I'm not really in the mood to blog right now, so this post (as have so many others) may be lacking in coherence and a well formulated argument, but I will post it nevertheless because it helps me to process things verbally (or in this case through typing).
We recently had Kingdom Conference on campus which is basically the Seminary's attempt at a four day mission conference nestled in the "church season" they like to call KingdomTide. (We'll avoid my soapbox diatribe against KingdomTide for now).
The topic of this conference was rethinking short-term missions and how we can do them well. I think this is a very important topic because so often short-term mission trips turn into vacations with just enough 'ministry' to ease the guilt of taking a vacation. We also want to avoid what my friend Eric Iverson from Youthworks calls "pimping poor people," or in some cases 'pimping the nationals' we go to work with. We want to make sure we do some good and we want to make sure that we are not only sticking a band-aid on the infection, but that we're treating the cause as well. We want to make lasting changes and almost work ourselves and our missionary friends out of a job. I'm not sure if I explained that well, but either way it's more of an aside and not the topic I wanted to discuss. (Don't you just love my flow of consciousness writing style?)
Given the topic we had a speaker in chapel that lectured on improving short-term missions. Our speaker was Dr. Miriam Adeney, a professor at Seattle Pacific, who was a fairly good speaker. I liked most of her points but during one of her lectures she said something that I remember thinking was a very poor analogy at best. In her effort to emphasize making long-term connections through short-term missions she said "What if Jesus had dropped in on earth for only two weeks?" This seemed to me to be an odd analogy and I remember taking some issue with it when she said it. I didn't really get too worked up over her comment until I saw it listed as the "Heard Around Campus" quote of the week from last week. I guess it seems that someone (and since they put it in there, I'm assuming multiple someones) thought that it was a very profound statement.
While it is a good point in that Jesus didn't just "drop in" and we should cherish that because the incarnation is absolutely essential to our salvation and for knowing the mind and the heart of God. It seems to me that she is just citing an extreme case to make a small point about missions. Maybe this is just a type of logical fallacy (and as I type this I think it is, but I can't remember it) or maybe this could be a form of Godwin's Law. To be sure, I have been guilty of such errors (regrettably too often in conversation) but this analogy just seems wrong to me and I'm having trouble articulating it. Maybe I'm not making sense but it just seems to me that placing relationship building in short-term missions (or in any sense) on the same level with the Holy Incarnation is just too extreme of an analogy. It bothers me even more that students (or at least one student) thinks this to be worthy of the quote of the week. Doesn't it bother anyone else that we just use the incarnation as a means to justify almost anything. The incarnation is one of the most glorious things and we treat it as though it were just an example that we should draw from when we want to make our argument fool-proof.
I'm not saying that I disagree with Dr. Adeney's points, I'm just disagree with her argument style/example. Maybe I wouldn't be so quick to point this out if I didn't think that we deified community here at Asbury. Maybe you're thinking that that last statement may indeed be the exact same fallacy that I'm arguing against, but I don't think it is, because I've heard some discussions (many of which come out of the chapel office) that make it seem (and I really think it is the case) that the seminary is more concerned with making sure our students value community than it is that they value and rightly think on the incarnation, the Trinity, or a plethora of other essential doctrines of the Church.
Maybe I'm making a bid deal out of nothing, but maybe these comments by Dr. Adeney and their glorification by the student(s) is just the tip of a bigger problem that is well entrenched in Western Christendom.
- Ben
Showing posts with label Community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community. Show all posts
Monday, October 29, 2007
Saturday, October 21, 2006
About time eh?
Fear not, I have returned! After over a two month long hiatus I am back and wondering how I will ever begin to put all that is running through my head into a coherent blog. I will try to group it in sections so it's a little easier to follow, but who knows how that will go. With that said, dont' forget to check out my last post. I posted it yesterday and am particularly proud of it.
Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.
[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]
As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.
As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.
One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.
Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.
I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.
Part Two: On the Incarnation
"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."
Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.
Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.
Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.
If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.
In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)
"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."
Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.
This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.
It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?
Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!
Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)
Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.
I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.
1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.
2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.
3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.
4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.
Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.
Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.
I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.
Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity
Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")
It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.
This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.
Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.
Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.
Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.
This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.
Part Five: Regularity and Novelty
This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.
There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.
I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.
Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:
“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”
To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.
The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.
Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.
[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]
As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.
As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.
One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.
Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.
I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.
Part Two: On the Incarnation
"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."
Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.
Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.
Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.
If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.
In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)
"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."
Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.
This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.
It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?
Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!
Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)
Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.
I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.
1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.
2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.
3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.
4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.
Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.
Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.
I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.
Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity
Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")
It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.
This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.
Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.
Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.
Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.
This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.
Part Five: Regularity and Novelty
This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.
There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.
I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.
Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:
“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”
To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.
The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Postmodernism
Let me preface this post by saying that I'm a bit tired so I apologize in advance for any points that seem to be unusually unclear or nonsensical.
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about postmodernism and the Church's response to it. Some of this thinking has come from classroom readings, some from dialogues with friends and some from my own experience in a postmodern "intentional community."
Thinking back to my Houghton days, oh so long ago, I remember how I was all about postmodernity and the "emergent" movement. I was so excited for this new paradigm in which to minister. A paradigm which seemed to throw off the shackles of modernity; especially the scientific method and the need for empiracle proof of all things, and seemed to embrace experience, narrative, and people.
I was all for this new paradigm for the majority of senior year and did not become wary of it until Doug Pagit came along and told us about his emergent church: Solomon's Porch in Minnesota. His lack of concern for orthodoxy bothered me, along with the lack of spiritual depth with which this emergent leader spoke. I am not trying to criticize him personally, but I observed this in his lecture and my subsequent conversations with him. My main concern with this was that he was one of the key leaders of a movement and seemed to lack deep spiritual passion - usually a bad combination.
Although this was a red flag, I still was a fan of postmodern christianity represented by authors like Pagit, and McClaren, and what is becoming countless other authors. This changed, however, when I came to Asbury.
At Asbury one can hardly hear students and some faculty talke for long without hearing phrases like: "our story", "our narrative", "emergent", "community", and other words and phrases that are hot phrases in the postmodern christian dialect. (To be sure, the context these phrases were spoken in ways often spiritually deep and packed with meaning.) Added to this I started to attend "Communality" an emergent-like intentional community in Lexington that had a very postmodern vibe. With the combination of these two factors and some readings in one of my classes, I began to have a new perspective on postmodernism and Christianity. I guess one could say that I was simply getting burnt out on the phrasology, but I would argue that I was begining to see a broader picture than what I had seen before.
I began to wonder why I was becoming dissillusioned with this Christian embrace of postmodernism. I wondered if it was the apparent lack of spiritual power that I observed in Communality and Pagit. I didn't think this was it because at the seminary there was incredible depth. I wondered if I was just sick of hearing the word story and narrative. Maybe, but it seemed to be larger than just annoyance. I wondered if I was just merely too far entrenched in modernism that it hurt to break out. I didn't think that was it either. I kept asking these sorts of questions trying to pinpoint what I disliked about it and then the other day I seemed to realize my problem with it.
It's trendy.
I think that we as Christians are making way too big a deal out of postmodernity. We're racking our brains trying to discifer the global culture, the way the world is taking shape. We're trying to be relevant by accentuating community, story, and other postmodern things, when really we're just hopping on the newest Christian fad.
I'm not saying that postmodernity doesn't exist, I'm not saying we should stop trying to understand culture, but I'm asking "why do we care so much?" Why are we so busy trying to understand what the world is thinking. It's as if we need to figure it out because we have a way to project the gospel to the whole world at once and it needs to be relevant to all. I am convinced this deep need to understand the entire culture is nothing but an immediate product of our mass targeted Christianity (church growth movement) which is deeply rooted in modernism. We're becoming obsessed with community and story because it is the next gimmick we can use to sucker mass groups of people into the Kingdom (or what we narrowlly view the Kingdom as being - i.e. the local church). The Kingdom always grows one individual at a time (though it does not emphasize THE individual in all things) and it is always working by the power of the Spirit.
Yes, community and story are genuinly important to some (and rightly so), but to talk about them all the time seems like a mere gimmick. To value community is not to continuously talk about it, rather it is to live within it and structure one's life within community and to value story is the same.
We've missed the mark. We constantly focus on global contextualization when really that's not the issue. The real issue is local contextualization. Why do we care what the whole world thinks and how society is moving. To be concerned with that seems to me to be an excuse for us to become blind to what our neighbor thinks and how she or he is moving in life. We constantly seek to look on large scales, when the real ministry of the Kingdom is done on small scale. In the case of the Kingdom of God, bigger is not better!! - Well at least not until the parousia.
The book of Acts shows us the movement of the Kingdom from Jerusalem outward. It starts small, with a rag tag group of Spirit filled disciples and grows into a large Spirit filled movement that encompasses much of what was then the known world, including Rome. While we may not have the same scenario here, we do have something analogous. We are constantly looking at Rome and beyond and trying to figure out how to reach it, but we haven't even concerned ourselves with Jerusalem, let alone forged a path to Rome.
We need to stop talking and start living. We need to stop theorizing about what the world is thinking and start dealing with the thoughts of those around us. We need to throw our hands in the air and say "who cares about postmodernism." We need to realize that the only ones talking about it are philosophers and Chrsitians (not that the two groups are mutually exclusive) and realize that the average person on the street, doesn't need postmodern Chrstians, they need real Spirit-filled Christians to help them in their needieness - both spiritual and physical.
So who does care? Not I.
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about postmodernism and the Church's response to it. Some of this thinking has come from classroom readings, some from dialogues with friends and some from my own experience in a postmodern "intentional community."
Thinking back to my Houghton days, oh so long ago, I remember how I was all about postmodernity and the "emergent" movement. I was so excited for this new paradigm in which to minister. A paradigm which seemed to throw off the shackles of modernity; especially the scientific method and the need for empiracle proof of all things, and seemed to embrace experience, narrative, and people.
I was all for this new paradigm for the majority of senior year and did not become wary of it until Doug Pagit came along and told us about his emergent church: Solomon's Porch in Minnesota. His lack of concern for orthodoxy bothered me, along with the lack of spiritual depth with which this emergent leader spoke. I am not trying to criticize him personally, but I observed this in his lecture and my subsequent conversations with him. My main concern with this was that he was one of the key leaders of a movement and seemed to lack deep spiritual passion - usually a bad combination.
Although this was a red flag, I still was a fan of postmodern christianity represented by authors like Pagit, and McClaren, and what is becoming countless other authors. This changed, however, when I came to Asbury.
At Asbury one can hardly hear students and some faculty talke for long without hearing phrases like: "our story", "our narrative", "emergent", "community", and other words and phrases that are hot phrases in the postmodern christian dialect. (To be sure, the context these phrases were spoken in ways often spiritually deep and packed with meaning.) Added to this I started to attend "Communality" an emergent-like intentional community in Lexington that had a very postmodern vibe. With the combination of these two factors and some readings in one of my classes, I began to have a new perspective on postmodernism and Christianity. I guess one could say that I was simply getting burnt out on the phrasology, but I would argue that I was begining to see a broader picture than what I had seen before.
I began to wonder why I was becoming dissillusioned with this Christian embrace of postmodernism. I wondered if it was the apparent lack of spiritual power that I observed in Communality and Pagit. I didn't think this was it because at the seminary there was incredible depth. I wondered if I was just sick of hearing the word story and narrative. Maybe, but it seemed to be larger than just annoyance. I wondered if I was just merely too far entrenched in modernism that it hurt to break out. I didn't think that was it either. I kept asking these sorts of questions trying to pinpoint what I disliked about it and then the other day I seemed to realize my problem with it.
It's trendy.
I think that we as Christians are making way too big a deal out of postmodernity. We're racking our brains trying to discifer the global culture, the way the world is taking shape. We're trying to be relevant by accentuating community, story, and other postmodern things, when really we're just hopping on the newest Christian fad.
I'm not saying that postmodernity doesn't exist, I'm not saying we should stop trying to understand culture, but I'm asking "why do we care so much?" Why are we so busy trying to understand what the world is thinking. It's as if we need to figure it out because we have a way to project the gospel to the whole world at once and it needs to be relevant to all. I am convinced this deep need to understand the entire culture is nothing but an immediate product of our mass targeted Christianity (church growth movement) which is deeply rooted in modernism. We're becoming obsessed with community and story because it is the next gimmick we can use to sucker mass groups of people into the Kingdom (or what we narrowlly view the Kingdom as being - i.e. the local church). The Kingdom always grows one individual at a time (though it does not emphasize THE individual in all things) and it is always working by the power of the Spirit.
Yes, community and story are genuinly important to some (and rightly so), but to talk about them all the time seems like a mere gimmick. To value community is not to continuously talk about it, rather it is to live within it and structure one's life within community and to value story is the same.
We've missed the mark. We constantly focus on global contextualization when really that's not the issue. The real issue is local contextualization. Why do we care what the whole world thinks and how society is moving. To be concerned with that seems to me to be an excuse for us to become blind to what our neighbor thinks and how she or he is moving in life. We constantly seek to look on large scales, when the real ministry of the Kingdom is done on small scale. In the case of the Kingdom of God, bigger is not better!! - Well at least not until the parousia.
The book of Acts shows us the movement of the Kingdom from Jerusalem outward. It starts small, with a rag tag group of Spirit filled disciples and grows into a large Spirit filled movement that encompasses much of what was then the known world, including Rome. While we may not have the same scenario here, we do have something analogous. We are constantly looking at Rome and beyond and trying to figure out how to reach it, but we haven't even concerned ourselves with Jerusalem, let alone forged a path to Rome.
We need to stop talking and start living. We need to stop theorizing about what the world is thinking and start dealing with the thoughts of those around us. We need to throw our hands in the air and say "who cares about postmodernism." We need to realize that the only ones talking about it are philosophers and Chrsitians (not that the two groups are mutually exclusive) and realize that the average person on the street, doesn't need postmodern Chrstians, they need real Spirit-filled Christians to help them in their needieness - both spiritual and physical.
So who does care? Not I.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Community, Hosts, Guests, Strangers, and the Marginalized
The above title seems to be the best description of the thoughts that have been running through my mind since yesterday and that came to some sort of explainable and understandable pinnacle today. For the sake of simplicity I should probably start at the beginning, although even the order of events is a bit convoluted.
In chapel yesterday and today (which was again awesome!) we (the new students) were repeatedly told that we are no longer considered guests, but friends who are part of the Asbury community and even hosts in community. Although that is the reality anytime anyone moves to a community, (especially a new academic institution) it is seldom acted out or even said. Often "freshmen" or incoming students are unintentionally (or possibly intentionally) alienated until they prove themselves worthy to be a functioning part of the community. I found this exhortation to be incredibly touching. The request that a few of the new students serve as communion stewards for the first community Eucharist celebration to be held when the returning students arrive was also very moving, it truly shows to me that we are functioning members of the community, we are part of the formation that goes on in this place. We are truly no longer guests but comprise an essential part of the community. What an awesome revelation!
However awesome that revelation may be, the true epiphany connected with this happened later in the day (actually later than the second thing I will write about, but while we're here I might as well discuss this).
The epiphany is this: It is a shame that we in the church do not take this same stance. When a new people come to faith, we make them prove themselves before we really welcome them into the community. We make them prove that they are good enough, clean enough, respected enough in the world, rich enough or any number of other things before we accept them as hosts in the story that we live in. I'm not saying that we don't need to make sure our ministers are trained and godly before we thrust them in ministry (the church has always done that) but to make people prove themselves before we allow them to enter into the Church (in the purest sense of the word) is ridiculous and down right sinful! There should not be this trial period where we place the world's values of acceptance over Christ's values. Christ's values of acceptance should be the only values the Church holds. We need to stop living with this prideful, sinful, filthy, judgmental way of thinking and accept new converts as "one of us." Yes they may struggle, yes they have learning to do, but so do we all, including the ministers and the elder members of our churches. We need to stop requiring people to be "good enough" before they are part of us. If you think about it honestly, not a single freaking one of us is good enough. It is by grace and grace alone that we have been saved. Yes we are part of the kingdom and we should and better act like it, but placing these ungodly value systems on people before we accept them is not acting like who we are called to be.
The second thought from today occurred during an orientation session with Dr. Joel Green. He started his session by reading 1 Peter 1:1-2, which reads:
Dr. Green briefly exegeted this passage, mainly verse 1, stating that there was a fundamental translation error in the NRSV. He stated that it should not be read as being written to those who are part of the "exiles of the dispersion", rather it should be read as to who Peter wrote it. You see, according to Dr. Green, those were the recipeients of the letter, but Peter was chiefly writing to the WHOLE Church, including us. We know this because, 1) one of the places in the geography list didn't even exist, and 2) it is not "exiles in the dispersion...Who are chosen" but rather a unique word that is hard to translate in English because it is two words mushed together meaning "the marginalized (exiled) chosen ones." Peter isn't saying: "I'm writing to so and so," on the contrary he is writing to all Christians because by our very nature WE ARE THE MARGINALIZED CHOSEN ONES. That is our identity, that is who we are! So often we want to remember that we are chosen, but along with our chosen-ness we have to rememer that we are by nature marginalized, exiled, and dispersed from the world. We don't belong here. We don't live by the worlds standards because we are different, our identity has changed, we are no longer the "Simons" of the world, we are now the "Peters" upon whom Christ shall build his church (Mark 8).
We are forever a blood covered people, a people who don't belong. We do live as aliens because the nature of our salvation takes us out of the world and into Christ. This is our sanctification, this is our calling, this is our life and our identity. We are the Community of faith that stretches back to the Apostles, the Prophets, to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. We are hosts in this community, and yet visitors and marginalized from the world. We live as aliens who don't belong and who should be set apart for holiness. The question is, why don't we act like it? That is the apostolic exhortation that we find throughout scripture: "You're a sanctified people, you are in Christ, now start acting like it!" Paul, Peter, John, not to mention Jesus, they all call us to live beyond ourselves, to die to who we are so that we would be truly sanctified, and act like the true people of God.
I fear the problem is that the church has forgotten this. A large majority of the church has forgotten that we don't belong. We've set ungodly social standards and require others to fit those molds, we neglect those who are marginalized by society because we aren't. I am very scared that many "Christians" will hear Jesus say those most dreaded words: "depart from me for I never knew you." Maybe you think that I am going too far? Maybe my standard is to harsh? I don't believe so. Yes, I don't live up to it yet, but I'm striving. We must be holy! Holiness for the people of God is not merely personal holiness, but also social holiness. If you don't think I'm speaking truth then read the words of the prophets and the words of Jesus. Holiness is always a personal and corporate entity. Just as we cannot neglect personal holiness (as some of our liberal friends have) we cannot ignore social holiness (as most of conservative "Christianity" has). John Wesley recognized this when he said something to the affect of "there is no salvation without social holiness."
Western Christianity needs to put down weak and unformational books like the Purpose Driven Life, the Prayer of Jabez, Your Best Life Now, Left Behind and many others and pick up the freaking Bible! True biblical Christianity is dying in the west. Our churches do not teach the FULL Gospel of Jesus Christ. We neglect the poor, the needy, and the downtrodden and justify living in our plush American homes. We even neglect personal holiness, we neglect teaching about true love, we neglect teaching about obedience to the cross, dying to self and being willing to die at any minute. Bigger churches keep getting bigger, not because we are seeing multitudes lead to the Lord as in the book of Acts, but because they teach a weak gospel. They teach a gospel that looks nothing like the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their gospel is one that is easy to follow, it allows minimal sacrifice and no discomfort at all, except getting up to go to 1 hour of "church as week."
Churches like Lakewood with John Osteen, Saddelback with Rich Warren, Willow Creek with Bill Hybels and Eastern Hills Wesleyan with Karl Eastlack are not churches, they are not part of Christianity, no they are a cult! They teach a false teaching that is destroying the gospel of Christ. People are not being brought into the Kingdom of God, the very thing that Jesus spent most of his ministry teaching about, no, they are being brought into that church and that church alone, that is a sign of a cult.
Don't for a second think that I'm just against big churches, although I do have that bias, little churches too have just as many problems and propagate false teaching. But some and I think many small churches are small because they are faithful to the teachings of Jesus. The true teachings of Jesus are hard, they are foolishness to the world and contrary to everything our culture stands for. We must grab ahold of Jesus teachings and not let go. We must remember that we are by nature a marginalized people, we don't fit in with the world and to allow the world to set our lines for success is wrong and sinful.
I know that most of you who will read this feel the same way as I do, and for that I apologize for my soapbox, but I am so sick of complacent western "Christianity" I feel like I could scream. For those of you who may read this and don't agree with me and feel I've gone to far by naming names, books, and churches among other things; I say that I'm sorry if I've offended you , but I feel that I've spoken truth. Maybe I should have been easier on some of the churches, but I wasn't.
My prayer for all of you this day is that you may live as hosts in the community of God, serving and loving his people. That you would love the marginalized by the world, and remember that you are marginalized by the world because of the cross you carry. Peace be with you as you carry that cross, may the weight of it continue to spur you on toward holiness both personal and social. Remember only the holy are truly happy.
Blessings my friends!
In chapel yesterday and today (which was again awesome!) we (the new students) were repeatedly told that we are no longer considered guests, but friends who are part of the Asbury community and even hosts in community. Although that is the reality anytime anyone moves to a community, (especially a new academic institution) it is seldom acted out or even said. Often "freshmen" or incoming students are unintentionally (or possibly intentionally) alienated until they prove themselves worthy to be a functioning part of the community. I found this exhortation to be incredibly touching. The request that a few of the new students serve as communion stewards for the first community Eucharist celebration to be held when the returning students arrive was also very moving, it truly shows to me that we are functioning members of the community, we are part of the formation that goes on in this place. We are truly no longer guests but comprise an essential part of the community. What an awesome revelation!
However awesome that revelation may be, the true epiphany connected with this happened later in the day (actually later than the second thing I will write about, but while we're here I might as well discuss this).
The epiphany is this: It is a shame that we in the church do not take this same stance. When a new people come to faith, we make them prove themselves before we really welcome them into the community. We make them prove that they are good enough, clean enough, respected enough in the world, rich enough or any number of other things before we accept them as hosts in the story that we live in. I'm not saying that we don't need to make sure our ministers are trained and godly before we thrust them in ministry (the church has always done that) but to make people prove themselves before we allow them to enter into the Church (in the purest sense of the word) is ridiculous and down right sinful! There should not be this trial period where we place the world's values of acceptance over Christ's values. Christ's values of acceptance should be the only values the Church holds. We need to stop living with this prideful, sinful, filthy, judgmental way of thinking and accept new converts as "one of us." Yes they may struggle, yes they have learning to do, but so do we all, including the ministers and the elder members of our churches. We need to stop requiring people to be "good enough" before they are part of us. If you think about it honestly, not a single freaking one of us is good enough. It is by grace and grace alone that we have been saved. Yes we are part of the kingdom and we should and better act like it, but placing these ungodly value systems on people before we accept them is not acting like who we are called to be.
The second thought from today occurred during an orientation session with Dr. Joel Green. He started his session by reading 1 Peter 1:1-2, which reads:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood: May grace and peace be yours in abundance. (NRSV)
Dr. Green briefly exegeted this passage, mainly verse 1, stating that there was a fundamental translation error in the NRSV. He stated that it should not be read as being written to those who are part of the "exiles of the dispersion", rather it should be read as to who Peter wrote it. You see, according to Dr. Green, those were the recipeients of the letter, but Peter was chiefly writing to the WHOLE Church, including us. We know this because, 1) one of the places in the geography list didn't even exist, and 2) it is not "exiles in the dispersion...Who are chosen" but rather a unique word that is hard to translate in English because it is two words mushed together meaning "the marginalized (exiled) chosen ones." Peter isn't saying: "I'm writing to so and so," on the contrary he is writing to all Christians because by our very nature WE ARE THE MARGINALIZED CHOSEN ONES. That is our identity, that is who we are! So often we want to remember that we are chosen, but along with our chosen-ness we have to rememer that we are by nature marginalized, exiled, and dispersed from the world. We don't belong here. We don't live by the worlds standards because we are different, our identity has changed, we are no longer the "Simons" of the world, we are now the "Peters" upon whom Christ shall build his church (Mark 8).
We are forever a blood covered people, a people who don't belong. We do live as aliens because the nature of our salvation takes us out of the world and into Christ. This is our sanctification, this is our calling, this is our life and our identity. We are the Community of faith that stretches back to the Apostles, the Prophets, to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. We are hosts in this community, and yet visitors and marginalized from the world. We live as aliens who don't belong and who should be set apart for holiness. The question is, why don't we act like it? That is the apostolic exhortation that we find throughout scripture: "You're a sanctified people, you are in Christ, now start acting like it!" Paul, Peter, John, not to mention Jesus, they all call us to live beyond ourselves, to die to who we are so that we would be truly sanctified, and act like the true people of God.
I fear the problem is that the church has forgotten this. A large majority of the church has forgotten that we don't belong. We've set ungodly social standards and require others to fit those molds, we neglect those who are marginalized by society because we aren't. I am very scared that many "Christians" will hear Jesus say those most dreaded words: "depart from me for I never knew you." Maybe you think that I am going too far? Maybe my standard is to harsh? I don't believe so. Yes, I don't live up to it yet, but I'm striving. We must be holy! Holiness for the people of God is not merely personal holiness, but also social holiness. If you don't think I'm speaking truth then read the words of the prophets and the words of Jesus. Holiness is always a personal and corporate entity. Just as we cannot neglect personal holiness (as some of our liberal friends have) we cannot ignore social holiness (as most of conservative "Christianity" has). John Wesley recognized this when he said something to the affect of "there is no salvation without social holiness."
Western Christianity needs to put down weak and unformational books like the Purpose Driven Life, the Prayer of Jabez, Your Best Life Now, Left Behind and many others and pick up the freaking Bible! True biblical Christianity is dying in the west. Our churches do not teach the FULL Gospel of Jesus Christ. We neglect the poor, the needy, and the downtrodden and justify living in our plush American homes. We even neglect personal holiness, we neglect teaching about true love, we neglect teaching about obedience to the cross, dying to self and being willing to die at any minute. Bigger churches keep getting bigger, not because we are seeing multitudes lead to the Lord as in the book of Acts, but because they teach a weak gospel. They teach a gospel that looks nothing like the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their gospel is one that is easy to follow, it allows minimal sacrifice and no discomfort at all, except getting up to go to 1 hour of "church as week."
Churches like Lakewood with John Osteen, Saddelback with Rich Warren, Willow Creek with Bill Hybels and Eastern Hills Wesleyan with Karl Eastlack are not churches, they are not part of Christianity, no they are a cult! They teach a false teaching that is destroying the gospel of Christ. People are not being brought into the Kingdom of God, the very thing that Jesus spent most of his ministry teaching about, no, they are being brought into that church and that church alone, that is a sign of a cult.
Don't for a second think that I'm just against big churches, although I do have that bias, little churches too have just as many problems and propagate false teaching. But some and I think many small churches are small because they are faithful to the teachings of Jesus. The true teachings of Jesus are hard, they are foolishness to the world and contrary to everything our culture stands for. We must grab ahold of Jesus teachings and not let go. We must remember that we are by nature a marginalized people, we don't fit in with the world and to allow the world to set our lines for success is wrong and sinful.
I know that most of you who will read this feel the same way as I do, and for that I apologize for my soapbox, but I am so sick of complacent western "Christianity" I feel like I could scream. For those of you who may read this and don't agree with me and feel I've gone to far by naming names, books, and churches among other things; I say that I'm sorry if I've offended you , but I feel that I've spoken truth. Maybe I should have been easier on some of the churches, but I wasn't.
My prayer for all of you this day is that you may live as hosts in the community of God, serving and loving his people. That you would love the marginalized by the world, and remember that you are marginalized by the world because of the cross you carry. Peace be with you as you carry that cross, may the weight of it continue to spur you on toward holiness both personal and social. Remember only the holy are truly happy.
Blessings my friends!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
