Pastor Scott's Thoughts

A Modern Church Parable Based on Luke Chapter 1

I have had a few requests for copies of the parable I wrote for the services this last weekend (Dec.19-20) and so I am posting it here. The parable is based on the way in which the birth of John the Baptist to Zechariah and Elizabeth in Luke Chapter 1 closes out the Old Testament and points the way toward the new thing God was doing in Jesus through Mary.

I often get the question when teaching on the Advent texts, "Why do you think so many people missed the revelation of Christ?" The question seems to assume that we would somehow "get it" today. So I tried to move the events of John and Jesus' birth and life into the modern context to help us see how we too, like the Essenes, Sadducees, Zealots and Pharisees, easily overlook the new creation God wants to form in us.

Thanks to those who gave me some helpful comments after the Saturday Night service. The current version is a little shorter and bit more gentle than the one they got.

The Church of the Parable

 

The Church of the Parable is looking for a new pastor. I hope you can help but you probably should know some of their story first.

 

The Church of the Parable has been in existence in the center of Zion City as long as anyone can remember. The sanctuary and campus of the Church of the Parable are both beautiful and well kept. Although only a small percentage of the people in Zion City actually attend the church, everyone in town knows where Church of the Parable is located.

 

The Church of the Parable has always been extremely important to the Torah Denomination to which it belongs. Most of the church leaders working at Torah Denominational headquarters consider the Church of the Parable to be THE flagship and model church for Torah believers around the world.

 

Those in the Church of the Parable consider the secret to the church’s success and longevity to be its history of quality leadership. For centuries – since the church’s inception – the congregation has been led pastorally by one family line. Century after century, generation after generation, the member of the Aaron family (the church’s founding family) considered to be most gifted for ministry has been the senior pastor of the Church of the Parable. For the most part this tradition – and the stability that it engenders – has been wonderful for the church. Although there were a few weak leaders along the way, there were a number of very strong pastoral tenures – like the ministries of Samuel Aaron and Ezra Aaron.  If you ever get a chance to visit I understand that in the library of the church there are 39 different books that have been written over the years about the ups and downs and the work of God through the great Church of the Parable.

 

Today, however, the Church of the Parable which has spent so many years with stability of leadership is without a pastor. Let me explain what happened.

 

Over the last few decades, the Church of the Parable has faced two major challenges. The first has to do with its own expectations. When the church was founded it was established with the hope and expectation that through it all of Zion City (and eventually the world) would be transformed. Leader after leader, generation after generation, the hopes in both preaching and prayer were that God would do something spectacular through this  church and that this group of believers would quite literally turn the moral fabric of Zion City – a city with quite the shady reputation – upside-down.

 

The truth is, however, that not a whole lot of community transformation has happened through the Church of the Parable. Church attendance has stayed steady. But even in the best of times it has felt like the church was only passing their faith on to their children or inheriting unhappy people from other denominations. Whatever major transformation of the world the people were hoping for had not happened yet. Just a few years ago, however, the current generation at the Church of the Parable seemed to be re-energized in expectations and hope. They rallied together and prayed, believing that the time was coming when God was going to move the ministry of the church beyond its current walls.

 

The other great challenge the church started facing a few decades ago is a major upheaval in the culture. Two forces culturally combined to make life an increased challenge. For one, the economy started tanking. The nation of Empire – in which the Church of the Parable is a part – has been fighting several expensive wars, several diseases are sweeping across the nation, and unemployment continues to rise. This means that not only are resources tight at the church but the number of unhappy and discontented poor living in the culturally diverse Zion City is rapidly increasing.

 

At the same time the economy has been in decline the culture of the nation of Empire is becoming more and more secular and less open to the faith the Church of the Parable embodies. The current leaders of the church have read about times in the past when “everyone did what was right in their own eyes” and it feels like it is one of those times again.

 

So a perfect storm of attitudes is rising within the church. On the one hand, things couldn’t be any tougher around them, but on the other hand, the expectations that God is going to do something big keeps increasing.

 

Under the tension of expectations and cultural change the congregation has divided into four factions. One group of Parable believers just couldn’t take the increasing secular atmosphere of Zion City. They sold their homes and moved out to the country. They found a suburban development they could move into and they started a new (and safe) Torah church in the country and they opened a new school for their children.

 

A second group of Parable believers could be referred to as the pragmatists. Most of these pragmatic folk are highly successful in business and are generally content with life. They can’t understand why so many in the congregation seem to get riled up with expectations for change. Things seem perfectly fine to them. They love many of the traditions that the church follows and they love the structure and protection those traditions offer to their children. They love the beauty of the church’s campus. They love the feelings of security they get when they attend (every third week or so).

 

There is a third group at the Church of the Parable that is incredibly frustrated with the direction the culture is going and they are not taking it laying down. They call themselves the ZCTs – the Zealously Concerned Torahs. There are three or four social issues that symbolize for them the decline of the moral fabric of the nation of Empire and so they are zealously concerned about those particular issues and use political pressure as their primary mode of change.

 

It is the final faction however, that holds most of the power at the church. This group that might be called the traditionalists also has high expectations that it is time for the transformation of Zion City to take place, but they are equally convinced that the way change is going to take place is within the traditions and rituals the church has held onto for so long. They do not think the problem is that the church is doing the wrong things. They think the problem is that people are neglecting the right things to do and not fully committing themselves enough to the historical work of the church.

 

Three years ago the church went through a major leadership change. It was time for the current Aaron family pastor to retire but for the first time in the church’s history there was only one future leader to choose from. None of the current Aarons on pastoral staff had had any children except the pastor and his wife – Zechariah and Elizabeth Aaron - who had a son very late in life. The church wasn’t quite sure what to do. Their son – Jonathan Aaron – was unusual to say the least. He made incredible grades at seminary. However, most of his professors gave him independent studies because he raised so many questions and created so many disturbances in class. The church could never get Jonathan to wear the proper formal clothing that all of the other former pastors had worn. To say Jonathan came to the pulpit in casual clothes is an understatement. And he would never attend church pot-luck dinners. Rumor had it that his diet was all organic and very peculiar.

 

But the strangest part of Jonathan’s pastorate was how short it was. The pastors of the church always had a long tenure in leadership. But Jonathan didn’t really seem to want the position. The very first day he became the pastor he started talking about someone else who could lead the church better than he. In fact, one Sunday a complete stranger – Jesse Christopher - walked into the congregation and Jonathan simply declared that this new-comer would be the new pastor of the church and that he would be the best pastor in the church’s history. Pastor Jonathan blessed Pastor Jesse Christopher and declared in the moment that Jesse would be the pastor who would bring about the expectations for which the church had always longed.

 

The church board wasn’t quite sure what to do. That first Sunday when Pastor Jonathan handed Pastor Jesse the microphone it was clear that Jesse could preach with authority. The congregation was shocked at the depth of insight Jesse demonstrated in the scripture. It was as if he not only knew the Scriptures but he knew the deeper reality and truth behind the Scriptures.

 

The next three years of Jesse’s ministry at the church were a mixed bag of blessings and struggles. Jesse never berated the pragmatic believers, but for some reason they were always uncomfortable around him nonetheless. It wasn’t that Pastor Jesse dressed badly or lived like a homeless person, it was just clear he didn’t put a whole lot of concern in possessions. Whenever Pastor Jesse was around previous conversations about the “stuff” of life the pragmatists were so proud to accumulate, always seemed shallow and insignificant. And although they hated to admit it, many of the pragmatic believers felt very uncomfortable with the increasing number of poor people and people who didn’t really understand Parable’s traditions who were hanging around the church now that Jesse was around.

 

The Zealously Concerned group liked Jesse at first because, like them, he seemed intent on transforming the moral fabric of Zion City. But the more they hung around him the more suspicious they became of his methods. He didn’t shout very much and he never protested. I take that back, he protested once but that was actually at the church itself for misusing people. But what they were most uncomfortable with was his set of relationships. Pastor Jesse approached the moral failures of the culture as primarily a relational problem rather than a philosophical one. The ZCTs regularly used political pressure as their weapon. Pastor Jesse, instead, tended to meet people at their point of need and through acts of love and the valuing of people move broken people toward a new way of life and a new set of decisions. For example, one of the most wicked persons in Zion City – a man who for years had created financial problems for the people of the church – went through a radical conversion when Jesse came to his house for dinner. I’m not sure all that was said over dinner, but somehow through relationship building, Jesse helped the man to be radically changed.

 

But it was the traditional faction that struggled the most to like Pastor Jesse. From the get-go they struggled with his lack of pastoral pedigree. No one was quite sure where his family came from. But he also changed many of the rituals. For example, the church had always met for worship at 10am on Sunday morning. As Jesse got to know more people in the city he realized that economic pressures pushed more and more people to work on Sunday morning and so he started a number of other worship services during the week. Jesse kept saying that people weren’t made to show up at one particular time of worship but that worship was created to help people experience God. But that’s just one example. It seemed for Pastor Jesse that all of the traditions and practices of the church were honorable but secondary to meeting the people of Zion City in their place of need. Under Pastor Jesse’s leadership, fewer and fewer activities of the church were oriented toward current members and more and more were focused on those outside the church.

 

But most offensive of all, it seemed that the majority of Pastor Jesse’s relationships and friendships were not only with non-Torahs but with non-believers in general. There was a great deal of gossip in the church about the questionable places Jesse had been seen and the suspicious people Jesse had been spotted with.

 

It only took three years for the people at the church to realize this pastoral relationship was not going to work. Unfortunately Pastor Jesse and the mission he embodied was too loved by the hundreds and hundreds of new people at the church to simply get rid of him. The traditionalists tried accusing him of being sinful, the ZCTs tried to accuse him of being soft, and the pragmatists declared him too idealistic. None of the accusations had much merit, but the right power people at the church got a hold of the right power people at denominational headquarters and within one week pastor Jesse was gone.

 

Most of the people Jesse had brought to the church have left and have started their own movement for transformation in the world. I hear they are doing some good work for God, but most of the traditional denominations – like the Torahs – look down on them.

 

It’s unfortunate that it ended that way. Because whether they recognize it or not each of the factions that divided the church will only find what they are searching for in the mission of Jesse. In the mission of Pastor Jesse, the pragmatists would have found meaning, the zealous would have found the power to transform the culture, and the traditionalists would have found the true fulfillment to their generations of faithfulness. Even those who left the city of Zion for the country would have found in Jesse the feeling of being home they are searching for. Even in the end Jesse still loved and worked for the redemption of the four factions in the church as well as those outside it walls.

 

So the Church of the Parable is moving on by looking for a distant descendant of the Aaron family to come back and take charge of the church and restore it to its glory. So if you know a family member, or if you are one, please contact the search committee immediately.

 

The moral of the parable is found in Luke Chapter 5. "Jesus sadi to them: 'No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.'"

 

 

 

C.S. Lewis' Thoughts on Christmas

In the midst of about five or six Christmas events today I came across some thoughts from C.S. Lewis regarding Christmas. The made me laugh, but I loved them because they are profound in a C.S. Lewis kind of way. The following excerpt is from God in the Dock.

Three things go by the name of Christmas. One is a religious festival. This is important and obligatory for Christians; but as it can be of no interest to anyone else, I shall naturally say no more about it here. The second (it has complex historical connectons with the first, but we needn't go into them) is a popular holiday, an occasion for merrymaking and hospitality. If it were my business to have a "view" on this, I should say that I much approve of merrymaking. But what I approve of much more is everybody minding his own business. I see no reason why I should volunteer views as to how other people should spend their own money in their own leisure among their own frineds. It is highly probable that they want my advice on such matters as little as I want theirs. But the third thing called Christmas is unfortunately everyone's business.

I mean of course the commercial racket. The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr. Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But the idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.

1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to "keep" it (in its third, or commercial, aspect) in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out - physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merrymaking; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.

2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment, when, at the last movement, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through the letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one has to go to?

3. Things are given as presents which no mortal ever bought for himself - gaudy and useless gadgets, "novelties" because no one was ever fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?

4. The nuisance. For after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labor of it.

We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don't know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I'd sooner give them money for nothing and write it off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.

You have to love him.

A Personal Top 10 of the Decade

I love this time of year when all the "Top Ten" of everything lists emerge. It is especially interesting this year because we are closing out the 00 decade and so we get to reflect on a whole decade worth of events. I know its a little self-centered and narcissistic to create a personal "top 10" list of the decade... But, hey, its my blog. So for those who are interested, here is my list of the 10 things I believe I will look back on over this last decade as most significant in my life and in the life of my family. I have excluded major world events - of which there were many. The following ten really are just ours.

10. Finishing My Dissertation and Graduating. Although I had finished the course work for my PhD from Fuller Seminary in 1996, it took me four years to finally finish my dissertation and graduate officially at the start of 2000. I have not touched my dissertation since then and if I could go back in time I would write on something completely different, but the main thing was being done. The best moment was at the "graduation" (I did not come back and walk in the ceremony) party at our house on graduation day; I overheard a friend of Caleb's (5 yrs old at the time) ask why we were having this party. He responded, "My dad's a doctor now. But he's not the kind that can help anybody." I couldn't have expressed it better myself.

9. Serving on Various Boards. In the 90's nobody wanted my opinion. That apparently changed in the 00s. Currently I'm serving on boards for The Bresee Foundation, Neighborhood Urban Family Center, Fuller Seminary, Nazarene Publishing House, The General Church's Board of Christian Action, Pasadena Christian School, (I'm taking a one year break from the District Advisory Board) and a few other community and academic consulting boards. Each of these has been a rewarding and exciting opportunity to meet great leaders and be part of good causes. In particular, the invitation to be part of the Fuller Board of Trustees has been a real honor and a great learning experience.

8. Having a Book Published. The release of "Seven Deadly Spirits" with Baker Academic was a challenge but also a blessing. This was my first experience writing for my own project instead of someone else's and the hard part was carving out the time to do it. I hope the 10s will bring a few more projects out of me. I have signed contracts with NPH to write a book on getting started well in ministry, a book about Jonah, and a re-write of Earl Lee's great book "The Cycle of Victorious Living." Now I just need to find the time to actually write them.

7. Conflicts. Not everything was rosy in the 00s. For a couple of years the theology department at SNU lived under a cloud of suspicion and attack that caused me lose much of my "mojo" for teaching and my love for and connection to Bethany. I went through a staff conflict at Richardson that caused me to lose 25 or 30 pounds (I found them again). And most recently I've somehow found myself as the unintentional, non-Emergent defender for some of my Emergent friends - which has blessed me with cyber-stalkers, web-site attacks, and some folk who have left the church. The 00s were also filled with some extended hospital stays due to serious health issues for Sophie and a couple of detached retinas for Debbie. Each of these experiences have helped me to grow and mature a bit, but they have also taught me a good deal about God's faithfulness in the midst of trial.

6. Travel and Transitions. I lived in four houses and spent time on four continents in the 00s. I got to spend time in Kenya, China, Hungary, England, and Peru. I also spoke at six of the eight Nazarene universities in the U.S. and presented a paper at Notre Dame. It was certainly my best freqent flyer decade so far. God also helped our family transition well from Oklahoma to Dallas to Pasadena. Each place became home quickly.

5. The Turn-Around at PazNaz. No matter how many years I have left in ministry I know I will look back at the last four with great fondness because of the way God has blessed the increased health of PazNaz. The recent pay-off of the mortgage was more than just the elimination of debt for the church, I believe it also symbolized a turning of the page historically for the congregation. It has been fun to be a part of that.

4. The Deaths of My Grandparents. My Uncle Jerry White passed away on Dec. 31, 1999 and the impact of his death was felt deeply in the family as the decade began, but we also lost my Grandmother Edith Daniels in 2004 and my Grandfather Harold Daniels in 2005. They were without question the patriarch and matriarch of faith for our family. They set a trajectory with the Lord that, thankfully, the following generations have followed. They left very big shoes to fill, but thankfully they gifted those shoes to their children and grandchilden with a spirit that has allowed us to embrace their legacy as a gift.

3. Accomplishments of the Family. A great part of my joy this decade has been to share in the accomplishments of the rest of the family. Debbie has built an amazing women's ministry in two different churches and carries the role of supermom daily. Caleb has grown into an amazing young man, he rocks the academics, he slaps the bass, and he lettered in swimming. Noah just keeps growing while rocking school, rocking the guitar, and rocking football (his team won the Turkey Bowl championship in the 00s). Jonah got straight A's this quarter and is a major soccer star. Sophie is always a teacher's delight and is on her way to replacing Hannah Montana. It has also been a blessing to start and end the decade living and working close with Mom and Dad - not many people get that opportunity.

2. The Transition from Teaching to Pastoring. It used to drive me crazy while I was teaching when people would ask me if I missed ministry. (I always saw myself in ministry when I was teaching). And it drives me crazy now when people ask me if I miss being in academics. (I still read academic stuff and I do a fair amount of teaching). But there is no question that the transition from being at the university every day to being in the parish every day is the transition that I will look back on in the 00s as the major one. I have not regretted the decision for one moment. I still believe it is and was what God wanted from me at the time. I may feel differently when the kids head off to college and I no longer have the benefit of tuition-remission, but I'm very happy with the path God has led me on so far.

1. The Arrival of Sophie. Sophie showed up in 2002. She changed our family forever. She was so brave through all of her health issues early on (immunity deficiencies which have largely cleared up). She has filled our house with singing, doll babies, and hair clips. She gets the award as the #1 blessing for me (and our family) from the 00s.

I'm looking forward to what God has in store for us in the 10s.

An Interesting Article in an Interesting Place

Awhile back I reviewed Shane Claiborne's book Jesus for President. I have a deep appreciation for who Shane is and for the work he is doing. There are some people who get nervous about Shane, but I think that is primarily because his commitment to live simply makes some people uncomfortable with our own sense of conviction. I believe in every generation the Church needs prophets at the edge who embody the gospel in such radical and visible ways that they keep the Church alive. So whether you love him or not, Shane is helping the Church continue the right conversation.

This week someone forwarded me a link to an article he wrote for Esquire Magazine (of all publications). I'm still sort of floored that Esquire published it. Shane can at times be "colorful" in his language and descriptons of the Church, but I think most of you will like what Shane is trying to say to those outside the Church. My favorite line in the article is his response to the question about hell.

Warning: the article is in Esquire Magazine so some of you will have to overlook the links surrouding the article and forget that your pastor sent you to this website. But I'm excited that Shane's voice was permitted in this kind of forum. I'd love to know what you think of it...

http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209

PazNaz is Debt Free

If you haven't heard the good news, PazNaz is finally debt free. We paid off the mortgage this week. This is the fulfillment of a 35 year dream for the church.

For those of you outside the Pasadena First community let me share some of the story with you. Thirty-five years ago this month (November 1974) the congregation purchased the property on Sierra Madre Blvd. and began the building and eventual move to this amazing facility and property. The church purchased the property in cash but had to borrow close to $6 million to complete construction.

Two years ago the debt stood at $1.1 million. At that time we started a small capital campaign to try and raise around a million dollars in two years. Half of the money was designated to be part of a permanent housing fund that would help the church co-invest in homes with pastoral staff moving into the area. The cost of housing is so dramatically high here compared to most of the US that bringing in staff from outside SoCal is nearly impossible without some way of co-investing on a home. The other half of the campaign was designated for debt reduction.

The campaign ("Prepare the Way") was successful and as of September 2009 the church's mortgage had been reduced down to $600,000. At the September church board meeting I raised the question concerning the remaining mortgage debt. There are three or four reasons that eliminating the debt now would be advantageous for the congregation. The primary benefit would be that the current loan term expires before the end of the calendar year and paying off the balance would keep us from refinancing.

The board spent time praying and discussing the issue, but collectively decided - because of the continued down economy - that now would not be the right time to try and raise the final $600,000. About a week and a half later a family that is not connected to the board (nor aware of the conversation and prayer we had had) invited the executive pastor and me over and handed us a check for $300,000 to cut the debt in half and serve as a challenge for the congregation to eliminate the rest.

The decision was made that during the services on the weekend of November 1st we would take an offering  and try to pay it all off in a weekend. The weekend services were genuinely blessed of God. I have not received one negative comment or even a pointed question about the process.

I shared with the congregation several times leading up to the offering that my hope was that the remaining balance would not be paid by two or three large gifts but that it would be everyone participating in the way in which God would lead them. Truly everyone did participate. Sunday morning the youth group brought me a jar filled with $1,100 that they had raised with their own money. The Chinese congregation took an offering and added almost $25,000 to the total. When the final offering during the 10:30 service was counted the congregation had not only raised enough to pay off the balance but we were almost $80,000 over what we needed.

When I announced the total at the end of the service, the place went absolutely crazy. We sang and prayed and cried and thanked God for his faithfulness. There was something very powerful about - in the providence of God - the service to pay off the building falling almost 35 years to the day after the service in which the cash for the property was miraculously given.

I'm often suspicious of associating God's presence and power with money. It is too easy for us at times to manipulate circumstances. But there was something powerful spiritually that occurred for the church Sunday that I have a difficult time describing in words. The best I can do is to say that there is someting supernatrual about the unity of the Spirit that comes when a people together participate in the obedience of sacrificial giving.

It will be wonderful and so freeing to move into the future as a church debt-free. But beyond that, I believe something miraculous and powerful happened through the unity of the Spirit that makes me very hopeful about what God is doing in PazNaz now and what God is going to do through the church into the future. Like the service 35 years ago we invited families to go get their children so that they can tell them someday that they were there when God moved in a mighty way. I'm glad my kids were there not just to see it but to participate in it. And I'm thankful that the Lord gave me the opportunity to lead and be part of the community at this time in its history. I don't know where the next decades of ministry will take me, but I know I will always look back on November 1, 2009 as one of those special days when God's Spirit was powerfully present among an obedient people and we were reminded that God is with us.

To God be the glory.

Is God an Angry Judge or a Jilted Lover?

I am still working on reviews of Belcher's Deep Church, but as I was working on a review of his chapter on salvation I realized that some of what I'm writing there needs context. I recently wrote an article for the PazNaz monthly "Happenings"that I hope helps explain what I believe to be some of the unique and important Wesleyan emphases on salvation. I apologize to those who have already read it around campus, but I thought it might be worth posting here before I finish writing about the tensions between the emerging and traditional church over understanding the gospel. So here it is...

 

I really had fun teaching about John Wesley during the summer. I’m very proud of our Wesleyan heritage and enjoyed having a chance to celebrate it. The question that I most frequently receive from people about denominations, like the Church of the Nazarene, in the Wesleyan tradition is, “Do Wesleyans really believe that a person can lose their salvation?” This is a great question and it does point to some of the differences between the theology of Wesleyan churches and our brothers and sisters in the Reformed or Calvinist tradition.

Let me say first that although I do think this is a good and important issue, I always think the question is phrased kind of funny. I’m not sure exactly how a person goes about “losing” their salvation. It isn’t as though salvation is like my cell phone or keys which I am constantly misplacing. Can you imagine a person saying, “Have you seen my salvation? I know I had it last week, but now I’m not sure where I put it. I hope I haven’t lost it!” So when someone asks if Wesleyans believe they can lose their salvation what that person is really asking is, “After accepting God’s free gift of salvation, can a person subsequently reject it or forfeit it?” I think it is safe to assume, given the Bible’s continued testimony to God’s steadfast love and faithfulness, God will never remove his favor or love from humankind; so the question is not, “Does God remove his salvation from us?” The real question is, “Can a person by their own will and volition move away from God’s love and grace in ways that forsake their covenant relationship with God?”

I think much of the conflict over this issue between Wesleyan/Arminians and Calvinist/Reformed folk has to do with the metaphors both sides use to describe salvation. For some reason the Western Christian tradition has tended to think about God and his salvation primarily using the metaphor of a judge. According to this way of understanding salvation, God is the almighty, just, and righteous judge while humanity is the sinful and guilty defendant standing in the court before him. Based upon God’s divine law the only merited punishment for all of humanity is death and eternal separation from God. But in his grace, God’s Son, Jesus Christ, has taken upon himself the punishment for humankind’s disobedience and given each person the opportunity to escape the righteous judgment of God the judge.

There are many parts of this metaphor that are admirable and helpful, but like all human metaphors used to describe the One who cannot be described, there are many places where the metaphor of the judge also falls short. For example, thinking of God as the divine judge works best within theological systems that also believe God the Father pre-selects or predestines whom he will give his grace and forgiveness. Here is why that is the case. If the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was intended to appease God’s wrath and sense of justice, then why isn’t everyone in the world now declared innocent and granted forgiveness by God the judge? If salvation is dependent upon Christ appeasing his Father’s justice and not upon anything that humans do in response, then why isn’t everyone saved? The only logical answer is that Christ’s death wasn’t for everyone but only for those whom God predestined it to be for. This is a problematic point for Wesleyans because they believe that grace is not selective but universal and prevenient; meaning that God is universally at work in the life of every person in the world wooing or drawing them unto himself. It is the will of God that all people be saved and he has given to each and every person the grace necessary to respond freely in relationship to him.

Another problem is the whole issue of appeasing divine justice. Why does God need to have his justice appeased? Western cultures, like America, tend to view justice as retributive. If a person violates the law there is retribution to pay in return. If a person is caught speeding they pay a fine. If a person is caught stealing they spend several years in jail. If a person is caught intentionally murdering someone they are executed or they spend their entire life in prison in order to “pay for” their crime. This Western view of justice causes us to interpret the cross as God’s act of retribution upon sin.

But what if justice isn’t supposed to be retributive but restorative? Restorative justice sees the purpose of justice as the restoration of community, peace, and relationship. The “eye for an eye” law, for example, is not about getting payment for one’s lost eye, it is about balancing the scales of life in such a way that the violence between two warring parties will not continue from poking out eyes to lopping off heads. The question of restorative justice is not, “What payment must be made to cover the offense?” but “What must be done to restore relationship?”

If this is the case, then I don’t have a problem with thinking of God as a judge and Christ as an atoning sacrifice. But I think it is important to distinguish between retributive and restorative justice. The metaphor of God as a judge seems to fall apart quickly when we think of him as the wrath-full one in need of appeasement. It works better if we think of God as the judge seeking every way necessary – even if it includes the death of his own Son – to establish peace. “For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (Eph. 2:14).

Which leads me to describe a metaphor that I think is much more helpful and it is the one that is used far more often in the Scriptures than the metaphor of the angry judge. It is the metaphor of God as spurned or rejected lover or parent. Far more often than “angry” the Bible describes God as “jealous” when his people reject him and serve other gods. Thinking of God as a broken-hearted lover or a sad and concerned parent moves salvation away from a juridical context into a relational one. I think this is the key for Wesleyan Christians. Wesleyans tend to emphasize the RELATIONAL NATURE of salvation.

When we think of salvation as a covenant relationship rather than a legal transaction it makes the question of “losing one’s salvation” sort of irrelevant. From a relational point of view, on the cross God in Christ refused to allow our greatest sin (killing his only Son) to separate us from him. In the cross we realize that nothing can separate us from the love and grace of God. This is an invitation to relationship. To receive God's grace is thus to receive the free and unmerited relationship that he is offering to us.

Understanding the cross relationally means that we can't "lose our salvation." If salvation is a relationship like marriage (the metaphor most used in the Bible for salvation) then how does one lose a relationship? Can you imagine me asking someone, "Have you seen my marriage? I think I lost my marriage. I'm not sure where I set it down..." I know right now in this moment whether or not I am living within the faithful relationship of my marriage. If by losing our salvation we mean that God may reject us, we don't have to worry about that - he is always the faithful covenant partner. The question is about our faithfulness back to him.

Because Wesleyan understandings of salvation are relational then certainly the possibility is there for a believer - like the Prodigal Son - to shake their fist at God and walk out of that relationship. But like the Father of the Prodigal, God will always receive us back into his household.

But understanding salvation as relational rather than juridical doesn’t completely solve the problem because underlying the question about losing one’s salvation is the question about heaven. I realize that when someone asks the question, "Do Wesleyans believe you can lose your salvation?" part of what they are asking is, "Who gets to go to heaven?" This may sound strange to say, but I think Wesleyans should usually answer the question, "Who gets to go to heaven?" by saying, "I have no idea, that's up to God."

Because the theological distinctive for Wesleyan believers is the sanctification or transformation of all of life by Gods grace, then salvation for Wesleyans is not first and foremost about getting to heaven, it is first and foremost about experiencing the transformation of our lives here (today) in the body. Jesus came to proclaim the presence of the Kingdom of God and to make all things new. Therefore, being "saved" is not so much about getting to heaven as it is about participating in the Spirit-empowered transformation of all things today. For Wesley, it is participation in the life of God today that gives a person the assurance of eternal life after death. Certainly, Wesleyans believe (and desire) people to walk daily with the Lord in the assurance of eternal life, but ultimately no one knows who will be in heaven. Given the abundance of God's grace, my guess is that there will be a good deal of shock in heaven at who got in rather than who got left out...

Nevertheless, the main point I want to make is that it is mistake to think that Wesley Christians believe that people constantly fall in and out of salvation, as though God is looking for reasons to take back the salvation he paid so dearly for and has so freely given. However, we do believe that salvation is a relationship and not just a legal transaction between us and God through Christ. Wesleyans believe wholeheartedly that God's universal invitation to enter into a loving, daily relationship with him is the good news that can change the world today and for all eternity.

Deep Church

Jim Belcher - lead pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New Port Beach, CA - has written a new book that has (deservedly) been gaining a good deal of attention. The book is entitled, Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional, and is an attempt to not only fairly and reasonably assess the heated debate going on between the two groups in the Church that Belcher describes as "Emerging" and "Traditional" but it is also his attempt to suggest a middle road between them - a via media that hears the concerns presented from both sides. Borrowing a phrase from C.S. Lewis, Belcher is working hard to find the "Deep Church" that can hold these two sides in tension.

I recommend the book highly to everyone, but particularly to those who are just hearing about all the fuss over "the emerging church" and are either confused by it all or (like me) feel stuck in the middle of the angry lobs going back and forth. What I most appreciate about the book is Belcher's very fair, balanced,and charitible representation of both the emerging and the traditional sides of the church. It is my sense that more often than not, both sides misrepresent the other and are guilty of reducing the "other" to characterizations. As Belcher writes,

...As Scot McKnight says, we must define our conversation partners in a way that they would recognize. Most definitions of the emerging church would not even be recognized by them. This would include Brian McLaren. It is wrong, cautions McKnight, to narrow emerging to emergent, emergent to Brian McLaren, Brian McLaren to postmodernity and postmodernity to denial of truth. This is a stereotype that is not fair to Brian, who is not a hard postmodernist, and the emerging conversation.

The same bone can be picked with the emerging church. They too need to recognize the vast differences in the traditional church. Linking everyone in the traditional church with the worst case of fundamentalism, sectarianism, foundationalism and irrelevance is simply not fair. Doing this can be just as sectarian and divisive as the worst kind of fundamentalism (p. 49).

Belcher sites seven areas of protest he believes the emerging church is making against the traditional church. He recognizes that it is the very nature of Protestants across their history to "protest" when there are aspects of the Church that they believe have strayed from the heart of the gospel. The bulk of the book is made up of an analysis of these seven protests and an attempt to charitably hear both the emerging and traditional concerns on both sides of these areas and then to chart a path forward. Those seven areas Belcher believes the emerging church is protesting are the traditional church's... (1) captivity to enlightenment rationalism, (2) narrow view of salvation, (3) elevation of belief before belonging, (4) uncontextualized worship, (5) ineffective preaching, (6) weak ecclesiology, and (7) it's tribalism.

Some of what Belcher writes about is similar to comments I have made in my five-part blog on the EC. Nevertheless, over the next several days I would like to take each of these seven areas and blog just a bit about each one and make some comments about Belcher's proposed via media through them. In most cases I agree wholeheartedly with Belcher and with his suggestions, but there are a couple of areas where I have some reservations. Let me start today with what Belcher lists as the EC's first protest against the traditional church; its captivity to enlightenment rationalism.

DEEP TRUTH

The "modern" philosophical time period - or the Enlightenment - was an era marked by the pursuit of Truth (with a capital "T") through reason. Historians have argued that coming out of the chaos of the wars, plagues, and cultural turmoil of the Dark Ages (much of the conflict wrapped in religious language) philosophers like Descartes worked to find foundations for knowledge rooted in reason alone. One can understand why these philosophers tried to pursue reason apart from the revelation of religion. Just to site one example, the religious leaders of the day believed that the earth is the center of the universe while Galileo - using what could be observed through reason alone - was convinced that the sun is the center of our universe. Although Galileo was correct - and reason triumphed in this case over religion - the religious authorities persecuted Galileo and forced him to recant because in their minds what they perceived to be the plain revelation of Scripture (that the earth as God's "footstool" is the center of the universe) triumphs over Galileo's obviously misguided scientific observations.

Fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your perspective) the Church could not fully silence Galileo's discovery and the error of this religious conviction was made obvious to all. Given this debacle, the appropriate question many in the Enlightenment began to ask was, "If by believing in the revelations received through religion we were led for centuries to believe false ideas about something as significant as the locations of the earth and sun, what other beliefs have we held onto (from religion) that should be rejected in the light of reason?"

Thus, "modernism" was born as the attempt to pursue what could be know by reason alone. And regardless of one's faith, you have to admit that the modern time period was extremely successful at changing the world. In the major areas of science in particular - physics, biology, chemistry, medicine - the Enlightenment was a HUGE success. Modernism's attempt to liberate the world from is "superstitious" beliefs through the liberal (or liberating) arts made the pursuit of Truth through rational knowledge possible.

HOWEVER, while the modern time period succeeded in fields like science and technology, it utterly failed at ethics. Because while reason can tell us in increasing detail HOW we are made as humans, it can't tell us WHY we were made or for what purpose we exist. This was the built in problem of the modern time period. Every system of ethics is ultimately rooted in some kind of transcendent reality, revelation, or narrative that offers answers to the WHY of human existence. So while modernism made its rational advances, it did so by dismissing at best and completely deconstructing at worst the older worldviews (primarily religious) based upon transcendent revelation that gave to people existential meaning and purpose.

It is very important to recognize the damage that was done culturally when reason was allowed to dismiss all revelation. One important consequence has been that moral dialogue since the modern time period is often dismissed as "emotivism" (mere expressions of emotion). Let me give you an example. Historically Christians have believed that people should live out their sexuality in monogomous, heterosexual, covenantal partnerships. One reason Christians have lived out their sexuality in this way is because we believe that God (as transcendent) commanded people to "not commit adultery." But when we, as Christians say to "the world" (those who do not share the belief in this particular transcendent reality) "Do not commit adultery" it simply sounds like we are saying, "we don't like it when people commit adultery" - which from the standpoint of reason alone sounds simply like an expression of emotion or preference. To which people usually respond, "Who are YOU to tell us what to do with OUR sexuality?"

You see, if we are stuck with reason alone, it is quite challenging to demonstrate that covenantal monogomy is not just one choice among many but the morally mandated way people ought to live. We are thus left to argue all moral issues - not just human sexuality - from the standpoint of reason only. Unfortunately reason doesn't leave us many ethical categories to work with. As long as the solitary individual can argue that the way they are living out their life (a) isn't hurting anyone and (b) is making them happy, it is a real challenge to find arguments based on reason alone for a person to be committed to most Christian moral ideals.

There is much more I could write and probably need to write here, but for the sake of space let me jump to how POSTMODERNITY and its understanding of Truth fits into all of this. Postmodernity, in essence, is the cultural and philosophical response to this moral problem created by modernity. When there are no transcendent narratives (often referred to as meta-narratives) left to give people moral and existential guidance because they have either been dismissed or dismantled by the modern (and individualistic)  pursuit of reason alone, what is a culture to do?

HERE IS THE KEY. Postmodernity (that which comes after this modern time of Enlightenment) has two responses. The first Belcher refers to as "hard postmodernity." Hard postmodernity holds that there is no Truth found in transcendent narratives (and even if there were Truth there how could we know it with certainty), there is only reason. Therefore, culturally we need to get over the pursuit of transcendent existential truth and recognize that moral truth is located solely within the individual. So moral truth (to quote one hard postmodernist) is "whatever your friends let you get away with." Hard postmodernism believes that we can only do what is right in our own eyes.

The other form of postmodernity Belcher describes as "soft postmodernity." Soft postmodernity recognizes that although reason has helped us in many ways it has been highly destructive to the moral life. Therefore, in order to recover existential meaning and moral value we have to return to those older transcendent narratives for understanding. It is in the very meta-narratives destroyed by modernity where people will discover why we exist and how we are supposed to live. Now soft postmodernists understand that a transcendent revelation of existential truth - like Christianity - cannot be PROVEN to be true in the same way that one can prove gravity or the helio-centrism of the universe. Therefore, the only way to prove the (capital "T") Truth of Christianity's moral claims is for them to be lived out by the community of faith and to allow the history of that community's "truthful" life to be the evidence of its Truth-FULL-ness.

Now back to Deep Church. Belcher argues (and I believe he is absolutely correct here) that the majority of the leaders and spokespersons for the EC are soft postmodernists. They recognize that cultural moral metanarratives are essentially dead and so they are imploring believers to live as the uniquely Christian community in the world. Most in the EC even celebrate the arrival of soft postmodernity because, once we give up the Enlightenment need to always be proving our convictions through reason alone, we are then freed up as the Church to be unapologetically committed to living as "resident aliens" in the world.

To say it another way, "soft postmoderns" do not dismiss the reality of transcendent Truth, but they are keenly aware that this Truth cannot be proven through reason alone, therefore they are forced to be humble about these convictions because they recognize that even though we are fully committed to transcendent Truth we always "see it through a glass darkly." And beyond humility, soft postmoderns in the EC recognize that in order for Truth to be demonstrated and embodied in community it cannot be separated from meaning. So, for example, (as St. John would say) anyone who says they "believe in God" but they do not embody that belief by loving their neighbor (or enemy) "lies" - or at least fails to make the necessary connection between Truth and meaning.

Belcher thinks that some of the current tension in the Church between the "emerging" and "traditional" groups is due to the fact that the majority of critics of the EC from the "traditional" side of the Church fail to either understand or appreciate this distinction between hard and soft postmodernism. It appears - and Belcher makes a convincing argument - that most traditional critics see all postmodernity as hard postmodernity, thus they keep accusing the postmoderns in the EC of completely denying absolute Truth - which is simply not the case.

On the other side, those in the EC who tend to be soft postmoderns in turn accuse the "traditional" leaders in the Church as simply trying to continue (whether they realize it or not) the modernist pursuit of Truth. Thus leaders in the EC often give traditionals labels like foundationalists or fundamentalists. (To be fair, I don't think this is just EC name-calling. There are a few traditional leaders who give themselves those labels and wear them with pride).

I would argue that the primary problem for traditionals who fail to accept soft postmodernism is that they believe (or at least seem to act as though) every person - regardless of whether they hold Christian convictions or not - should understand the rationality of Christian ethics. For example, traditionalists often act as though everyone should be living out covenantal, heterosexual, monogamous relationships whether or not they accept Christian revelation regarding this way of living or not.

I believe the traditionalist rejection of soft postmodernity is problematic in two important ways that exacerbate the tension between the emerging and traditionalist sides: one having to do with the Bible and the other having to do with politics.

Biblically, traditionalists often get caught up in trying to "prove" the Truth of the Bible through reason. One easy way to point to this tendency among traditionalists is to point to the fervor among them to prove the historicity of all aspects of the Bible. For example there are some traditionalists who believe that if archaeologists can find the remains of Noah's ark on Mount Arrarat, then this will prove the Truthfulness of the Bible by proving the historicity of the flood narrative. There are several problems with this idea. Finding Noah's ark wouldn't prove the historicity of the entire Bible it would only prove the historical existence of Noah's ark. One would then need to pack up and go on a quest to find the Tower of Babel. Even if one could prove the historicity of a universal flood and the presence of the ark it would not prove that the Bible's interpretation of the meaning of this event is the correct one. It wouldn't even prove that a god or even our God initiated the flood. And what happens if we are ultimately unable to prove the historicity of a universal flood? Would that render the Noah story as we have it in the Bible theologically meaningless? What would that do to other Biblical narratives whose historicity is debated? Also, one could believe in the historicity of the Noah narrative and not be shaped by what one learns from it theologically. In the same way that the "demons believe and shudder," one could believe cognitively in the Bible without believing the Truth of the Bible in a way that reshapes the character or ethics of one's existence. Could we truly call the conviction that the Bible is historically acurate belieiving in the Bible? Soft postmoderinism avoids these questions and refuses to separate the Truth of the Scripture from its meaning.

Rejecting soft postmodernism also creates problems for the traditionalists politically. Modernity hoped that there could be a common cultural morality based solely upon reason that all rational people could agree upon. That pursuit - as I tried to demonstrate above - proved to be pretty much a failure. It turns out that there is very little common moral ground without accepting transcendence. I believe that part of the reason those in the EC and many children of traditional Christianity reject the politics of the traditional Church (and often reject the traditional Church altogether) is because whether they realize it or not, many "traditional" Christians tend to operate in the public square as though Christian moral practices ought to be accepted by any reasonable person regardless of their belief system (or lack thereof). In the "culture wars" of the last few decades traditional Christians have oftened failed to recognize their moral uniqueness and thus have adopted a highly aggressive power politic and an uncivil level of discourse with those citizens who do not share Christian convictions.

In the end, I think "Deep" Christians today have to look like some form of soft postmodernism. On the one hand we do not reject the conviction that God has revealed to his creation real, universal, and eternal Truth, but we also have to recognize that this is not a revelation accessible through reason alone; it is not a common way of living but it is the way of the faithful; and that although God is perfect as the revelator, we who have received that revelation certainly are not and therefore must always be humble, civil, and loving in the way we dialogue with those outside the faith and even with those inside the faith with whom we have diagreements.

Belcher argues that the Deep Church committed to the via media of Deep Truth:

1. Is postfoundational... There is no unassailable certainty, even for believers. However, we still believe there is an objective reality outside of us that we can have some knowledge of and therefore not everything is relative.
2. Believes in foundations, but that those foundations are built on belief (faith), and not reason.
3. We have "proper confidence" in our faith. "We realize we are sinners, prone to see reality through our selfishness and conceit; we see clearly it is all grace. This demands humility toward nonbelievers who can't see what we see. Thus we are patient in the public square when politicians are unable to perceive what we know to be true" (p. 85). We are not timid, however our confidence is ultimately in God and not ourselves.

In Belcher's words, the Deep Church builds wells instead of fences. Amen.
 

Lessons from Nehemiah

I am currently preaching a sermon series on Nehemiah and am thoroughly enjoying what I am learning from this great re-builder of Jerusalem's walls and identity. There are many important themes regarding leadership and mission that emerge from the life of Nehemiah, but one of the major themes of the book is the way that Nehemiah dealt with opposition and criticism.

This month it has been seven years since I transitioned from being a full-time college professor to taking on the role of senior pastor. The last seven years have been wonderful and blessed in so many ways, but they have also been filled with very difficult moments. I have especially had to learn how to deal with criticism. It isn't that professors don't get criticism (every semester students get to fill out course evaluations), but for a number of reasons parishioners often feel very free to share their perspective on your ministry and leadership. Here are some of the things people have shared with me over the last seven years:

• My sermons are too long.

• My sermons are too short.

• I spend too much time preaching the "love" found in the New Testament and not enough on the judgment and righteousness of God in the Old Testament.

• I spend too much time preaching out of the Old Testament. "Who cares, pastor, what Solomon did. I need to know what Jesus did."

• My sermons are too heady and scholarly.

• My preaching is trite and unbiblical. Quote: "It is forty minutes of stand-up comedy and stories about your children all for the purpose of getting people to like you."

• I'm soft on sin.

• I'm too hard on the saints.

• I'm too critical of people who are critical.

• I'm too demonstrative and raise my voice too often.

• I'm too reserved and quiet and when I drop my voice no one can hear me.

• I preach like someone who never had to sacrifice anything for their country.

• I'm part of the "taker" generation not the "giver" generation.

• I'm a liberal who doesn't take the bible literally.

• I take the Bible too seriously. (i.e. Jesus didn't really want us to give everything away...)

• I'm too political.

• I'm not political enough. (On this point, one prominent leader called me "the low point in the 100 year history of PazNaz").

• I'm disrespectful in the pulpit.

• I don't speak to the common person enough and am overdressed to identify with everyday folk.

• I don't use the altar enough and act uninterested in people meeting Jesus.

• I'm too emerging.

• I'm not emerging enough.

• I'm not a holiness preacher.

• I focus too much on holiness.

• My shirts don't fit right and my shoes need polished.

• I move the church too fast and change too many things.

• I move the church too slow and don't change things fast enough.

• I don't hire enough diversity.

• I hire too many women.

• I'm not involved enough in the lives of the pastoral staff.

• I spend too much time with, and only care about the pastoral staff (and rich board members).

• I'm not a good mentor to younger staff.

• I only care about preaching and not about pastoral care.

• I should know the names and life situations of every person in the congregation.

• I do too much and don't have any personal boundaries.

• I'm here too many Sundays and need to give more people a chance to speak.

• I'm gone too many Sundays and it is terrible when I invite other people to speak.

• "Never give the whole service away to another musician."

• "I wish we had more variety. Like the week we had the musician."

• I care too much about the church being Nazarene.

• I don't focus enough attention on making people good Nazarenes.

• I care too much about what the old people think.

• I don't care enough about what the old people think... They pay the bills after all.

• My children are very well behaved and we are great parents.

• My children are wild and I need to be a stronger disciplinarian.

• When our kids went to public school people told us they should be home schooled.

• When our kids have been in private school people told us they should be in public school.

• I am getting too skinny and need to eat more.

• I'm looking heavier and need to start watching what I eat. (The actual quote was: "You are much fatter than you used to be..."

That's probably enough for today. It is funny that in the last seven years I have received hundreds of positive emails and letters. They are so encouraging at the time, but I unfortunately forget them quickly. However, I can rehearse the list above with very little effort and I remember each moment well. The reality is that all of us have to learn to deal with criticism. So here is what I'm learning from Nehemiah.

1. Consider the source. Nehemiah's enemies were people whose power and lives were going to be profoundly effected if the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt. Leaders always have to be able to consider where criticism is coming from. Sometimes, whether we know it or not, just our presence or our message is causing changes for a person internally or externally that they are reacting against. Sometimes people are simply broken or facing difficulties and we are just the convenient place for diffused anger and frustration to be placed.

2. Listen for truth. Many of the things I listed above have some truth in them (as much as I hate to admit it). Good leaders have to learn to move past the initial hurt to weigh any truthfulness that criticism (no matter how awkwardly or angrily presented) contains.

3. Don't react in kind. Especially in chapter 6, Nehemiah's enemies try to lure him into a fight. Nehemiah never lets Sanballat or any of his foes lure him into a scuffle. Leaders have to learn to rise above the criticism and not "lose it." Christian leaders in particular have to stay committed to overcoming evil with good.

4. Build a team. Leaders have to have a team around them that lovingly tell them the truth about themselves (thus keeping them grounded and humble) but who also don't allow the critics to have the final word.

5. Keep the mission central. Nehemiah's focus was not his personal popularity but on the mission God had given him. These last seven years have taught me that not every one will share in or be energized by the mission that ignites my passion. That doesn't always make them bad people, it just makes them different people with different concerns and a different vision than I have.

Nehemiah's teaching me that accepting visible leadership comes with both blessings and costs. Nevertheless, I am thankful today for the opportunity to serve with others and work at rebuilding the walls.

Join the Two So Long Divided

There is a famous quote from John Wesley that shows up on the walls of most universities in the Wesleyan tradition. During a time of rabid anti-intellectualism among the Christians of his day, Wesley urged (really prayed) for believers to... "Join the two so long divided, knowledge and vital piety."

Wesley saw a tendency in his own day for people to be scholars but not have a vital pietous faith or to be pious but be anti-intellectual. Wesley, however, did not believe - and rightly so - that one had to choose between being thoughtful and being faithful. In fact, he believed that what was desperately needed  in every generation were people who worked hard to unite the head and heart.

Like many, I have been fascinated with the remembrances and ceremonies surrounding the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. Although I've not followed his politcal career closely, I have been intrigued with the politics, religion, family-dynamics, economics, and cultural levels involved in the reflections over his life and career.

I watched every minute of the funeral mass. As a child of low-church and free-church traditions I am always intrigued by every detail of the liturgy in the mass and also somewhat envious of the very sacred and often beautifully crafted moments high-church traditions maintain. My favorite moment of the mass was when the priest sprinkled the casket with water and reminded the congregation that because Senator Kennedy had shared in the baptism of Christ, our hope is that he too will share in the resurrection of the Lord.

But my primary interest in the funeral was with what we might call the "social gospel" elements involved. Set in the context of the Gospel reading of Matthew 25 (the separation of the sheep and the goats), most of the reflections on Sen. Kennedy's life was about his work legislating on behalf of the poor, the immigrant community, and the voiceless. The tone of the funeral mass was that Sen. Kennedy's faith shaped him to constantly work for the "least of these." I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of what was said about him, that his heart and life were shaped profoundly by the social gospel of Jesus. However, without taking unnecessary shots at his character, I think it is truthful to say that Christian "piety" was not something that was strongly associated with his day-to-day life.

It made me think about some of the funerals in the churches that I have grown up in. I would venture to say that most of the heroes of the faith that are celebrated at their passing in my tradition are very pious (in the best sense of the term) people. I remember being at a service not long ago where we celebrated a great saint of the church who started every morning with an hour of personal devotions and prayer, who lived free from various social vices, who was covenantally faithful to their spouse and children, who only on the rarest of occasions missed morning worship or teaching their Sunday school class, and who tithed faithfully to the church and gave generously to the cause of world mission. All of that is wonderful and worthy of honoring...

I guess Sen. Kennedy's service has me wondering, is is possible for us to... "Join the two so long divided, the social claims of the gospel, and vital piety"? As I cruise many of the "concerned" websites these days I read critiques of people who are labelled as proclaiming "just the social gospel all-over-again." At some level I understand that on the one hand working for social justice without fully including the power of God's transforming Spirit or the radical Gospel of Jesus is ultimately a kind of dead civil religion, but on the other hand the piety of a "personal relationship with Jesus" that doesn't take seriously the social claims of the gospel is equally dead.

It just has me wondering today why we so often as Christians act as though we have to make a choice between the two. Either we work for the good of our neighbors (and enemies) while somehow lacking warm-hearted piety, or we become the gracious and pious isolated Body of Christ. Is is possible, by the grace of God and the power of his Spirit, that we could unite these two that are too often divided?

Just wondering... and hoping...

The Trickle-Down of Philosophy and the Emerging Debate

Earlier this summer I picked up a new book of essays from my really good friend James K.A. (Jamie) Smith. Jamie and I met about ten years ago when we were both accepted to be part of a "summer scholars" group together for six weeks at Calvin College: studying postmodernity, eschatology and hope (of all things). The college had invited our families to join us for the six weeks. The Daniels and the Smiths both have four kids and our families just hit it off. We were living together in the school's apartment complex and so it was sort of like a six week return to college life. It was a really wonderful time.

Jamie has remained a very dear friend. He is probably the brightest philosophical/theological forty-something I know. At the time of the conference I was teaching theology and philosophy at SNU and Jamie was teaching philosophy out here at Loyola-Marymount. I'm happy to say I was invited back to Calvin to participate in another study group a few years later. Jamie, however, is now a faculty member there. I think I got invited back out of charity. They were glad to have a token Wesleyan participate. But Jamie was invited to be a faculty member in one of (if not THE) best Christian college philosophy departments (the department has boasted folk like Alvin Plantiga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Mouw, and Lew Smedes) in North America because he is just extremely gifted.

Jamie has a new book called Desiring the Kingdom that was just released and should be great. It has been his main writing focus for the last three years and I can't wait to read it. But I have really enjoyed reading his recent book of previously published and presented essays entitled The Devil Reads Derrida over the summer. It is a collection of articles and essays Jamie has written for various settings primarily directed toward a lay audience. They have been great to read because they are witty, poignant, and thought-provoking (and short). 

I read the essay from which the book gets it title today and had some thoughts about it, especially in the light of some of the Emerging Church scutttlebutt I have somewhat unintentionally been involved in the last several months.

In the short essay Jamie is defending his role as a philosopher. As he points out, most parents are not very excited when they find out that their college student daughter or son is changing their major to philosophy. "This inevitably sounds like preparation for a number of careers that involve various permutations of the question, 'Would you like fries with that?'" I love the blank stares I often get when I tell people my PhD is in Ethics. More than once I have received the reply, "I didn't know a person would even want to do that." Jamie argues that academic philosophy (and I would add ethics) is more important to every day life than people think.

He uses the example from the popular movie (and book) The Devil Wears Prada. In a key scene Miranda (Meryl Streep) and her fashion magazine crew are trying to decide which belt to add to an outfit which will be on the cover of the next issue. To her new fashion naive assistant, Andy (Anne Hathaway), both belts look the same. Growing impatient with what she considers to be a meaningless debate, Andy points to a rack of clothing and asks Miranda what she would like her to do with this "stuff." Miranda (the devil in Prada) speaks quietly but firmly in response,

Stuff? Oh, okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet, and you select, I don't know, that lumpy blue sweater because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that sweater is not just blue. It's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002 Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was St. Laurent, wasn't it, who showed a selection of cerulean military jackets. And then cerulean quickly showed up in collections of eight different designers. It filtered down through the department stores, and then trickled down into some tragic Casual Corner where you undoubtedly fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs. It's sort of comical how you think you've made a chioce that exempts you from the fashion industry, when in fact, you're wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room... from "a pile of stuff."

This is a great description of "trickle-down" fashion theory. Whether we realize it or not, at theis very moment, fashion people sitting in design rooms in New York, London, and Paris are making decisions that will impact what we buy in the not-too-distant future from the local Gap. Jamie argues that in a similar way, everyday people pay little or no attention to the philosophical conversations that are taking place in the halls of academia in this moment. But whether they realize it or not, that philosophy ends up trickling-down and impacting the way people view the world, understand life's meaning, and determine cultural values and norms.

Jamie makes a very good point, but it got me thinking about some classes I was sitting in fifteen or sixteen years ago. Professor Miroslav Volf was having us read a book published in 1979 by French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard entitled The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. It was the first time that I had heard the word "postmodern." We spent the quarter talking about people like Derrida and Foucault (whom I had also never heard of) and about the radical changes taking place in the philosophical field of epistemology and their impact on questions of truth and certainty.

Another semester I had a class with Nancey Murphy and we read her amazing book Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism and we argued about the major upheavals going on in philosophy of science and how the "foundationalist epistemologies" of the modern time period were falling apart.

It was during this time that Nancey and her late husband Jim McClendon introduced me to the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. In particular I was impacted by his two great books After Virtue and Whose Justice and Which Rationality? in which MacIntrye demonstrated the death of enlightenment notions of reason as the potential arbitrator between rival moral traditions. Instead of pursuing "reason" as the guide for morality, MacIntrye aruges for a postmodernity that returns to historical "traditions" as the necessary locations for finding an ethical telos, narratives of sustainability, and vituous practices.

My guess is that most of my blog readers have stopped reading by now. But if you made it through the last three paragraphs, let me say that when I was in the midst of those philosophical discussions there was only one person in my life at the time who really found what I was studying to be interesting (and no, it wasn't Debbie). I was fascinated and enlivened by what I was studying, but I'll admit I didn't think it had any pragmatic value.

A decade and a half later, I now go back to those moments as some of the most important formative discussions of my life. I didn't realize it then, but those discussions - which were going on in the philosophy classes of almost every seminary and university at the time - trickled-down and have in large part undergirded the discussion (both postive and negtive) regarding recent movements in Christianity - like the Ancient-Future movement, the organic Church movment, and the Emerging Church. On the one hand, I find myself reading some of the "concerned" critiques of what is going on in the Church today and I think things like, "Those folk simply refuse to give up a foundationalist epistemology." But on the other hand I also read some of the people I consider to be "way out there" postmodern theologians and I think, "They have lost sight of what it means for traditions to be socially embodied, historically extended arguments against the relativistic pursuits of individualism."

Now I will admit that those two thoughts may not mean much (and I might even be wrong about them), but either way I'm going to agree with Jamie and Miranda on this point. Which belt you choose to put on the cover matters! Getting involved in theological debates without at least attempting to understand the philosophical underpinnings of what is taking place is at best silly and at worst quite damaging.

Anyway... that's my rant for today. I'm just tired of reading silly and damaging things from people who don't know - and don't seem to care - that the sweater isn't blue, it is cerulian. As Jamie remarks, "If we (the church) are going to engage culture, and make culture, we will find it helpful to not just wait for things to trickle down, but to go looking for them at the source."

If you are interested in getting in on some of the philosophical conversations that really do impact what is going on in the church and world today, starting with French Deconstructionism might be a little heavy. But I would recommend that you pick up another one of James K.A. Smith's books, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?, or Crystal Downing's How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith, or the recently released Postmodern and Wesleyan? (which includes a number of nice short essays by several Nazarene pastors and teachers [including one of mine] with both positive and negative responses to each section). You might even want to put together a reading group and discuss not just what Christian think and believe but why we think and believe the way we do. 

Thanks for the article Jamie. Blessings.