All posts tagged Theology

  • How Tom Wright is Saving Evangelicalism

    Well looky here! A new blog post.

    I realize that I have not been posting here very often , but I am preparing to lead a six-week small group study of The Day the Revolution Began by N.T. (Tom) Wright and I had some thoughts to share.  By the way, I am writing once a month for Missio Alliance, so if you are interested you, can follow me there.

    I am looking forward to leading people through Tom Wright’s new book on the cross. Lent is the perfect season to focus on the cross and, beyond the timing of our study, I believe Tom’s book on the cross is a game changer. I believe it will revolutionize our view of soteriology the way Surprised by Hope revolutionized our view of eschatology. I am not recording our small group study which begins tomorrow night, but I will post my notes on this blog, much like I did when I led a group of people through Paul and the Faithfulness of God. I called that small group “N.T. Wright and the Faithfulness of Paul” and it turned into a 100–page book that has humbled me with how it has helped so many people.

    This small group study will be called “N.T. Wright and the Revolutionary Cross” and I will post notes on this blog over the next six weeks. And maybe, just maybe I will turn it into a reader’s guide. We shall see.

    As I was preparing my small group study, I began to realize the significance of Tom’s ministry. (I do call him “Tom,” because not only is he my theological mentor…and bishop!…I consider him a friend, even if we have only exchanged a few emails over the last couple years.) I do not believe there is another theological voice that is more widely heard than Tom Wright. I have friends from lots of different traditions and denominations and I can say quite confidently that no one else writing and lecturing in New Testament studies has more of a predominate voice than Tom. The emergence of N.T. Wright Online has expanded Tom’s influence, giving him an even broader audience access to his teaching.

    What excites me more than anything is that I believe he is saving evangelicalism and his timing could not be better.

    Evangelicalism Needs Saving

    Today the term “evangelical” refers to a voting block in the United States, determined by a very select few issues in the very present “culture wars.” For many evangelicals the title has become polluted and vandalized to the point that many do not want to be labeled “evangelical.” Fine with me. Don’t call yourself an evangelical if you don’t want to, but for those of us who have found a theological and ecclesiastical home in evangelicalism, let’s not throw away our evangelical heritage with values rooted in personal conversion, a high view of Scripture, and the necessity of mission.

    Many of us who have a theological perspective shaped by Tom Wright have been called “post-evangelicals,” but such a designation is not helpful. This label attempts to define what we have left behind, but doesn’t define who we are. Furthermore “post-evangelicalism” has many different expressions including progressives, neo-sacramentalists, neo-Anabaptists, etc. These Christian expressions have cross pollinated and have left outsiders confused. It is not so much that we have left evangelicalism behind, rather we have left behind sectarian fundamentalism, biblicism, and the “religious right,” three ideologies that have overtaken popular expressions of evangelicalism. Indeed these three ideologies are killing us.

    • Sectarian fundamentalism turned conversion into a formulaic experience of “getting saved.”
    • Biblicism turned our high view of Scripture into the impossible task of forcing the beauty of Scripture into a compressed flat text of points and principles.
    • The “religious right” hijacked our mission and led us in the way of constantinism, the faulty attempt to change the world through legislation and partisan politics.

    Evangelicalism is sick and in need of a doctor. I believe Tom Wright may be exactly what we need. Maybe he is saving evangelism or maybe as Alan Bean argues, he is saving Christianity.

    So how is Tom Wright saving Evangelicalism?

    Wright has given us a better eschatology.

    We have suffered too long with a shrunken view of salvation whereby we have wrongly assumed Jesus came to save us in order to take us to heaven when we die. Over the years I have challenged people to show me in the New Testament where Jesus or the Apostles clearly taught such a thing. I have searched and it is simply not there. The thief on the cross was promised to be with Jesus in paradise. Jesus said in his Father’s house there are many mansions. He said he will go and prepare a place for us and we will be with him when he comes again. Lazarus was taken to “Abraham’s bosom,” and Paul mentions to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I may have missed a few, but these are the brief references to an experience of what we call “life after death,” but what Wright has shown us is that the overwhelming emphasis in the the New Testament is that Jesus came to offer us new life, eternal life, the life of the age to come, which is life after life after death. This new life is a part of God’s new creation project which is not about taking people from heaven to earth, but about bringing heaven to earth whereby heaven and earth will be conjoined once again. Once we adopt this much more biblical view of the end, the rest of our theology begins to change because eschatology is not the caboose at the end of the train. It is the theological engine that drives the entire enterprise.

    Wright has given us a more coherent way to read the story of Scripture.

    God has had one plan to rescue the world. God initiated his plan through Abraham and brought it to its termination point through Jesus. While Christians divide up Scripture into the Old and New Testaments, Wright has argued that this is one continual story that needs to be read together. As we work to understand specific passages of Scripture, Wright has taught us to look at the particulars in light of the whole. In this regard we can see Scripture tells as a five-part story:

    1. Creation
    2. Corruption
    3. Covenant
    4. Christ
    5. New Creation

    God has created the world and all that is within it. He created human beings to reflect his image into his world and reflect back creation’s praise to its creator. Humanity failed to be God’s image-bearers and thus failed to care for God’s good world. The corruption of sin in the forms of idolatry and injustice entered and marred all of creation. God did not give up on his creation project, but sought to set right a world gone wrong beginning with a covenant God made with Abraham. The children of Abraham became Israel, the people of God. They were given the Law to form them into a people of worship and justice, but they too fell under the corruption of idolatry. Jesus came as Israel’s Messiah to bring Israel’s story to full completion. Jesus dies for our sins and is raised from the dead to offer new life to those who would repent and believe this good news. The gathering of those who follow Jesus stand within the broken world as the people of new creation, awaiting the appearing of King Jesus who will come to complete the new creation project.

    Wright has given us a better way to read Paul.

    The Apostle Paul has been read and interpreted in various ways since the Protestant Reformation. Often Paul has been read in a way disconnected from Jesus and disconnected from the story of Israel. Wright has given evangelicals a tremendous gift in giving us a reading of Paul’s epistles that is connected both to Jesus and Israel. Paul was first and foremost a Jewish thinker who wrote using Jewish language, Jewish metaphors, and most importantly Jewish Scripture. When we come across Paul writing about justification, works of the law, righteousness, and other theological terms critical to evangelical theology, we interpret them not in the context of the anxieties and issues of the 16th century, but within their covenant Jewish context. Justification by faith is not so much a right standing with God as it is God’s act of declaring us to be withing God’s righteous covenant family. The larger thing happening in Wright’s interpretation of Paul is that he is connecting together history with theology. All theology is biblical theology and all good biblical theology is historical theology. Wright’s better way of reading Paul has taken us to the triple peaks of monotheism, eschatology, and election, rooting election-language not in the fatalism of a God who predetermines who is saved and who is damned, but a God who gathers a group of people to bring light and salvation to the world.

    Wright has brought together the academy and the church.

    When I was a seminary student at Oral Roberts University in the mid 1990s, the world of academic theology opened up a new world to me and I could not read fast enough to absorb everything I wanted to explore. I spent countless afternoons in the office of Dr. Dorries, our church history professor, wrestling with God’s call for my vocational life. I entered seminary with a desire to enter church ministry as an evangelist or pastor, but my first taste of theology had me thinking about a career as a scholar. Dr. Dorries did his Ph.D. work at the University of Aberdeen and he helped me think through post-graduate studies. At one point I declared a double major, adding a M.A. in Historical Theology, to prepare for Ph.D. studies, but soon after I dropped the second degree. As much as I love the work of the academy, I knew my calling was to serve the church. Wright, as much as any scholar working in the area of New Testament studies, has been able to bring together the academy and the church. He has been able to lecture and write, teach and preach, in both the lecture halls of the some of the most elite universities in the world and in parishes and local churches in the UK and the US. He writes and speaks with the mind of a scholar and the heart of the pastor reminding us we need both. We need scholars and pastors and the academy needs the church, just as much as the church needs the academy.

    Wright has given us a renewed vision of the cross of Christ.

    Throughout his career Tom has gone back and forth from Paul to Jesus and back to Paul. He started with Paul. His Ph.D. was focused on Romans. He has written extensively on the historical Jesus. For me How God Became King maybe his most significant book in that regard, while other may look to The Challenge of Jesus or Simply Jesus. He spent longer than we all expected to finish up Paul and The Faithfulness of God, which people are still trying to digest. And now he has turned his attention to the cross in his latest work How the Revolution Began. He has been dodging the subject of atonement theories for years. I remember reading Trevin Wax’s 2007 blog post “Don’t Tell Me N.T. Wright Denies Penal Substitution,” when I was working on understanding atonement theories myself. Finally Wright has answer the question of atonement is this stunning new book. I believe the cross is central to an evangelical vision of church life and mission and I believe Wright’s vision of the cross will help us move forward from stale fundamentalism into a new era of evangelical life where we know nothing except Christ crucified.

    So what does Wright think about the cross? Follow my blog posts over the next six weeks for a summary of his fascinating book.

    Thanks to Ben Mulford for carefully proofreading the first draft of this blog. 

  • Book Review: How Jesus Saves the World From Us

    How Jesus Saves the World from Us_book image copy

    Morgan Guyton is on a journey.

    He has left behind Christian fundamentalism with its debilitating toxins and has trekked his way through the expanse of God’s wide-open grace. His book How Jesus Saves the World From Us serves, in part, as a chronicle of that journey. He does not presume to have arrived, as many of his humble, self-deprecating stories reveal. He is following Jesus with sincerity and intent and has shared with us what he has gained from his experience. Parts of what he has learned on his journey resonates with my own story. In these sections, I found myself applauding Guyton. In other parts of the book, I found myself scratching my head as I failed, at times, to connect the dots as he offers a better way to live the Christian life than the narrow confines of ugly fundamentalism. A few times I found his anecdotes and illustrations distasteful. In these sections I felt my attention distracted from the richness of the solutions he was offering. In the end, much of the valuable insights in this book are overshadowed by a dualistic, polemical tone that is a toxin of its own kind. It seems this book is an attempt to be prophetic in the Hebrew tradition of prophets. In Prophetic Imagination, Walter Brueggemann makes the case that Hebrew prophets both energize and criticize the people of Israel through their acts of prophecy. In the case of How Jesus Saves the Word From Us, Guyton seems to be far too critical and far less energizing in most chapters.

    Strengths of the Book

    Let me back up a few steps and draw out some of the strengths of this book. First, Guyton writes from a Christ-centered and Church-centered perspective. This is a book for the church, for those who are serious about following Jesus and working to support the work of Jesus in building healthy churches. One of the strongest chapters in the book is “Servanthood, Not Leadership.” Guyton writes:

    “When Christian leaders structure their churches around their need to feel important, they are creating cancer in the body of Christ. What would our Christian communities look like if our leaders truly sought to define themselves primarily as servants?”

    He rightly identifies the rampant self-ambition in church leadership and offers a Jesus-model of leading through servanthood. Other chapters have equally strong solutions which will promote church health.

    Second, he consistently draws upon love as the supreme ethic whereby we can identify and remove the toxins in the church. For example, in the chapter entitled “Honor, Not Terror,” he describes the fear of the Lord not in terms being scared of God, but honoring God and honoring the God-image in other people. He uses the story of Huck Finn who goes against his cultural and religious upbringing to show kindness to his friend Jim, the slave, even if such kindness will “send him to hell.” Guyton writes:

    “Fearing God is not being afraid of what God will do to me, but afraid of what I might do to Jesus.”

    This helpful corrective rightly classifies the fear of the Lord as a kind careful respect, locating Jesus in and among the suffering and the oppressed.

    Third, the chapters in this book are written from the vantage point of a life lived in honest pursuit of Christ and his kingdom. Guyton has no pretense in telling his stories, stories of pain and stories of transformation. Never is this transparency more clear than in the story he tells about encountering poverty while on vacation in Mexico. A young five-year old girl in a dirty dress is begging Guyton to buy a doll from her. This encounter wrecked him. This moment was when he claims he “got saved.” Stories like these are raw and honest and lend credibility to many of the solutions Guyton offers the church.

    Weaknesses of the Book

    For all of it’s strengths, I found How Jesus Saves the World From Us riddled with weaknesses which honestly surprised me. First, the book is trapped within a dualist, “us vs. them” paradigm. The overarching theme throughout the book, as captured in the title, is that the church, primarily the evangelical American church, is filled with toxic practices and beliefs hindering the brightness and beauty of the gospel. Guyton argues for solutions to these toxins as way for God to save the world from us and our unhealthy ways. Sadly this dualistic theme (the world against us) undercuts the many helpful solutions Guyton offers because it pits the world against the church, or at least the unhealthy church. The classic Wesleyan vision is of God at work among his people for the sake of the world, and not, as Guyton positions things: God saving the world from his people. This dualism, the world against the people of God, filters into a number of issues dividing progressive and conservative evangelicals.

    For example, in the chapter on “Outsiders, Not Insiders” Guyton argues that Jesus was not a religious “insider,” but that he associated with the “outsiders” (i.e. sinners). He creates a false dichotomy here in that Jesus was both a religious Jew who came as a fulfillment of the Law to be Israel’s Messiah (as an insider) and he was fulfilling Israel’s vocation to bring the light of salvation to the sinful Gentile world (as an outsider). Guyton does rightly advocate for the church to embrace the outsider, but he does so from a dualistic point of view. When speaking of the church’s response to the LGBT community, a sensitive and delicate topic among progressives and conservatives, he creates an unhelpful divide. He confesses that he has “almost given up on trying to argue (that being “queer” isn’t sinful), because it seems like so many insider Christians are so invested in their anti-LGBTQ stance that it’s become their litmus test for Christian identity.” The language here sadly reveals the antagonism between progressives and conservatives causing ongoing disintegration in the conversation in the church on how to best love our LGBT neighbors. If I stand with the great tradition of the church in defining marriage as a sacred, male plus female relationship, which I do, then am I anti-LGBT and against their community? He has already defined Jesus in this chapter as an outsider, which implies I am an insider not only opposing a community of people for their sexual orientation, but I am opposing Jesus. This kind of unhelpful polemic only creates greater divide in the body of Christ. I too do not want to argue with gay-affirming evangelicals, because arguments and debates seldom produce the love Jesus commands of us.

    Second, I found some of Guyton’s anecdotes and illustrations cynical and at times distasteful. I sense that Guyton is attempting to be provocative, but I felt he pushed some metaphors too far. He mentions yelling at his kids, teenage boys who are “horny and incapable of controlling themselves,” a girl who was molested by Bill Gothard, and worship through fasting as an “erotic experience,” an illustration to which he adds the disclaimer: “as icky as that may sound.” Yes it was icky. He should have left that one out. These are examples in just the first three chapters. I found these and other anecdotes distracting me from some of the great points he was making. For example the worship through fasting description is in the context of a larger metaphor for hearts that need to be emptied of clutter more than they need to be cleaned. And while I think this metaphor is a false dichotomy (I think we need both a decluttered heart and a clean heart), it is a helpful way for us to think through the difficult subject of sanctification.

    How Jesus Saves the Word From Us is a mixed bag. There is so much I loved about this book and so much I disliked. In the end I think there are better, more constructive, ways to root out the pathogens in the modern American evangelical church. The ancient Church has given us ways through prayer and conversation to root out those things hindering the work of the gospel. It begins with prayer, contemplative prayer, rising above the harsh dualisms of “good guys” and “bad guys,” “right Christians” and “wrong Christians.” Guyton loves the church and I appreciate his work in calling us to greater faithfulness to the mission of Jesus, but solutions tainted with dualisms fail to bring about their intended cure.

  • NT Visits KC

    NT_Wright

    N.T. Wright speaking at Christ Church Anglican (Overland Park, KS)

    Yesterday was (for me) N.T. Wright Day, the long awaited day when I had the opportunity to both meet and listen to N.T. (Tom) Wright lecture live in person. In looking forward to this event I felt like a 14 year-old girl preparing for our One Direction concert. In meeting Tom, I felt like a pastor from the 20th century meeting Karl Barth. I think Tom Wright is important. In a hundred years when the history of theology is written about the early 21st century, I think Tom Wright will stand head a shoulders above the rest as the most influential theologian of our generation.

    I thoroughly enjoyed both the morning and evening lecture. Ellis Brust and the St. Mellitus Theological Centre did a wonderful job hosting the event. Hats off to them and the staff and volunteers of Christ Church Anglican for their hospitality and work in putting together the logistics for this one-day event in such a short time. They announced the event a couple of months ago and it sold out in three weeks.

    While thoughts are still fresh in my mind, I want to share some of the notes I took from both lectures. As all Tom Wright devotees know, he talks fast. He spits forth truth with rapid-fire accuracy. There is no way I can transcribe the entirety of his lectures, but I can share a few notes.

    The evening lecture was a hurried overview of his massive work on Paul’s theology, Paul and The Faithfulness of God. I am finishing the book during Lent. I should be done by Easter Sunday. My goal is to create an extensive outline of the book over the summer and then teach a 10-12 week class on the book in the fall. Tom has interpreted Paul for the church and I want to interpret Tom for you. So if N.T. Wright has left you wanting more, hold on. A class is coming soon to Word of Life Church.

    Here are some of my takeaways from N.T. Wright Day at the St. Mellitus Theological Centre in KC.

    Morning Lecture

    The Gospel is good news. We cannot assume people are asking the questions that make the good news really good news. People in the Western world today are not walking around asking, “How can I know I am saved and am going to heaven when I die.”

    The gospel is a new way of looking at the world.

    The resurrection is like a strange, but beautiful gift that causes us to remodel our house to be shaped by it.

    The gospel is scandalous and foolishness, but to those of us who believe it is the power of God.

    We need to preach the gospel more than prove it. We do not need to prove it according to the values of Western rational enlightenment.

    The word “god” is a question mark in our culture. Often when people say “I don’t believe in god,” we should say “I do not believe in that kind of god either, I believe in the God revealed in Jesus Christ.”

    God is not distant. (Deism/epicureanism are the dominate views of god in our world.)

    There are many tombs to the unknown god in our world.

    Jesus reveals God. Jesus exegetes God for us.

    Many people in our culture have a passion for justice. We can capitalize on this passion as justice is connected with the Gospel.

    Liberal democracy has NOT brought us utopia.

    Western democracy does not have a narrative to do justice. Progress, yes. Justice, no. God is about bringing a new world of justice and peace. (Isaiah 11)

    We need not a happy triumphalism over the other ways of being human, but a travail in prayer with those who suffer. (This is a picture of doing justice.)

    The 18th century dismissed political theology. Religion was to be private, spiritual, and about heaven. The thought was “let us enlightened, reasonable human beings figure out how to run the world.”

    The church is to speak to power. (The cross was the voice of justice to the powers that be.)

    We get our atonement theology in the redefinition of power.

    We have idolized our modern culture. We have become smug and self-serving.

    Christianity is rejected by modernism and postmodernism for different reasons. They both deny the Christian narrative. We say history turned a corner not in the 18th century age of enlightenment, but at the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Postmodernism rejects all meta-narratives. Postmodernism never sees a turn in human history.

    The big story of Christianity is not a power story but a love story.

    Thoughts from the Q&A after the morning session….
    Paul layers the Jewish narrative for us in Romans that we look through in order to see his point.

    Romans 7 is a retelling of Israel’s story/struggle.

    In a strange way, Israel was to be the Isaiah 53 people suffering in order to bear God’s image.

    Evening Lecture

    Everywhere St. Paul went there was a riot. Everywhere I go they serve tea.

    Paul pitched his tent near the fault lines between Jewish culture, Greek philosophy, ancient religion, and Roman politics.

    God’s new creation has launched through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

    In starting communities loyal to Jesus, Paul started a new discipline, what we call Christian theology. This is the central thesis of Paul and the Faithfulness of God.

    Diverse people come together to be a family in Christ, holy and united, and they need to be sustained by something new…new symbols.

    Paul believes unity happens as these communities practiced what we call “theology.”

    Jews did not do theology, not the way Christians did/do.

    Be ignorant of evil, but be mature in your thinking.

    After Paul says everything he has to say in Romans 1-11 about the Gospel, Jesus’ death, justification, the unity between Jews and Gentiles, etc. he then says in Romans 12 “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

    People take doctrinal questions to Paul (and he does in fact have many answers to these questions), but Paul does not simply want to give us a list of answers he wants us to teach people to think Christianly.

    Teach a person to think Christianly and you will build up the church for generations to come.

    Every generation needs to think fresh and new, to face new challenges in the light of Christ.

    Christianity is a new sort of knowing. It is a new epistemology. 2 Corinthians 5 calls this “new creation.”

    Every person in Christ becomes a little model of new creation.

    God is not an object in our universe; we are objects in his universe. He wants us to become thinking objects in his universe, thinking according to a new kind of knowledge.

    What does it mean to be a human being? We reflect God’s love and stewardship to the world, and then we return back the praises of creation.
    God wants people not puppets.

    What is launched in resurrection is transformation.

    Paul’s writing is rooted in Scripture, Paul may quote a line from Hebrew Scripture, but he has the entire context in mind. He was not proof-texting the Old Testament to prove things like justification by faith. Rather, in Romans, he was thinking about the entire Jewish narrative.

    The whole world is to be God’s holy land.

    Genesis 15: Abraham – This is God’s plan to save the world.

    Biblical theology is narrative theology. How does the narrative work? We are invited to participate in it.

    Daniel 9: Daniel’s prayer in exile

    Combine Daniel’s prayer with the expectation of covenant renewal (Deut. 30) and the promise of a new covenant (Jer. 31) and we see the Jewish expectation in Paul’s day. They were expecting liberation and new way of living as the people of God.

    First century Jews were not asking, “How can I know that I will go to heaven and not hell?” They were asking questions about the renewal of the covenant.
    What Israel thought would happen at the end of the age, happened in the middle to one son of Abraham.

    Exodus is retold by Paul, rethought through Jesus and the Spirit.

    Ezekiel 1 is a vision of God’s throne; God taking off (abandoning) the temple.
    Ezekiel 43 speaks of the return of God to the temple.

    Isaiah 40 speaks of the time when the glory will come back.

    First century Jews looked for the return of Yahweh to Zion and none of Israel’s prophets said it has happened yet. It was still a future event. John announces “IT HAS HAPPENED!” John 1. The Word became flesh and tabernacle among us.

    Paul says in him dwelt (this is temple language) the fullness of the God bodily.

    In order to understand Paul, be so soaked in Scripture (Old Testament) that you know where Jesus is going.

    1 Corinthians 8:6: Shema language: The LORD is one. The answer to what to do with eating meat is found in doing theology. God is one. One Lord Jesus.

    Philippians 2: Jewish monotheism and layers of theology

    “Work out your own salvation.” This is not a call to pull yourself up by your bootstraps…rubbish!

    Paul’s task: The new vision of God seen in Jesus and the Spirit.
    Galatians and Romans: A new story of Exodus

    Romans 8: “led by the Spirit” is language from the exodus (pillar of cloud by day / pillar of fire by night)

    Theology is the central task of the church.

    Election: Who are the people of God?
    In Paul, election is renewed. God has ONE family. (Galatians 3) A new people who inherit the promises given to Abraham.

    Justification: not a mechanism for going to heaven

    God’s purpose is to put the world right. This action requires God putting people right.

    Start with God’s people redefined through Jesus and that helps sort out theological problems related to justification.

    Every Christian must learn how to think through:
    MONOTHEISM
    ELECTION
    ESCHATOLOGY

    Eschatology in Paul has little to do with the American fascination with the rapture. A caller to a radio show asked: “How does Mr. Wright think he will get to heaven if he is not raptured?”

    Phil 3: Our citizenship is in heaven, but we are to colonize the world with the culture of heaven.

    Paul redefines monotheism, election, and eschatology around Jesus and the Spirit. This is all political dynamite.

    Power gets redefined around the cross.

    Acts 17: Paul in Athens. He spoke longer than 2 minutes. He probably spoke for 2 hours or more. He navigates between religion and philosophy in order to preach the gospel.

    Theology is joined up for Paul in prayer.

    Romans 9-11 opens with a lament and closes with praise, just like many of the Psalms.

    Paul includes his own prayers in his writing to the Ephesians.

    Our theology does not lead us to know it all, but it leads us to worship.

    Me and Tom, my theological mentor

    Me and Tom, my theological mentor

  • Thinking God’s Thoughts After Him

    It is day 26 of Lent. We are more than half-way through our journey to Easter. During this Lenten season I have done a lot of thinking. In a curious sort of way, I have been thinking about thinking or the lack thereof in many pockets of evangelical Christianity. Perhaps my thinking about thinking was sparked by Mark Noll’s scandalous opening to The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, where he writes: “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Or maybe it was Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible (I have added this book to my Lenten reading list) that has been challenging me to think about how I view Scripture. Maybe this thinking about thinking has come from N.T. Wright who is causing me to think about Jesus in his historical context in Simply Jesus. Or maybe it is because Lent is a time to reflect (thinking backwards) on the suffering of Jesus.

    Maybe it is just me.

    I admit that I have an intellectual bent. It is the sacred pathway I feel most comfortable walking down. Loving God with my mind stands out in the command to love God with all of our heart, soul, MIND, and strength. I have a bias towards an intellectual approach to the Christian faith; I admit it. I like books. I like books with footnotes. I like books with footnotes and big words that I have to look up in the dictionary. I like being challenged with thoughts that undermine my assumptions. I like connecting ideas in a new way. Engaging the faith with intellectual fervor is natural for me, but it is also a necessary component in following Jesus Christ. We are challenged in Romans 12 to allow our minds to be renewed:

    Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2)

    Paul was not a detached, professional theologian disconnected from the life of the church or the life of the Spirit. He experienced spiritual gifts such as the ability to speak in tongues, but he said he would rather speak five intelligible words in the church so those who worship Jesus could mature in their ability to think:

    Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. (1 Corinthians 14:20)

    All of this talk about thinking is not simply to make people smarter or more educated, but to make people more devoted to Jesus Christ:

    But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3)

    So here are my somewhat disconnected, somewhat related, thoughts about thinking.

    • Thinking about God is the Christian art of meditation, an ancient Christian practice.

    • Thinking about our own soul is subordinate to thinking about God. When we think about ourselves we do so with a lowly mind. We think of others as more important than ourselves. We call that “humility.” And humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less.

    • As our minds are renewed by the Spirit, we begin to change our way of thinking. The Spirit enables us to set our minds on things above where Christ is seated.

    • The 17th century German astronomer Johannes Kepler wrote, “I was merely thinking God’s thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”

    • Thinking good thoughts about God is not worship; worship is something we do. However worship proceeds from and leads to fruitful thinking.

    • Thinking is an internal monologue, a way we talk things out within ourselves. Is this a reflection of God’s inner dialogue within himself, the eternal conversation between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Maybe.

    • Our ways of thinking form a worldview, a lens by which we interpret the world around us. When we awake to our thought life we can begin to understand the difference between perception and fact, and begin to see things from another person’s point of view.

    • “The mind that is not baffled is not employed. The impeded stream is the one that sings.” – Wendell Berry

    • When we think in reverse we tap into our memories. When we think forward we tap into our hopes.

    • When listening to others we can choose to accept the information we are receiving, but this requires little thinking. We activate our thinking when we ask questions, when we challenge assumptions behind what they are saying, when we weigh the merits of the evidence they offer to make their point.

    • Jesus challenged us to think with his oft-quoted phrase: He who has ears to hear, let him hear. He very easily could have said: He who has a mind to think, let him think.

    • Thinking allows us to sort out truth from rhetoric, that is the “way things are” from the “way we would like things to be.”

    • To grow in your capacity to think requires you to expand your vocabulary. Learning new words increases your ability to think and understand. This is hard work.

    • “Kindness in words creates confidence. Kindness in thinking creates profoundness. Kindness is giving creates love.” – Lao Tzu

    • There are limits to our thinking, no doubt about. We are finite beings dependent upon the Infinite One to reveal truth to us. Our thinking can only take us so far, but it can take us much farther than self-assured ignorance.

  • Incarnation: Holding on to Our Tradition

    An appreciation of tradition puts us on the road towards humility.

    Pride listens to the council of self-reliance. You don’t need to know how we got here.
    Just do your thing. Like a 17 year-old rock n’ roller, who wants to start a garage band, but knows nothing of Hendrix, the Beatles, Clapton, Dylan, the Stones, Queen, Zeppelin, Chuck Berry, BB King, and the like.

    We do what we do today because of tradition. We are standing on the shoulders of giants. We are only able to break out and do something unique (and new?) because of the tradition we are standing on. To reject tradition, to ignore it and give it the proverbial stiff arm is to walk the road of pride which always leads to destruction.

    Our faith as 21st century followers of Jesus, is built on a tradition.

    A nearly 2,000 year tradition built upon creeds, councils, prayers, sermons, wars, sacrifice, bloodshed, tears, celebration, and worship. We cannot lose what those in this historical church have given us. John the apostle writes in his second letter: “Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward” (2 John 8).

    While John may have been talking about many things, there is no doubt that he was talking about the Gospel and specifically the incarnation.

    The incarnation is the fact that Jesus, who was the eternal Son of God, became a man. In becoming a man, he did not cease in being God. He was, and is, fully God and fully human.

    We do not have to work as hard today to communicate the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real human being. Ancient historians have documented his brief life. The Jewish historian Josephus calls him a sophos aner, a wise man. We spend much more time communicating the truth that Jesus of Nazareth is God’s own son and the Savior of the world.

    Nevertheless, we cannot lose this great doctrine of the incarnation. If we do, we lose the very heart of the Christian story. Here are ten reasons why the incarnation is so important.

    1. Creation
    Incarnation reminds us that God’s creation is good. Even though all of creation has been twisted by sin, the goodness of God has not been eradicated. We can still see God’s divine attributes in creation. We can still encounter God in nature, because the mountains, and trees, and flowers, and roaring oceans speak to us of God’s grandeur and holiness.

    2. The Body
    Incarnation reminds us that our physical bodies are good. We are a body as much as we are a spirit. There was a teaching that was popular in evangelical circles not too long ago that made the case that we are a spirit ( a spiritual being), that has a soul (whatever that means), who lives in a body. This is much closer to Greek philosophy (Platonism) than biblical Christianity. Our physical bodies are a part of who we are. We are not real human beings without our human bodies. We do have an immaterial component to our human nature, but to be a “spirit” without a body is to be exposed and naked.

    3. Salvation
    God’s salvation includes the salvation body. God’s desire is to save both our material selves and immaterial selves, both our spirits and our bodies. We do not “get saved;” we are being saved, rescued, and transformed. We currently in a process of spiritual transformation and when Jesus returns, we will experience physical transformation as our bodies our resurrected. Bodily resurrection at the end is foreshadowed now as God continues to heal people physically through his Church.

    4. The Kingdom of God
    God’s kingdom is physical. To say God’s kingdom is spiritual is to relegate it to mysticism or folk religion. For some time I would say that God’s kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, which confused the early disciples who were expected a political kingdom. However, what I meant by “spiritual kingdom,” is that the kingdom of God is not a militant kingdom. Jesus has waged war on a world gone wrong with the weapons of love and forgiveness and not guns and bombs. At the incarnation, God’s kingdom has broken into human history and it continues to expand as a physical kingdom through the Church.

    5. Morality
    What you do in your body is important. What you do physically affects you spiritually. There were people in the Apostle John’s churches who had left the orthodox faith, because they said they had not sinned (I John 1:10). They reasoned that since Jesus did not have a real body, then we could do anything we wanted to in our bodies without consequences. John argues against such theological nonsense. Jesus came in a real human body in order to transform all creation because of man’s sin (committed in physical bodies).

    6. Redemption
    God regained in the body what was lost in the body. Sin is physical and obedience is physical. Adam disobeyed, but Jesus obeyed. As Gregory of Nazianzus, the fourth century church father, put it: the unassumed is the unredeemed. That is, if Jesus Christ did not assume a real human body with a real human mind/spirit/will, then nothing of humanity can be redeemed.

    7. Revelation
    God chose to reveal himself in the incarnation. The word that the Bible uses for reveal or revelation means to “pull back the curtain. In the incarnation we see God in real life. Not God not a mystical religion, but God in human terms. He chose to reveal himself in a way so that we could begin to understand his character and nature.

    8. Demonstration
    Not only do we see who God is, we also see how we ought to be as human beings. Jesus is our example of a human living out his humanity to its fullest. When we question how we should live and how we should treat one another, we look at Jesus. He is the answer.

    9. Righteousness
    God is faithful to his promises to Israel. The OT promises salvation through a king, born of a virgin, born of the house of David, born in Bethlehem, born to put the government on his shoulders. God did not revoke those promises and disregard his covenant with Israel. He fulfilled his promises and remained in the “right” (thus the word “righteousness”) by send his son born of a woman born under the Levitical law.

    10. Truth
    God’s story from creation to consummation, from Genesis to Revelation is a story of God’s battle for truth. All idolatry is an attack on God’s truth. Idolatry is taking a good thing and making it a God thing. Taking something temporary and making it ultimate. God’s truth, which wages war against idolatry, is communicated through human relationships. This is not truth not as abstract philosophy, but truth as a person.

    So yeah, I would say that the incarnation is pretty important. Let’s not lose it after the historic Church worked so hard to preserve it.

  • Nightline Face-Off: Does Satan Exist?

    I finished watching the debate over the existence of Satan this morning. I watched half of it yesterday and the other half of it this morning. Apparently the debate was edited when it was aired, but you can watch it in its entirety here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

    Be prepared to endure commercials before and after each clip. A couple of times the online media player started over at the beginning of the first clip. A bit annoying, but well worth it.

    I wish every follower of Christ would watch this. I thought it was a great cultural/philosophical clash. It would be so helpful for Christians to watch and think deeply through the issues presented in this debate. And the greatest issue for me was not the existence of Satan, but the reality of truth.

    The players in the debate formed two teams: Mark Driscoll & Anne Lobert on one side and Deepak Chopra and Carlton Pearson on the other side.

    When I watched the first half, I thought Driscoll was the winner. He did have home field advantage however because the debate was at his church. Thus, the many rounds of applause after Driscoll’s comments. But the TRUE WINNER of the debate was “Red Shirt Guy.”

    As you watch the debate, pay attention to the interaction between the audience and the panel. In particular, pay close attention to two audience members and how they address the Deepak. The two audience members are “Red Shirt Guy” and “Pony Tail Girl.” A please, please understand that if we are going to engage culture we all need to be “Red Shirt Guy;” he got it. He understood the underlying issues and gave the best rebuttal of the night. (See below for my transcription of “Red Shirt Guy’s” comments.) “Pony Tail Girl” took things way to personal and misunderstood the deeper implications of Deepak’s comments. She was right to become angry, because Deepak was saying she was at a “lower level of consciousness.” But for her to say that Deepak was attacking Jesus was the wrong way to respond. Deepak was attacking the nature of truth (which of course we know is Jesus). She would have done better to take a lead from “Red Shirt Guy.”

    So here is my reaction to the debate. At the end I will sum up my thoughts about truth, but here are my random thoughts and observations:

    “All belief is a cover up for insecurity.” — Deepak Chopra

    I did not plan on taking notes, but this is the first thing I wrote down. I am glad “Red Shirt Guy” addresses this later on, because this is an attack on all people of faith.

    “If something is real then you don’t need to believe it. You just experience it.” — Deepak Chopra

    This is THE ISSUE in the debate for me. I know it was supposed to be about Satan and evil, but this is the issue. What is truth? What is reality? How do we know it? Deepak says that reality is that which we can experience. I agree. But what if we experience something inauthentic? What if two people experience the same thing and interpret it different? How we discern right reality and evil reality?

    “The Bible is not the inspired Word of God it is the inspired word of man about God.” – Carlton Pearson

    Oh how the mighty have fallen! Pearson’s descent into heresy began with a denial of hell and eternal punishment and it has led him to reject the authority of Scripture all together. Pearson did make a few (emphasis on “few”) good points, but for the most part his comments were wondering, off-topic, etymological, self-involved rambling. I know it sounds like I am hating on Pearson and really I am not. Often the moderator cut Pearson off, because he was headed off into la-la land. I feel so sorry for Pearson.

    “Perception is the ultimate reality, but it not necessarily the ultimate truth.” – Carlton Pearson

    Yeah, I know where Pearson is coming from. There is a difference between truth and perception. He is wrong to say perception is reality. Perception can be a “perceived” reality, but reality is that which is really real. This goes to the very definition of truth. Truth is that which corresponds with reality. More on truth below.

    “Fairytale-like good god and bad god” – Carlton Pearson

    The Devil is the “bad god” by the way. Oh and earlier Pearson called the Devil “hairy and horny.” I think he was referring to the caricature of the Devil who has horns, but I did laugh out loud when he said “horny.” My, my, the bishop is off his theological rocker.

    Red shirt guy: “My question is for Deepak and the Bishop, You said, ‘All belief is a cover up for insecurity?'”

    Red shirt guy: “Do you believe that?

    Deepak: “Yes”

    Red shirt guy: “Thank you”

    Audience laughter

    This was the best moment in the debate. Pearson laughed and looked at Deepak. Driscoll smiled. Lobert seemed to miss it. And Deepak tried to explain himself, but he never addressed the implication of Red Shirt Guy’s comment. And don’t miss this, but this is the leverage point in the argument of truth between Christians and pluralists.

    Deepak is arguing that “belief” is somehow a more primitive way of knowing. Evolution, he is arguing, has brought us to a higher state of consciousness were we know by experiencing in a way that is consistent with science and philosophy. But here is the deal….DEEPAK’S ARGUMENT IS A BELIEF!

    He is using a belief to devalue beliefs. In other words, he is using a belief system to say belief systems are no good. Tim Keller is right, “Every doubt is based on an alternative belief.” (Read Tim Keller’s Reason for God for a fuller explanation of these issues.)

    As soon as you define god, you limit god. — Deepak

    This is true, but it shouldn’t stop us from exploring God should it? Deepak is no atheist. He contends that there is a high probability of an intelligent being out there. So sure, for finite beings to try to define god we do limit him, but for followers of Christ, we believe Jesus is God and came to reveal to us (in part) who God is.

    At one point in the debate a woman question’s Driscoll on how he reconciles the evil of pride with the exclusivity of his position. I don’t have the exact quote, but Driscoll is right to go to the heart of the matter, “But what if it is true.” This whole debate is about truth.

    “My experience is more consistent with what we know about biology, evolution, and the laws of nature, in my opinion.” — Deepak

    This was his response to “Pony Tail Girl” and it is a sophisticated way of say you are wrong, but in Deepak’s worldview you cannot call anybody wrong, because there is no constant, no fixed point of reality, no frame of reference.

    Pony-tail girl: “Why would you come here tonight if not to attack him [Jesus]?”

    This was the worst thing she could have said. The only thing worse thing for her to say would have been to say that Deepak’s mom is a prostitute. Antagonistic attacks on non-Christian people will never lead them to Christ. This is a good time to love our enemies. Deepak wasn’t attacking Jesus. He was attacking truth. As I stated above, we know that Jesus is the Truth, and so maybe by inference he was attacking Jesus, but in responding to a pluralistic culture we need to respond to people’s statements, and the worldview behind their statements, and not the inferences we draw from those statements, because like Pony Tail Girl we are then arguing against an idea in our minds that may not be in theirs. She had all the best intentions in the world, bless her heart, but she didn’t help our cause.

    “You need these forces [creativity/evolutionary and entropy/destruction] to keep creation going.” — Deepak

    Driscoll needed to push the issue with Deepak over why he would call Anne’s story “evil” and more importantly why are these entropy/destructive forces necessary for creation to go on? Maybe he should have asked “How is it both evil and necessary?” Anne had been brutally gang raped and Deepak agreed that this was evil, but he wanted to brush it off as the fault of cultural psychosis. As he described his worldview he said destructive forces are necessary. So does that imply that evil is necessary? Or that Anne needed to be raped and tortured? I wish Driscoll would have pushed this issue. It would have clearly shown the inconsistencies of Deepak’s worldview.

    “I don’t trust my mind. I trust my spirit which is beyond all this” – Deepak

    Driscoll did a great job in questioning how Deepak believed in the evolutionary process and yet Deepak admits that he doesn’t trust his mind. He trusted his spirit! This was a clear contradiction in Deepak’s form of pluralism. If he doesn’t trust his mind, then why use his mind to study biology, cosmology, and philosophy? Why not just meditate and stop writing books?

    CONCLUDING THOUGHTS: This debate was not about Satan. The existence of Satan is what got the debate started. This was a debate about truth. What is there in the world of philosophy, religion, and theology that is true? What is it in those areas that corresponds with reality? For those of us who follow Jesus, we believe that he is the way, the truth, and the life, the only way to God the Father and eternal life. Jesus did speak these words in Aramaic, but when he spoke of “me” or “God” he was not referring to the “circle within the circle” or the great “spirit” in the sky. Deepak’s interpretation is not consistent with First century Judaic thought. It sounded intellectual, but his interpretation of Jesus is not consistent with what we know theologically or linguistically about the first century. What his followers heard him say is “God” and “me.” When Jesus said nobody comes to the Father except through me, the gospel writers wrote the word eimi in Greek. There only way to interpret that is through the very simple meaning “me.” Jesus was simple at this point. It takes a lot of religious and philosophical wrangling to make it more completed than that. For those of us who are Christ followers it is simple:

    Jesus is the Truth.

    He is our philosophical constant.

    He is our moral framework.

    He is what corresponds with reality.

    He is not our experience of cultural/philosophical influences.

    He is really real.

    He really lived.

    He really died on a Roman cross.

    He really was buried in a borrowed tomb.

    He really rose up from the dead.

    He really sent the Holy Spirit to live in the hearts of those who are his.

    He is really coming back.

    Mark Driscoll did a great job of reading Scripture as his closing remarks. He read 1 John 5:19-20. I am closing this blog with that text:

    We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (ESV)

  • A Prophetic Community

    brueggemannI have recently finished reading Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann, a great little book (151 pages) on the role of Old Testament prophets. I have been reading Brueggemann to supplement my study of the book of Amos for my current teaching series “When God Roars,” a verse-by-verse preaching series through Amos. I have developed a wonderful habit of teaching through a New Testament book, then preaching a topical series, and then preaching through an Old Testament book. Preaching expository (i.e. verse-by-verse) sermons has been extremely beneficial for me and our church. I spent some time this morning in the sermon from Amos 4 entitled “Return to Me” developing themes I have learned from Brueggemann.
    Here is the big idea:

    God’s desire has always been to form an alternative community of righteousness and justice.

    This was the mosaic vision. Moses led God’s people out of Egypt and received the torah in order to form an alternative community. God wanted to form a community as a reflection of his own nature. God is a holy community of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    God is a community builder :

    • He built a family community (Abraham – Isaac – Jacob)
    • He built a national community (Israel)
    • He built a multi-ethnic community (the Church: Jews and Gentiles)

    God wanted his community to be an alternative community, a community called out by God to be different. This is also a reflection of God’s nature. He is holy (separate, different, other) and he wants his alternative community to be alternative, utterly different than the pagan nations of the earth.

    This alternative community is a community of righteousness and justice, where God’s people live in right relationship with God (righteousness) and in right relationship with other people (justice). The ultimate of God’s community-building enterprise was completed in Jesus. There is none righteous, no not one (Romans 3). We are completely helpless and hopeless within ourselves. The good news (gospel) of Jesus is that we are sinners. We are unrighteous, unholy, evil, bad, and morally bankrupt. Well that is the first part of the good news. The completion of the good news is that Jesus came to earth. He lived a perfect life. He died, was buried, and was risen from the death in order to make us righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21).

    The role of prophets, according to Brueggemann is to form and reform this kind of community by both criticizing the status quo and energizing God’s people to reimage new kind of future, a hopeful future.

    Brueggemann writes: “It is the vocation of the prophet to keep alive the ministry of imagination, to keep on conjuring and proposing futures alternative to the single one the king wants to urge as the only thinkable one” (40). Solomon’s empire-building vision destroyed the mosaic vision of the alternative community. Solomon build an empire like the empires of the pagan nations. This “royal consciousness” keeps God’s people distracted for God’s desire for the alternative community.

    Prophets are critical in that they question the status quo both in the greater culture and within God’s community of faith. They do poke and prod the numbness of the empire (Bruegemann’s term for devotion to the empire is “royal consciousness.”) with a critical voice. Amos called the women of Samaria “cows of Bashan” (Amos 4:1). They do this in order to call God’s people to question the status quo.

    Prophets are predictive, but their predictive ministry is designed to forecast a better future, one built on righteousness and justice. Their purpose is to energize God’s people by giving them a future filled with the newness of God.

    God is still forming and reforming a community (or communities) of faith around the world. We would be well served if we remain open to God’s prophetic voices. I believe Brueggemann is one of those voices.

  • Great theological resources

    So what are you listening to these days? This is a common question, right? We like to know what other people are listening to. What’s in your CD player? What’s on your playlist? What’s on your ipod? For me, I have been listening to Bob Dylan, Chris Tomlin, and Timothy Tennant. You probably know the first two guys, but who is Timothy Tennant? Is he the new lead singer for the Stone Temple Pilots? Not exactly. Timmy is a missions professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. I have been listening to his lecture series: Introduction to Islam.

    I have stumbled across two wonderful places to get quality, theological teaching from biblically conservative guys who know there stuff. And let’s face it, it is easier and quicker to listen to their lectures than to read their books or obscure journal entries. These are great theological resources…it is the same stuff you would get by attending a seminary class and it is free. Here are the two links:

    Biblicaltraining.org
    This site is a hard to navigate, but once you register, you can download MP3s on a variety of theological topics. I have listened to one lecture by Bruce Ware and I will eventually download his whole Systematic Theology course. This is also where I got Tennant’s lectures on Islam.

    Covenant Worldwide
    This is provided by Covenant Seminary in St. Louis. Holy cow, there is a ton of great stuff here. It is easier to navigate and allows you to download lectures as a podcast. God bless those Presbyterians! God bless iTunes!

  • Cyprian Norwid

    In preparing for a week full of activity (notice I did not use the word b*sy, which I have agreed to remove from my vocabulary when used with the first person “I am…”), I have found myself mulling over a statement from Polish poet, Cyprian Norwid. (I was reading Relevant Magazine and read this quote in an article by Craig Borlase…thanks Craig.) Norwid was born in Poland and traveled through out Europe before immigrating to the US in 1853. Pope John Paul II called Norwid “one of Christian Europe’s greatest poets and thinkers,” noting that Norwid’s thinking and writing “reinforced our hope in God” during the Nazi occupation of Poland. Nowrid died in poverty and obscurity, but currently there seems to be a revival of his work. Norwid’s statement is in the context of the three essential requirements for a fulfilling life. Norwid answers:

    something to live on, something to live for and something to die for. The lack of one of these attributes results in drama. The lack of two results in tragedy.

    My tendency would be to over-analysize this statement with fruitless questions like… “What does he mean by that….what does he mean here…etc.” I think it is better left unexamined. Instead, I want these words to roll around in my head in more of meditative form….something to live on, something to live for, something to die for… Is this the kind of life that I am living? This life/death kind of living is fulfilling because it is transcendent…it takes us beyond ourselves. Am I ready for that challenge? I want to go beyond myself, but I feel the kingdom of self pulling me back in…God help me! Those who inspire me and form our heros in film and literature are those who go beyond…who have found something worth living on, living for and dying for. I don’t want my life to be a tragedy…and I don’t want no drama.