Journal Entry 08-19-09

When I say out loud, whether to myself, to a friend, or whether to God, that  ”I believe in God” it’s a fairly simple thing:  it isn’t by any will to believe, neither is it from any felt force of duty – I don’t say it because it says something that I feel ought to be so, that I, for whatever reason (whether moral or logical), should believe – It is, rather the disclosure of something personal, something irrefutably embedded within my heart, and quite apart from whether I wish it was so or not. And I know I am capable of shutting the presence of this reality out, I know I can deny it – I never have to say it out loud (I could keep it as a secret foolishness, a mistake that perhaps I can erase by paying it no heed.), but there’s a sort of violence in that, a dishonesty that favors the will over the purity and the  peacefulness of accepting what is. That I do in fact confess this is the result of, perhaps wrestling with it’s implications and entanglements, but ultimately of contenting myself with the pure acceptance of the fact that I do believe.

 

Romans 8:19-23 (NIV)

¹⁹The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. ²⁰For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

²²We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

 

Can Anyone Help Me Make a Tough Decision?

…So I will have a bit of extra spending cash coming up this next month and I need to decide whether I should buy a) John Calvin’s Complete commentaries on the bible, along with his Institutes (all in a matching hardbound set), or b) Karl Barth’s complete Church Dogmatics set (in paperback)? This is a tough decision for me, and if you sympathize please give me your input. No one should have to make a decision like this unaided. Thankyou.

 

The Task of the Church (?)

It’s not at all uncommon to find Christians in retreat from the world. There’s an unfortunately all too pervasive sort of gnosticism within the Church; many Christians are possessed of a theology which degrades the role we are called to facilitate, as Christians, within our world, in favor of an exaggerated emphasis on the discontinuity between this world and life in Christ. Even more unfortunate is the subculture born out of this sort of retreat. Many Christians feel it is right and our duty to not only isolate ourselves from the world outside the church (only hanging out with other believers), but for us to engage in the creation of our own “Christian” subculture. Using aspects of the surrounding culture for our model, and creating our own christianized version (so as to be attractive without de-sanctifying ourselves), much of the western church has become “of the world, and not in it”. I am reminded of Israel’s plea (against the will of God) for a King to rule over them – to make them “like the other nations” (1Samuel 8:4-7). Both Israel’s plea for a King, and the modern Church’s proclivity to form a Christian subculture share in common a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of God’s elect in God’s world.

For me at least, one of the welcome aspects of the emergent church is it’s fresh perspective on the Church’s role in the world. In their book “The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st-Century Church” Authors Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, describe the Church’s role in terms of Incarnation, an ecclesiastical-missional model which draws it’s inspiration and motivation from the Incarnation of Christ:

“Some reflection on [the Incarnation] is therefore necessary before we can draw out some of the profound implications that this should have on our engagement with the world in which we live. When we talk of the Incarnation … we refer to that act of sublime love and humility whereby God took it upon Himself to enter into the depths of our world, our life, and our reality in order that the reconciliation and consequent union between God and humanity may be brought about…. Jesus had to be God to be able to lift us out of sin [I would say rather, "to be able to bear our sin on the cross"], but had to be fully human to create the right condition and experience for such redemption to take place. It is from inside the human condition and experience that God fulfills his own requirements for the salvation of the human race.”

Frost and Hirsch elaborate on different implications that the Incarnation of Christ has for the Chruch’s role within the world.

• Identification: “The Human form which God takes in Jesus is no mere outer garment … rather it is his true form and nature” (p 36) Because the Incarnation marks a profound act of identification with the entire human race, we too must enter into the life and culture of the world around us completely as God has in Christ.
• Localitiy: “The Coming of God among us was not justa momentary theophany, but constituted an actual dwelling among us … He became known as Jesus of Nazareth … Jesus was who he was , not only because he was God, but because he was formed through his real engagement with his social milieu.” This is where the concept missiologists refer to as the “culturally indigenous church” finds it’s roots. “The incarnation provides us with the means by which the gospel can become a genuine part of a people group without damaging the innate cultural frameworks that provide that people group with a sense of meaning and history.”
• The Beyond-in-the-midst (2 Cor 5:19): “The eternal transcendent God [paradoxically] was and is right here, in our midst. In Jesus, God came into direct personal contact with the human race which He so loves.” I’m not exactly sure how the authors intended this aspect to differ from the above two, indeed the term the Beyond-in-the-midst seems to be little more than a synonym for Incarnation.
• The Human Image of God (Col 1:15): “…in light of the New Testament, the remarkable truth is not so much that Jesus is Godlike, but rather that God is actually Christlike. (God is Christlike and in him is no un-Christlikeness at all) … In Jesus God provides for us the basis of all imitation of him. From our perspective as human beings Jesus becomes the reference point for all genuine knowing, all true loving, and all authentic following of God.”

Among the implications already mentioned for our missional task, the Incarnation provides a model which requires a real and abiding presence amongst a people group, a sending impulse rather than an extractional one, and an aversion to any cultural imperialism – our mission is to bring the gospel, not our (western) culture, to people.

Though the mode of the church’s task is fleshed out in great detail in the chapters I have read so far, the task itself is left somewhat ambiguous. In my upcoming posts I want to share a bit of reading I’ve been doing as of late on this topic, namely what precisely is the church’s task within the world? Is it exhausted in the act of filling pews? Baptizing more unbaptized? Winning more worshippers for God, and gathering larger numbers on Sunday morning? Can there be anything beyond that? I want to share certain thoughts that have been floating around inside my head, as well as some insights from reading N.T. Wright, and J. Richard Middleton. Peace.

 

apologies…

…I have been “off the ball” as of late. Things at my work have altered my schedule a bit and I’ve been called in to work Thursday nights (both last week and this week) and as a result I have had to miss out on the discussion group, who’s discussions I previously promised to outline and discuss a bit here at Crucendo. I will probably fulfill that promise, soon, but It will be based soley on my personal reflections, and not on the group’s discussion.

While I’m blogging, just thought I’d mention what promises to be a wonderful study, “The Human Person in Theology and Psychology: A Biblical Anthropology for the 21st Century” by James R. Beck and Bruce Demarest.

 

As kingfishers catch fire, Gerard Hopkins

As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;

     As tumbled over rim in roundy wells

     Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell’s

Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad it’s name;

Each mortal thing does one thing and the same;

     Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;

     Selves – Goes itself; myself  it speaks and spells, 

Crying What I do is me: for that I came.

 

I say more: the just man justices;

     Keeps grace: that keeps all his goings graces;

Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is -

     Christ. For Christ plays in ten thousand places,

Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his

     To the Father through the features of men’s faces.

 

                                                  -Gerard Manely Hopkins

 

The Shaping of Things to come: a discussion

Recently a small group of friends and acquaintances from our local church (including myself) have begun gathering weekly to read and discuss Michael Frost & Alan Hirsch’s The Shaping of things to come: innovation and mission for the 21st-century.

At the risk of oversimplification the books’ over-arching goal seems to be to urge the Church to reconsider it’s missional methodology at the fundamental level, rather than to merely reshape the superficial structure of it’s weekly gatherings – With the goal to become an authentically missional people of God in the world, and for the world, the book urges us towards what would seem to amount to an ecclesiological paradigm shift. 

The first Chapter discusses (among other topics) the problem of “Christendom”, and focuses primarily upon how it has effected the way the church conceives of itself, and it’s relation to it’s cultural context:

“Christendom is the name given to the sacral culture that has dominated European society from around the eleventh-century until the end of the twentieth. It’s sources go back to the time when Constantine came to the throne of the Roman Empire… With the Edict of Milan, the age of the missional-apostolic church had come to an end…In the fifth to tenth centuries Christianity grew from infancy to adulthood throughout Western Europe, emerging in the eleventh century as fully grown and in control of the culture… In [Christendom] church and state became the pillars of the sacral culture, each supporting the other. Christendom had by this stage developed it’s own distinct identity, one that provided the matrix for the understanding of both church and state… And while the Christendom story no longer defines Western culture, it still remains the primary definer of the church’s self-understanding in almost every Western nation, including and perhaps especially the United States.”

Frost & Hirsch elaborate on the contrast between this Christendom Paradigm, which it is claimed has been the normative grid through which we think about the Church and mission (and theology); and what they deem the Missional-Incarnational Paradigm. Each is expressed in a tripartite analysis: the former as Attractional, Dualistic, and Hierarchical, the Latter as Missional, Holistic/Incarnational, and Apostolic (or perhaps egalitarian?). 

The Christendom Paradigm:

• Attractional: “Creates sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel.” The attractional model may allow for taking the Gospel outside the sanctified space (“church” building), but always with the (eventual) goal of bringing the outsider within the “church” walls (on Sunday morning) which is seen as the central space/time of church life.
• Dualistic: The world is essentially divided between that which is sacred (religious) and that which is profane (non-religious, or secular). 
• Hierarchical: Leadership takes a top-down, bureaucratic form (wheather that means Archbishops, bishops, priests, and parish counsels or Regional Superintendents, Senior Pastors, Youth Pastors, and deacons.) Creating a distinction of import between the vocation of the Holy man and that of the common man.

The Missional-incarnational paradigm:

• Missional: “The church disassembles itself and seeps into the cracks and crevices of a society in order to be Christ to those who don’t yet know Him.”
• Holistic/incarnational: “It sees the world and God’s place in it as more holistic and integrated”
• Apostolic: “A mode of leadership that recognizes the fivefold model detailed by Paul in Ephesians 6. It abandons the triangular hierarchies of [Christendom] and embraces a biblical, flat-leadership community that unleashes the gifts of evangelism, apostleship and prophecy, as well as the currently popular pastoral and teaching gifts.”

Last night we got together to discuss some of these issues as a group. Though it’s not my desire to get into it too much in this blog I will here mention one thing that was brought up. Steve Fish (Our Church’s Senior Pastor, and subsequently the one who formed this discussion group) made a point concerning the two leadership models introduced in the book, namely that the biblical model of ecclesiastical leadership does have a hierarchical organization to it, although it resists any notion of a corresponding hierarchy of value or importance.

Thus on the one hand the New Testament can say, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account”, and on the other hand, “…Not that we have dominion over your faith but are fellow workers for your joy” After all Jesus himself said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.” Though this saying of Christ’s is primarily concerned with subverting our lust for power and control and altering the way we think about leadership, it does so still with an implied order of leadership. 

Anyways, as I’ve already mentioned it’s not my desire to get into the good, the bad, and the ugly of the book within this blog. I’d like to post several blogs, one each week after the group discusses each chapter. One thing that has gotten my attention is the aspect of Dualistic thinking within the Church rather than holistic thinking. I’ll most likely be writing more on this soon. Please leave your thoughts if you’d like, I’d love to know what you think, especially in future posts.

 

Martin Luther and the doctrine of Vocation

“Therefore I advise no one to enter any religious order or the priesthood, indeed, I advise everyone against it – unless he is forearmed with this knowledge and understands that the works of monks and priests, however holy and arduous they may be, do not differ one whit in the sight of God from the works of the rustic laborer in the field or the woman going about her household tasks, but that all works are measured before God by faith alone.”

- Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520)

Gene Edward Veith elaborates:

“When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, observed Luther, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread. And He does give us our daily bread. He does it by means of the farmer who planted and harvested the grain, the baker who made the flour into bread, the person who prepared our meal. We might today add the truck drivers who hauled the produce, the factory workers in the food processing plant, the warehouse men, the wholesale distributors, the stock boys, the lady at the checkout counter. Also playing their part are the bankers, futures investors, advertisers, lawyers, agricultural scientists, mechanical engineers, and every other player in the nation’s economic system. All of these were instrumental in enabling you to eat your morning bread.

Before you ate, you probably gave thanks to God for your food, as is fitting. He is caring for your physical needs, as with every other kind of need you have, preserving your life through His gifts. “He provides food for those who fear him” (Psalm 111:5); also to those who do not fear Him, “to all flesh” (136:25). And He does so by using other human beings. It is still God who is responsible for giving us our daily bread. Though He could give it to us directly, by a miraculous provision, as He once did for the children of Israel when He fed them daily with manna, God has chosen to work through human beings, who, in their different capacities and according to their different talents, serve each other. This is the doctrine of vocation.”

- From God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life.

 

 

Merton on Christian “Ethics”

 

“Is Christian ethics merely a specific set of Christian answers to the question of good and evil, right and wrong? To make it no more than this is to forget that man’s fall was a fall into the knowledge of good and evil, reinforced by the inexorable knowledge of a condemning law, and that man’s restoration in Christ is a restoration to freedom and grace, to a love that needs no law since it knows and does only what is in accord with love and with God. To imprison ethics in the realm of division, of good and evil, right and wrong, is to condemn it to sterility, and to rob it of its real reason for existing, which is love. Love cannot be reduced to one virtue among many others prescribed by ethical imperatives. When love is only “a virtue” among many, man forgets that “God is love” and becomes incapable of that all-embracing love by which we secretly begin to know God as our Creator and Redeemer- who has saved us from the limitations of a purely restrictive and aimless existence “under a law.”
So Bonhoeffer says very rightly: “In the knowledge of good and evil man does not understand himself in the reality of the destiny appointed by his origin, but rather in his own possibilities, his possibility of being good or evil. He knows himself now as something apart from God, outside God, and this means that he knows only himself and no longer knows God at all…The knowledge of good and evil is therefore separation from God. Only against God can man know good and evil.”
It is clear that an exclusively ethical emphasis on right and wrong, good and evil, in Christian education,breeds doubt and not faith. The more we insist that Catholocism must consist in the avoidance of sin (especially in the realm of sex), in “being good” and in doing one’s duty, the more we make it difficult for men to really believe, and the more we make faith into a mental and spiritual problem, coningent on a certain ethical achievment. The only way faith continues to be humanly possible in such a situation is for it to be understood as a virtue and duty among other virtues and duties. One believes because one is told to believe, not because of a living and life-giving aspiration to know the living God. Faith itself becomes shot through with an existential doubt which, nevertheless, one ignorees out of duty, while going about one’s business of avoiding evil and doing good.
The tension generated by this struggle of doubt and duty eventually seeks a natural release in crusades and in the persecution of heretics, in order that we may prove ourselves “good” and “right” by judging and condemning evil and error in those who are unlike ourselves.”

-Thomas Merton, “Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander”

 

Faith and life: are they verbs?

The reality that life preceeds understanding is a very fundamental one. One that should seem obvious to us all. Yet there exists something about this fact, or rather perhaps something about ourselves, that keeps it’s true realization – it’s “sinking into our hearts” – just out of reach. Life is demanded of us in every moment, and without respect or concern for our preparation, time forces us to make choices each second. It appears that we know as free individuals, that with respect to the knowledge we do posess, we are each entirely accountable for our every choice. For this, and likely other various reasons, it seems we are stifled by fear and often demand to have the understanding first – before we will dare to live! If we are not each careful to recognize this condition-setting tendency within ourselves we will doubtless become the victims of our own self-deception. The danger isn’t the desire for knowledge, but rather the desire for enough knowledge  to extinguish fear and eliminate the diffculty of living. Just the mere belief in such a concept is dangerous. No such knowledge is attainable. Wisdom can be gained only through the experience and through the difficulty of living, and the one avoiding this experience can never obtain the wisdom he feels is necessary to prepare him for the experience. God, in His wisdom has crafted things in such a way that the measure of life we experience is directly proportionate to the measure of our faith – our ability to risk self for the sake of love.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”     - Thomas Aquinas

It seems to me I’ve been doing quite a lot of existentialist type reflection as of late…I wonder what that’s an indicator of?

(I’m not sure who created the beautiful painting I used in this post…I found the picture while browsing through Google. If anyone knows who did it please let me know. I’d like to give credit where credit is due.)