thoughts on Facebook and Twitter that could be developed into blog posts. Whenever I have sent out rapid-fire tweets with 3, 4, or 5 tweets in a row, I should have saved them and expanded them into a blog post. I may look over past tweets and Facebook posts and see if I can work them into a blog post.

    Third, I have been reading a number of blogs recently and I enjoy the medium. There are a number of Christians blogs I read regularly including Todd Rhodes, Scot McKnight, Ed Stetzer, Trevin Wax, and (my pastor) Brian Zahnd. But recently I have been reading the blogs of AT Thru-hikers. I am currently fixated on these insane folks who give up 5-6 months of their lives to hike the 2,181 miles of the Appalachian Trial from Georgia to Maine. I have enjoyed blogs here and here and here.

    Fourth, I have written a blog post for another blog that will be published next month. I submitted a post to asburyseedbed.com, the theological resourcing blog of Asbury Seminary. In writing an 800-word blog post for them, I thought “This isn’t so hard. I should do this more often.” I figure that since I am going to be a “guest blogger,” I ought to go to work on my own blog. 🙂

    So here I go. I pray for some consistency in blogging these days. I have been blogging since 2006. I started my blog to chronicle a trip to India, but the blog has really been a way to chronicle my spiritual journey. It has given me way to work out what has been going on in my heart and mind and life, as I have grown as a pastor, father, husband, and follower of Christ. So, with God’s help and encouragement to friends, here goes another attempt at the blog.

  • Discussion on the Trinity: Video Clips

    The following clips are from a live discussion I had with Pastor Brian Zahnd at his church, Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri, on Sunday morning, March 22, 2009. I do mention my book Shape Shifters a few times. The book uses the doctrine of the Trinity as a foundation for understanding spiritual transformation. In the book, I also describe why I am a Trinitiarian Christian. [More on the book here]

    Here are the clips:

    Question: What is the Trinity?

    Question: How was the the doctrine of the Trinity developed?

    Question: Why is the word “Trinity” helpful? And how important was the doctrine of the Trinity to the early church?

    Question: Why are modern Americans uninterested in theology and doctrine?

    Question: What are some of the wrong ways people think about the Trinity?

    Question: What about The Shack?

    Question: What does the Trinity say to us about community?

    Question: So how does the Trinity as a doctrine affect our daily lives?

  • Talking About the Trinity

    Last weekend, I had the privilege of speaking at Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri in a pretty unique format. WOLC’s pastor, Brian Zahnd, set up a “kitchen table” interview with me, where he asked me questions about the Trinity. This was a part of his “Engaging Orthodoxy” series, a teaching series geared towards equipping people to engage in culture by being rooted and grounded in Christian orthodoxy, i.e. right believing regarding the Christian faith.

    So we literally sat at a table on the stage and talked about the Trinity with coffee and Bibles in hand. We talked about theology, church history, baptism, creeds, heresy, orthodoxy, Jerry Seinfeld, and Bob Dylan…all in a 35 minute time slot. You can listen to the audio here. [You can also listen to the audio on the WOLC website. Click here to go to their archive audio and scroll down to “Engaging Orthodoxy – Part 4: The Trinity.”]

    Brian gave me the list of questions and like some middle school over-achiever, I diligently wrote out answers to each question so that I would be prepared. As it worked out, I didn’t get to all this material. I spent some time working on some of these answers in order to make the very complicated doctrine of the Trinity easy to understand. So here are the notes in their entirety:

    What is the Trinity?

    “Trinity” is the word that Christians use to describe who God is.

    In the Old Testament, God has revealed himself as one God.
    In the New Testament, God has revealed himself as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
    This is a bit of a mystery.

    “Trinity” is the Church’s way of preserving this mystery, that there is one God, one divine substance, revealed in three persons—the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. This was the language of the early church when speaking about God, “one substance” (Latin: substatia) and “three persons” (Latin: persona).

    The doctrine of the Trinity is a gift from the historic Church to the modern Church.

    How was the doctrine of the Trinity developed?

    The doctrine of the Trinity grew out of worship and a devotion to Scripture.
    Historically, it began with BAPTISM as you read in Matthew 28:19…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

    In the early church, baptism was by immersion, often dipping the head three times while the person being baptized stood naked in the water. (I hope that was some murky water.) If there was not enough water for immersion, pouring water over the head was permissible. The water would be poured over the head three times. (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol 2, pg. 248-249)

    It was baptism, not just in God’s name, but into the name. There is a footnote in the ESV regarding this difference in translating Matthew 28:19. From a Jewish perspective, a name relates to a person character. And so we are not just baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but into that name, into this mysterious community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    From there, the Church began to use CREEDS in order to teach Christians basics…like the Apostle’s Creed.
    Candidates for baptism would recite (or repeat) the Apostle’s Creed. The Creed was “the baptismal symbol.”
    (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol 2, pg. 248)

    The ancient creeds used a Trinitarian structure for the Christian faith.
    I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth…
    And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord…
    I believe in the Holy Ghost…
    (Apostle’s Creed)

    Then the doctrine of the Trinity really began to take form in response to HERESIES. It has been said that, “heresy is the mother of all orthodoxy.” This was particularly true in relation to the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity. There were hundreds of years of debates asking, “How is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Christian pastors wrote books and the church held Church-wide counsels and they ended up with this language: One substance, three persons, one divine essence revealed in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    How important was the doctrine of the Trinity to the early church?

    It was absolutely critical.

    The early Jesus movement was but one of dozens of new religions and it was important for the Church to clearly communicate who their God is. They were spread out through the Roman Empire who had a pantheon of gods. At first, they were considered a radical Jewish and so they had to separate themselves from Judaism. And they had a number of schisms among those who called themselves “Christians,” but disagreed on who God was.

    So it was critical that they establish the uniqueness of the Christian God, who they believed (and we believe) is the one true living God. And God as a Trinity is unique. The media will talk about the three great monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as if they are essential the same. God as Trinity is totally unique and unlike any other religious system.

    Why do you think modern Christians aren’t so interested in the Trinity?

    I think it is because many Christians in the United States are more interested in seeking God’s hand than seeking his face. They want to know, “What can God do for me?” Instead of “Who is this God?”

    Michael Horton in Christless Christianity calls this “moralistic, therapeutic deism.”
    Moralistic: people want to be better people, better husbands, fathers, employees.
    Therapeutic: We want to feel better; we want God to give us goose bumps on Sunday morning
    Deism: God is the maker of heaven and earth, but he has no contact or interaction with his creation

    Many who claim to be followers of Christ don’t want to take the time to seek God’s face in a serious way.

    And for churches like yours and mine…we are hip, young, cool, and contemporary…we want to know what God is doing now…we don’t have much interest in knowing what God has done in the first couple hundred years of the church.

    Are there dangers in our unwillingness to think seriously about doctrine?

    Yeah I think so. Look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the late middle ages.
    The Reformation of the 16th century was necessary, because the church had gotten so far away from biblical Christianity; it was a mess.

    It is easy for Christians living at anytime to absorb the values of the dominate culture.

    Thinking seriously about doctrine helps you discern biblical truth from cultural error. It is so easy to replace biblical values with cultural values.

    We are living in a consumer culture. It is easy to baptize American consumerism and make it sound Christian.
    I am not selfish and greed; I just want God to do whatever I say when I say.

    What are some of the wrong ways people think about the Trinity?

    There are essential two wrong ways of thinking about the Trinity and it is to err on one side or the other…to either see God and a monad….one in his person or to see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three Gods.

    Historically, these heresies are called modalism and tri-theism.

    Modalism sees to God as taking on three modes…wearing three masks.
    You see this presently in the United Pentecostal Church–“Oneness Pentecostals” or “Jesus Only Pentecostals”.

    Tri-theism is a polytheistic view of God. That there are three Gods.
    A polytheistic view of God is found among Jehovah Witnesses and in Mormonism.

    Both of these are heresies that have been condemned by the Church.

    Why do we call wrong thinking about the Trinity heresy?

    Ultimately we call it heresy because it is inconsistent with the teaching of the apostles, which we know as the New Testament.

    Building any kind of theological framework like the doctrine of the Trinity requires that we build it big enough to hold all of what the Scripture says about God. There is no doubt that the Scripture reveals God to be one. There is only one God. But was we look at the teachings of Jesus, he himself claims to be God. And they way Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit indicates he is God too.

    Either heresy requires us to ignore certain Scriptures are simply force them to say something that the biblical author’s did not intend.

    What are some analogies of the Trinity?

    The early church used analogies to try to describe the Trinity. Tertullian of Carthage actually coined the term “Trinity” used two in particular.

    Tree as trunk, branches, leaves
    Moving water as a river, stream, and creek.

    Some modern analogies include: Water in three forms: solid, liquid, vapor.
    Football team: offensive, defense, and special teams
    A person as husband, father, & pastor
    A hot, cherry pie cut into three large pieces

    My favorite may be an analogy from music. In a 2007 Rolling Stone interview, Bono was describing his appreciation for the Beatles. He described their music as “an intoxicating mix of melody, harmony and rhythm.” (As quoted by Roderick T. Leupp, The Renewal of Trinitarian Theology, 2008, pg. 9)

    Do analogies accurately explain the Trinity?

    No. All human metaphors fail at some point.
    Consider the music analogy. This is a good one. Melody, harmony, and rhythm are a distinct, but together they make up a song. They are three distinct faces to the one song.

    As good as this analogy is, it does have its problems when relating back to the Trinity. The orthodox position is that the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Spirit is fully God. The melody is not fully the song and harmony and rhythm alone, are not “the song.”

    There is really nothing in creation that is like the Trinity, which is consistent with what the Bible says about God. He is holy, i.e. separate, different, other.

    There is nothing in creation like the Trinity, because if there was then it would be the Trinity.

    Is the doctrine of the Trinity easy to understand?

    No, but it isn’t supposed to be. The early church began to speak of God as a Trinity not to explain the mystery, but to preserve the mystery.

    The Church confidently believes this is who God has revealed himself to be…this mysterious community of persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    It is a mystery that we embrace.
    It is a mystery that we explore.

    I grew up in Myrna Manor North, just a few miles from this building. In the back of our neighborhood there is a creek and large wooded area. The woods were mysterious…beckoned us to go exploring.

    One early church father expressed his worshipful exploration of the mystery like this:
    “No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illuminated by the splendor of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one. When I think of any one of the three I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light.”
    Gregory of Nazianzus, (330-390 AD)
    Orations (40.41)

    Should we be suspicious of doctrines which are difficult to comprehend?

    Not when it comes to God.

    A God who is easy to understand is a popular god, because it is a god we can control, a God we can master.

    But if God is the holy, infinite, eternal God as declared in the Scripture than shouldn’t he be difficult to comprehend? A God who is easy to understand isn’t a God who demands my worship. The kind of God is a god who demands my boredom. I seriously believe this is why some Christians become shipwrecked in their faith. Their god is too small.

    A difficult and demanding doctrine like the Trinity humbles us and demands our worship.

    “In the presence of this mystery, we are no longer in a position of control where we can manage or master the subject. Before this Subject, worship is more appropriate than problem solving, awe is preferable to answers. So the mystery of the Trinity ought to evoke in us humility and worship—the very attitudes necessary for entering the circle of triune fellowship.”
    —Steve Seamands, Ministry in the Image of God, pg. 103

    What does the Trinity say to us about community?

    “At the center of the universe there is a relationship.” (Darrell Johnson, Experiencing the Trinity, pg. 37)

    We know that God is love.
    (1 John 4:8)
    There is no biblical understanding of love without other people.

    You can love your car, your cat, your dog and even your goldfish, but that is not the biblical definition of love.

    It is not love without other people.

    God is love, because for eternity there has been love between the Father, Son and Spirit. These three persons have been loving each other since before there was time.

    “It is common when speaking of the Divine happiness to say that God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of Himself, in perfectly beholding and infinitely loving, and rejoicing in, His own essence and perfection…”
    –Jonathan Edwards, Unpublished Essay on the Trinity

    And this love draws me in. The Father sent his Son to build a community.
    The Father, through the Son sends the Spirit in invite us into this community, where we will never be alone.

    What about the Shack?

    The best thing that happened to The Shack, outside of an endorsement from Eugene Peterson, was all of the criticism and negative backslash it received. I am still waiting for some friends to create an Anti-Shape Shifters website to help promote my book!

    I think The Shack is a wonderful introduction to Trinitarian life. Some say The Shack has an anti-authority vibe and a very low view of the church…and I can see that. But remember The Shack is a work of fiction and not systematic theology. It has its flaws, but it is a good way to see the love between the Father, Son, and Spirit.

    Why does it matter? What does the Trinity have to do with our everyday lives?

    In Shape Shifters, I give seven reasons why I am a Trinitarian Christian. But here is one: For me, it goes back to relationships.

    I have had to confess a sin to my church. I have had a habit of running away from church members when I see them at Wal-Mart. When I go shopping at Wal-Mart, I am a man on a mission. I want to go in. Get my carefully selected items and then get out. And so I developed a habit of running from church members when I would see them at Wal-Mart. When I saw them coming one way, I would dart down an isle in order to avoid them.

    This is a sin, because I was running from the very thing I was created for…relationships, right relationships with other people.

    Why did Jesus say that the greatest command is to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves?

    Because this is a reflection of who God is. When we love one another, we are living out our “created-in-the-image-of-Godness.”

    Paul’s Trinitarian Prayer:
    I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, [17] so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, [18] may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, [19] and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3:16-19 NIV)

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    For more information about the Trinity, I recommend the following books:

    Shape Shifters by Derek Vreeland

    Experiencing God by Darrell Johnson

    Ministry in the Image of Godby Steve Seamands

    Worship, Community, and the Triune God of Grace by James Torrance

    The Renewal of Trinitarian Theology by Roderick Leupp

    I also found Dr. Michael Williams’ lectures on the Trinity to be helpful. Williams is a professor at Covenant Seminary in St. Louis. I listened to four lectures on the Trinity from his “God and His Word” series. I listened to lessons 17-20 in preparation for this talk on the Trinity.

  • Book Review: What to Do on the Worst Day of Your Life by Brian Zahnd

    What to Do on the Worst Day of Your Life by Brian ZahndThis is the book I want with me when all hell breaks loose and I am battling the worst day of my life.

    I have had some difficult days, some challenging days, some tearful days, but on the worst day of my life would somebody please hand me a copy of Brian Zahnd’s, What to Do on the Worst Day of your Life.

    This book is more of a story than a how-to guide. Zahnd retells the biblical story of King David and the tragedy at Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:1-8, 16-20, 26). He masterfully weaves the reader into the story, so that like David, we feel the heartbreak, the disillusionment, the turn-around, the grace-infused renewal, the righteous anger, the thrill of victory, the celebration of recovery, and the proclamation of hope.

    King David was having a bad day. As Zahnd tells it: David went bankrupt, had his house burned to the ground, his possessions stolen, and his entire “family kidnapped by terrorists—all in one day [author’s emphasis]” (3). For sure this was a bad day, the worst day in David’s life up to this point.

    Zahnd’s retelling of David’s story gives us an encouraging template, a heart-stirring testimony of grace and hopes, so that we cannot only endure our own worst days, but reach a place of full recovery. He peppers the retelling of David’s story with his own stories of struggle and celebration and he appeals time and time again to the Scripture. (There are 163 biblical references recorded in the “Notes” section in the back of the book.)

    As an unfolding story itself, What to Do on the Worst Day of Your Life does not offer a picture of naïve optimism or a catalyst for superficial emotionalism. This story is centered on the grace-filled message of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Like David during his Ziklag experience, Zahnd explains that Jesus cried our tears, shared in our suffering, and defeated our enemies through the cross and the empty tomb. Because of God’s gracious gift of redemption, we can join David in getting a word from God, reorienting our vision, regaining our passion, attacking, and recovering all.

    Zahnd uses not only the imagery of “success” and “prosperity,” which can so easily be misunderstood in our culture; he also uses the imagery of “beauty”and “restoration.” He writes:

    Beauty is the final objective of God’s gracious work, and ashes seem to be His favorite medium. God is the creator of beauty and a connoisseur of all that is truly beautiful. God is an artist, His canvas is creation, and in our lives tears and ashes are often His oil and clay as a He works relentlessly to make something beautiful. (110)

    According to Zahnd, God wants us to fully recover from our worst days, because salvation is “for the restoration of all things to God’s original goodness” (96). We can survive our worst days with the hope of the restoration of God’s original goodness for our lives. We can recover, but God will weave these “worst days” into our lives so we can rightly give to others and be sources of healing and encouragement for those who are suffering.

    I highly recommend What to Do on the Worst Day of Your Life. Read it before your worst day hits home. Read it on the worst day of your life and then give it to other people who are suffering during hard times.

    This book is a glowing beacon of hope in the fog of uncertainty, discontent, and suffering.

    [Brian Zahnd, What to Do on the Worst Day of Your Life. Christian Life, March 2008. ISBN: 978-1-59979-726-7. Hardcover, $14.99. To order go to http://www.worstday.net/]

    — Dr. Derek Vreeland

    P.S. Here are some of the gems tucked away in this book. These are some of the lines I underlined, lines that stirred my thinking as I read.

    “Powerful men wept until weeping had drained their power” (8).

    “Yet, the tears of God are not tears of mere commiseration. These are holy tears that lead to our liberation…” (12)

    “The leader will always be the one who can encourage himself when everyone else is discouraged. Had someone else encouraged himself instead of David, that man would have become the new leader. The ability to encourage yourself when everyone else is discouraged is an essential attribute of leadership” (34-35).

    “We live almost all of our lives in memory and imagination—remembering the past and imagining the future. We encounter the past by memory, and we encounter the future by imagination….In order to be happy, humans need healed memories and hopeful imaginations” (59-60).

    “Hope is the God way of imagining the future. A mind that is God-conscious, God-centric, and God-saturated will be full of hope” (60).

    “At the Cross:

    • The debt of sin was paid in full.
    • Humanity was elevated from the fall.
    • Satan’s dominion came to an end.
    • The curse of the law was canceled.
    • Alienation became reconciliation.
    • Hatred was swallowed in love.
    • Death was swallowed in victory.
    • The cosmos was reclaimed for God” (89).

    “Don’t let your personal tragedy or failure define your identity. Failure and loss are events, but they don’t have to become an identity. Failure and loss are things that happen to you, but failure and loss are not who you are. Your identity is defined in Christ. In your mystical union with Christ you share in His death, burial, and resurrection” (95).

    “…prophecy is not for prediction but for hope and glory” (99).

    “Through the Cross, God recovered all—for Himself, for humanity, for creation. God will restore all things through the death, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the great mystery of the Cross” (101).

    “Faith needs no other justification than the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of the Son of God is the cornerstone for every hope of recovery” (104).

    “This is the problem of being the center of your own universe but not having enough energy or substance to sustain your function as a star—you collapse in upon yourself and become a black hole” (120).

    “Remember, your times are in God’s hand. He is the artist who has promised to weave all things in such a way that in the end your story will truly be a story of beauty, a work of art, God’s masterpiece that can never be marred or touched, His beautiful tapestry of grace” (138).

  • Conference & Book Signing in St. Joe

    I returned home today from the 2008 Conference for Pastors and Leaders hosted by Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri (my hometown). The conference went well. I meet two new friends, Joe Beach & Lee Cummings. Both are pastors and we are certainly cut from the same stock. It is such a pleasure to hang out with like-minded pastors.

    The book signing went well. Here are some pictures:

    My friend Brian Zahnd, my new friend Lee Cummings, and I were the primary speakers at the conference and we each spoke on similar themes although we didn’t plan it that way. We each talked about fresh paradigms for ministry. I spoke on Charismania: Rethinking the Values of a Charismatic Subculture. The was an important message for me, because it describes why I packed my bags and left the charismatic movement. It was well received.

    Thursday night, Brian shared ten definitive statements based on his four year journey of rethinking the Christian life. He called it “My Own Reformation.” He shared ten—or nine and a half—”isms” that he has rejected in order to experience a more authentic Christian life. Here is his list:

    1) For the sake of a more authentic Christianity, I reject fundamentalism.

    2) For the sake of a more sound Christianity, I reject fanaticism.

    3) For the sake of a more peaceable Christianity, I reject tribalism.

    4) For the sake of a more biblical Christianity, I reject Gnosticism.

    5) For the sake of worldwide Christianity, I reject nationalism.

    6) For the sake of a more prophetic Christianity, I reject politicism.

    7) For the sake of a more rooted Christianity, I reject presentism.

    8) For the sake of a more kingdom-oriented Christianity, I reject privatism.

    9) For the sake of a more sacred Christianity, I reject pragmatism.

    9.5) For the sake of Spirit-filled Christianity, I reject Pentecostalism.

    I could not agree more.

  • Truly alive, fully Christian and radically human

    Christian Humanism — Can these two concepts be wed into one? Can we be both a “Christian” and a humanist? It would seem that these two philosophical positions compete for different ends and therefore could never be wedded without compromise on both sides. It would follow that a person could not be a Christian in the true biblical, historical, orthodox way and be a humanist (in the purest sense) at the same time.

    Maybe we should start with some working definitions. It may be impossible to give a complete definition of either of these weighty terms. Please accept my simple descriptions of each, so we can consider whether or not they go together.

    Christian: a follower of Christ and participant in the one, catholic and apostolic Church
    Humanism: a philosophical system emphasizing the autonomous, thinking self

    (I spend more time thinking/writing/reading/worshiping among Christians than humanists and yet I am more dissatisfied what my description of a Christian. Nevertheless, let these descriptions suffice.)

    He is a quick contrast between the Christian and the humanist.

    Christians subordinate the self under God.
    Humanists elevate the self to the exclusion of any concept of God.

    Christians know truth by faith.
    Humanists know truth by reason.

    Christians depend on outside revelation.
    Humanists depend on inside rational processing.

    Christians exist as created beings in the image of God (imago dei)
    Humanists exist as thinking selves (cogito, ergo sum)

    Christians believe human beings are essential evil in need of redemption.
    Humanists believe human beings are good in need of education.

    This brief survey does present a few points of similarity. Both groups believe in the worth and dignity of human beings. Christians find worth in humanity in that we were created in God’s image. Our worth comes from an outside, personal, creator God. Humanists find worth in humanity as an intrinsic value. Our worth comes from our own independent goodness and the ability to think and create a good society in which to live. On the surface it looks like Christians have something in common with humanists, but a second look reveals that these two positions have different starting places and different logical conclusions.

    So why are so many Christians thinking and acting like humanists?

    Perhaps it is because they are looking to be fully human. To be fully human is to be fulfilled, satisfied, to experience one’s full humanity. Sadly, some Christians have felt like the church is not a place where they can become fully human. When we reduce the Christian message to a quick ticket to heaven and an escape route from the bad place (sheol, hades, gehenna, hell, lake of fire, etc.), people are left wondering, “Is this all there is to life, preparing to go to the next life?”

    The reality is the plan of the triune God is to make us fully human.

    I have been reading Ken Kinghorn’s Christ Can Make You Fully Human and he has some wonderful things to say about this subject in chapter 4 entitled, “The New Humanity.”

    Here are just a few excerpts:

    Our failure to perceive the biblical ideal of a new humanity has consequently led us to a diluted form of Christian faith that tarnishes the image of Christianity, both for those in the church and for those who yet remain outside. pg. 46

    Thus many Christians are looking outside the faith for human experiences, spirituality and a way to experience their full humanity, when all along a new humanity is what Jesus is offering.

    God purposes to create a new humanity and both to declare us righteous and make us righteous. Scripture bears a strong witness that Jesus Christ can significantly transform the character of human life through the inner working of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament affirms that God can transform our affections and radically change us into a new humanity. pg. 49

    Christian are not just those who are “Not perfect, just forgiven….” “Just forgiven” is that all we are as Christians…. “just forgiven.” The Scripture reveals that we are forgiven and declared righteous, but also that God the Father sends God the Spirit to transform us and make us righteous after the image of God the Son. We truly become a new creation…

    This new creation does not dehumanize us, nor does it stifle our personhood; it forms the basis of a truly complete humanity. pg. 51

    We become a truly complete humanity.
    We become a completely true humanity.

    We are made complete in our humanity (fully human).
    We are made true in our humanity (authentic humanity).

    Far from blotting out our individuality, absorbing our spirit, or diminishing our personality, the Spirit of Christ raises us into authentic selfhood. He frees us to discover and express our fullest potential. When Christ’s Spirit comes to dwell within us, we become genuinely human for the first time in our lives. Jesus Christ does not make us less human, but more human! pg. 52

    God created us. He created our outside stuff (body) and our inside stuff (soul) and both are good. He is recreating our inside stuff (soul) so that we can be an authentic representation of Jesus in our own cultural context. And when Christ returns he will recreate our outside stuff (body) to be imperishable.

    The more we are transformed to look like Jesus the more we will look different from each other, because we will each be a unique representation of Jesus.

    Christ’s Spirit within us does not dehumanize us; the union of the human spirit and the Holy Spirit opens the way to our completed selfhood. Jesus as indwelling Lord makes us truly alive, fully Christian, and radically human.pg. 53

    This message is the essence of the Christian gospel.

    Jesus came to make us truly alive, fully Christian and radically human.
    Jesus comes to make us truly alive, fully Christian and radically human.
    Jesus will come to make us truly alive, fully Christian and radically human.

    Can we truly be Christian humanists? I don’t think we can, but we can be “Christian humans”…truly alive, fully Christian and radically human in Christ.

  • Favorite Dylan Albums

    I have a birthday coming up and I emailed two friends (and got information from a third friend’s blog) on their top ten favorite Dylan albums. I am still a freshman in the school of Dylan and so I am relying on the wisdom of the upper classmen. The two friends I emailed gave me a top ten list with some bonus material. The third Dylanite posted a blog about Dylan albums for every mood. Anyway, here are their lists and my next five Dylan purchases. Do you have any suggestions? What are your favorite Dylan albums?

    Brian’s Top Ten Dylan Albums
    1. Blood On The Tracks (1975)
    2. Blonde On Blonde (1966)
    3. Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
    4. Time Out Of Mind (1997)
    5. Bringing It All Back Home (1965)
    6. Modern Times (2006)
    7. Oh Mercy (1989)
    8. Street Legal (1978)
    9. Slow Train Coming (1979)
    10. Desire (1976)

    Bonus(suggested purchase order)
    Blood On The Tracks
    Live 75
    Oh Mercy
    Time Out Of Mind
    Highway 61 Revisited
    Desire
    The Times They Are A-Changin’

    Santosh’s Top Ten Favorite Dylan Albums
    1. Freewheelin’
    2. Times are a changin’
    3. Bringing it all back home
    4. Blonde on Blonde
    5. Highway 61 Revisited
    6. Blood on the Tracks
    7. Slow Train Coming
    8. Saved
    9. Infidels
    10. Oh Mercy

    Bonus (more favorites)
    11. Time Out of Mind
    12. Love and Theft
    13.Modern Times
    14. Live at the Gaslight
    AND No Direction Home DVD — directed by Scorcese

    Ben’s Dylan album for every mood
    When you’re visiting the city: Highway 61 Revisited
    When you’re visiting the country: Nashville Skyline

    When you’ve just gotten married: Planet Waves
    When you’ve just gotten divorced: Blood on the Tracks

    When you’re feeling very youthful: The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan
    When you’re feeling very old: “Love and Theft”

    When you’re in love with life: New Morning
    When you’re sick of life: Time Out of Mind

    When you’re dreaming of exotic romances: Desire
    When you’ve renounced exotic romances: Down in the Groove

    When you’re full of nostalgia: Modern Times
    When you’re full of rage: Hard Rain

    When you’ve just been born again: Saved
    When you’ve just become a pagan: Street-Legal

    When you’re feeling smooth: Oh Mercy
    When you’re feeling rough and ragged: World Gone Wrong

    When you’ve got all the answers: Slow Train Coming
    When you’ve got none of the answers: Blonde on Blonde

    Based on the recommendations of these three Dylanites, here are my next five Dylan purchases:
    1) Blood on the Tracks
    2) Bringing It All Back Home
    3) Highway 61 Revisited
    4) Blonde on Blonde
    5) The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan

    Bonus:
    Bob Dylan: Made Easy for Guitar (A songbook for hack guitar players like me that just want to play Mr. Tambourine Man for my boys to sing along!)