revered and reverend

Artist and theologian Rich Mullins once commented on what it means to be reverent before God . . .

It started out with this guy who was yelling at this kid for running in the 'House of God,' because he was running through a church building, and I thought that was funny because I think the Bible was fairly explicit that earth is God's footstool and heaven is his throne: "What kind of house can you build for me?"

I think it's pretty explicit that the Body of Christ is also the House of God - that we are the temple, that it has to do with people, not with buildings.  I've often thought, you know, people worry with the Catholic thing of revering Mary, and I've often thought: "Well, maybe it's not that they revere Mary too much.  Maybe it's that all of us revere each other too little."

And so I was thinking about this old man going to a meeting and realizing on his way that he'd already been in a meeting.  It's just he hadn't been in a corporate meeting.  He'd already been surrounded by the presence of God.  And he looks out, and of course he's a farmer and has an appreciate for seasons - has an appreciation for that kind of thing.  And all of the sudden he realizes that God invented green.

There is a certain eloquence in the earthy nature of Rich's words, a very poetry that captures the inner workings of the soul.  I think that is one reason why he was so captivating - for those who stop to listen.  He draws our attention here to the reverence which surrounds us, and how we've lost our ability to grasp it.  Scot McKnight playfully points to a serious truth in showing how Mary declares in her Spirit-inspired song of praise (Magnificat) that "all generations (except for Protestants) will call me blessed . . ."  Our fear of deeper spirituality (and all things Roman Catholic) has stripped away our sense of wonder and mystery . . . and reverence.

On Sunday evening I was ordained an elder in my particular church denomination.  This means that in some circles I will be referred to as reverend.  Certainly we all know of someone who carries this title proudly and boldly without consideration for the weight of it all.  Personally, I found the service to be powerfully humbling - even more than I expected it to be.  There is a real charge given in Scripture to those who choose to participate in the faith, especially those who lead.

But I could not help but wonder if we now find ourselves in the same position as Rich describes . . . Have we fallen into a trap of segmenting our community into those who are reverend and those who are not?  Not by title alone, there is certainly a sense in which 'these few' are doing the Lord's business (a sacred calling) and the rest of us are here to receive.  But why then did the early believers think in terms of the priesthood of all believers?  Perhaps it is not that we we are revering some of our leaders too much but that we are revering each other too little; we have lost the weight of the calling which is upon us.

Everyone is trying to find healthy churches and ministries, leaderships and outreaches.  Perhaps the reverence due to each one about our Father's business, combined with the perception of the imago Dei upon all humanity, will lead us closer to this reality.

puking emergent

For six of the last ten years of the self-defined movement known as the emergent church I have been a cautious supporter - often specifying my distinction of enthusiasm for their invigorated approach to worship style and meaning, but less-than-enthusiastic response to their mostly absentee theology.  I felt that folks such as D. A. Carson were too quick to judge the movement, smoke-and-mirroring his condemnation of it by labeling it a 'conversation' (of course, I see this coming as this is not the first occasion he has done such).  But my reservation has been held in that small glimmer of hope that this might bud into something quite good for the church, especially those stale pieces of American evangelicalism.

So I have tried to come to grips with their approach(es) to the faith; and to see them as part of the vastly diverse but singularly united church.  And I do not intend to say that I believe that they are not true believers, nor are they insincere in their spiritual desires.  But as the emergent voices continue to speak and 'construct' (if I may use that word so early in the morning) a more complete theology, I cannot find myself supporting their cause any further.  What has become apparent is that too many of the emergent 'leadership' (if they would use that word so early in the movement) are simply going in directions which fly in the face of biblical authority, ecclesiastical commitment, and plain common sense.

I confess that much of my sickness with the current state of this discussion comes through the vehicle of politics, which I did not seek to initiate or participate.  I stand firmly as a political and social conservative, and that is one lens which colors my view of the world.  Most of the emergent voices follow American left-wing political ideals, yet act as though their reading of Scripture is not influenced by their presuppositions.  The problem is that their views clearly are being shaped around their pre-conceived notion of activism and social gospel.  From here we are seeing a Jesus which looks interesting and never heard of before, mostly because no generation was so biblically and theologically illiterate to invent such a savior.  My own politics aside, though, I see how many believers simply seek to make strong or outrageous statements about current hot-topics for the intent purpose of being heard and feeling relevant.  Yes, I do understand that the church is to be relevant to culture but am struggling to understand just how this movement is any different than the purpose-drivens or jabezes of the world.

The latest bomb came when news of 'queermergent' crossed my path today.  My first reaction was that this is a group which has self-identified as a part of the larger whole, and one which the emergent folks would have to dialogue with the aim of correcting belief.  But so far, the emergent voices I have seen (certainly not representative of the whole, I would suppose) are thinking this is a wonderful addition to the church, now having a place for those who have been 'created' homosexual to enter into the covenant community.

So it has become quite clear to me that the emergent church is, in large part, guilty of being absorbed with their own self-righteous quest(s) toward self-gratification by removing anything which might direct them on how to live.  I have no idea what the hell they think that Spirit and Law are supposed to do.  In arriving at this place these voices have consciously dismissed the plain message of Scripture, radically ignored its Jewish covenantal context, and marginalized the straightforward language given by Paul regarding such behavior.  But, other than that . . . ?!?

The emergent movement is moving on an assumed authority within evangelicalism and the history of faith.  They are free to direct those who choose to come to their events and churches.  And good for them that folks like Phyllis Tickle think so highly of them.  But we should realize that these are not the seeds of another Reformation, for many of these voices refuse to leave the shallow pool of institutional unrest to grasp hold of a larger spirituality which rises above endorsing candidates for president and bellyaching over pieces of legislation.  Or is it coincidence that those who have worked for the latter seem to be dismissed from the crowd?

At this point in my life I cannot hope that the emergent movement will succeed, for I do not believe that they are on the right path.  But I do pray and work with any who will be more committed to the Word of God, seek to be led by the Spirit, daily are conformed to the image of Christ, and build the kingdom into this world.  It seems that I have been forcing myself to swallow self-righteousness and self-accomplishment which amounts to filthy rags and complete crap.  And now I have puked up my last bit.

for the cult of mac

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

. . . and the decline of western civilization2

An area of decline in our own culture which must be ignored is the movement surrounding worship music.  More broadly, this finds its place in the larger realm of Contemporary Christian Music - both of which have been quickly and painfully dismantling our culture from the church pews outward.

The biggest problem, in my opinion, regarding the worship music movement is that everyone decided to cover the same library of songs with little or no creative input.  This has made the overall CCM scene to be quite shallow, repetitive and boring.  Because there is no need for genuine creativity it has become quite easy for anyone to think that they are a great 'artist' since they can get their songs to play on a whole lot of radio stations.  Further, this has made an impact within local congregations who now have their own praise and worship teams and leaders who weekly think they are headlining their own arena shows.  I am beyond annoyed at finding myself in situations where this is the case, especially in very small churches.

So this is more of a decline of western church civilization, but it is nevertheless a big problem.  At the end of the day it seems to expose our own motives more than anything else.  There are many who clearly see this as their performance rather than a time of God-centered activity.  And we seem to think that polish will take the place of genuine love.  Certainly, all is not lost in this area . . . however, there is much cause for concern.

bibliobloggers unprepared for politics

The general election cycle is over.  Sort of.  Intentionally, this blog did not enter the discussion of presidential politics for the sake of being a blog devoted toward biblical theology.  There are reasons which I had in mind that kept me from moving in that direction, and in the end I think that they were completely worthwhile.  But it is not because I am not a political-minded person, nor is it that I find no connection between faith and politics.  On the contrary, I affirm both.

But what disturbed me the most in the biblioblogosphere was the constant conversation of presidential politics, using theological ground to make divisive statements regarding policy.  Throughout the past year I have rolled my eyes countless times to hear some new endorsement or rambling on a site which is supposed to be theological in nature.  Whether it was the emergent flavor-of-the-month now endorsing a candidate or a biblical scholar sadly and lamely defending global warming based solely on anecdotal evidence, it became clear that those who blog about faith and politics have a difficult time keeping up with both.

This is not to say that everyone doesn't have the right to their own opinion and voice (especially on their own piece of virtual real estate), but that it calls into question one's ability to think critically and without bias.  But there are two fronts which I wish to address specifically: 1) In the grand scheme blogs contribute nothing to the swaying of public opinion, so there is nothing to be gained by making politically-charged statements than division among the body.  To think that bibliobloggers have some grand sway is to take ourselves way too seriously in what we do.  There is definite value to this group of folks, but not in that arena.  2) The social gospel is overemphasizing social to the detriment of gospel.  This is more confined to the emergent bibliobloggers who have reasoned through many choices based upon theological reasonings which do not account for a full understanding of the gospel as it comes through the Messiah Jesus.  There can be no other reason why we think that our work is so important, even when the kingdom's message is not attached to it.  This is a problem.

What I think we have seen happen is a sub-culture which reacted against the Religious Right (in most cases, rightly so), by lecturing everyone on how faith and politics do not fit.  Until we think that this particular guy has the right understanding which fits faith.  In reality this perpetuates the cycle.  There is no more kingdom advancement in this group of elected officials than any other, and it is absurd that we act as though anyone but the Almighty is capable of sustaining or destroying his creation.  But the lack of understanding and reason within the hundreds of biblioblogging discussions have shown that those who have invited the political beast inside didn't really know what they were getting into, nor did they know how to handle it.

In short, if our ability to research and discuss modern politics is any way reflective of how we conduct the work of theology then we should have no credibility left for the work of the church.  Indeed, many do not.

church basement really awesome apocalyptic B movie festival (part four)

MOVIE FOUR: Judgment (2001)

In what has to be one of the most stellar cast line-ups in the history of really bad church movies, Mr T joins Corbin Bernsen (and the ubiquitous Nick Mancuso) in this courtroom thriller about the end times and . . . . . . judgment!  When I first saw this movie I couldn't quite believe what I was seeing, but then I remembered the sub-sphere of evangelical film production and figured it must be (sadly) true.

SYNOPSIS:

Perhaps following on the success of Ally McBeal, this movie is set mostly within a courtroom where the Christian opposition to the antichrist (leader of O.N.E.) quickly turns into the trial of the century when Mitch (Bernsen) summons Jesus Christ to the stand.  This is clearly an Arnie Becker move.  The Christians in the film are referred to as Haters and are thus systematically being put away.  Mr T is part of a group that is planning on rescuing their own 'hater' from the trial, bringing to the table some of that A-Team experience we all know and love.  Clearly this is an out-of-cash 80s refab set in an end-time apocalyptic scenario.  And that wouldn't even be that bad, except that this project is so ridiculously put together.  What else can I say?

TRAILER:

REVIEW:

One of the biggest problems with Cloud Ten Productions is that they keep reproducing films which are so preoccupied with the last days and the rise of the antichrist that they continue to perpetuate their own beliefs in defiance of biblical evidence and sound theology.  Further along this line, they are the only ones making movies in this scope and thus have no real opportunity for 'dialoguing' with other perspectives - in other words, they all look the same.  And, as I have heard from a number of people, it gives the impression that Christians are only concerned with the end times and have nothing else really to talk about.

What is great about the antichrist in these films is that you can always see him from a mile away, even though everyone in the script cannot see his sinister-ness  for anything.  To help here, resident antichrist Franco Macalousso has slick hair, slicker suits and a portrait of himself hanging above his desk (bruh-ha-ha-ha-ha!).  And he is always doing something good, which we all suspect is going to be evil at some point.  If this is the pat definition for an antichrist, then we're surrounded by them - called Washington D. C., Detroit or Chicago.

Again, there is the perpetuated perspective that in order to overcome the violence and militarism, Christians will need to succeed violently and by becoming more militaristic.  Enter Mr T into the fray.  The same is true in the Left Behind sequicentilogy, there is more emphasis on bloodshed and covert action than there is a proclamation of the Lamb's overcoming through suffering and death.  Believers are nowhere pushed in this direction, perhaps one reason why they are thought of as 'Haters'?????  But this is within their own script, so. . .?????

In the end, it makes the festival as a headliner because it has Corbin Bersen and Mr T - and who wouldn't want to see that? 

body, soul, and human life

Joel B. Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008).

With this post I will have given report on my annual end-of-year book blitz for 2008 (the two or three weeks after administering exams), in which I make an attempt to go through books of interest which are typically outside of my immediate range of research and reading.  (This also explains why so many reviews as of late.)  I read this one first, thinking I might not find it the most fascinating and would perhaps want an escape.  In reality, however, it was one of my favorite reads of the entire year.

This book is excellent.

Joel Green offers here not only an examination into the biblical portrait of humanity which explores research in the neurosciences (an area he is interacting with on post-graduate levels), but demonstrates how theological interpretation ought to be conducted in light of the world which surrounds the academic community.  Not apologizing for his stance on biblical commitment, Green is unafraid to engage the sciences and show how both can benefit from the other.

Chapter One: For many, this chapter alone will prove to be worth the price of the book.  Green addresses the natural quest of humanity to find itself, to discover its own story, and to place itself within the created order.  In setting up this discussion, he rightly asserts that this requires a humbling of humanity by both the journey itself and the discoveries which are made.  This is especially true for journeys of faith, ". . . namely, the realization that the Bible is about God, first and foremost, and only derivatively about us" (3).  As to why one should engage science, Green rightly comments, ". . . that science already informs exegesis; it is only a question of which science or whose, good science or bad" (21, emphasis in original).

Chapter Two: Here the author takes on the question, "What does it mean to be human?"  Exploring both scientific and biblical data, Green does not allow the historian to enter in with the assumption that the ancients already had a singular and complete view of the person (cf. 49f.).  What is found in the Bible is more of an eschatological dualism rather than an anthropological one (cf. 59).  Though Green makes more solid points than I can point out here, one particular emphasis which comes to the fore is the understanding that relationship is a key component to the nature of humanity.

Chapter Three: Sin and freedom are given attention in this chapter, with Green's response to various scientific challenges to the nature of Christian ethics and a portion of the biblical discussion of how sin and freedom affect the nature of humanity.  On the latter he keeps to the writings of Peter, James and Paul.  Summarizing by way of his conclusion on the Pauline perspective: "Required, rather, is human change, a theological transformation - a deep-seated conversion of one's conception of God and, thus, in one's commitments, attitudes, and everyday practices" (103).  Simply: this is about who we are and what we do.

Chapter Four: What then of salvation?  Green turns to this topic here by focussing on the Lukan material of the NT (and the concept of "embodied conversion" (109)).  What is especially interesting here - keeping in mind the neurosciences - is the summons repeatedly found in Luke-Acts of acting out one's conversion commitment.  There is a sense (and one might easily think of some of the church fathers and early monastic writers) that doing solidifies theological commitment on this: ". . . in order to make life-events meaningful, we must conceptualize them and we do so in terms of well-worn paths in our brains . . ." (118).  The outlook would thus turn to prayer and witness.

Chapter Five: The final chapter appropriately considers the resurrection of the body, a view of what it means to be truly human (at least for the Christian).  I appreciate Green's interaction with Hasker's emergent dualism in this section but would like to have seen more conclusive statements guiding me along with his own thought in comparison (142-143).  Setting the NT data for resurrection among the restoration of Israel (he is correct in doing so), Green explores statements regarding an intermediate state as well as the final outcome for the people of God.  One specific mark of humanity worth mentioning here is that the conception in the mind of the ancient Israelites does not always match up with our ethereal understandings of the afterlife: "The Israelite has a sense of self above all in relation to the people of God, and this in relation to the covenant and promises of the God of Israel" (169).

The hope for humanity being fully alive is well understood through the conclusions which Green draws from the Pauline perspective.  In the Corinthian correspondence the apostle speaks of the person being clothed in Christ which will replace the nakedness of our existence.  Since the concept of nakedness meant certain public and moral shame, there is great meaning here for the hope of all humanity to come and put on the fullness of their being as found in the resurrection of the Messiah.

porpoise-driven

the lord's supper: five views

Gordon T. Smith (ed.), The Lord's Supper: Five Views (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008).

Kudos to InterVarsity Press for continuing to pursue the market on multiple-views books even though it has become completely saturated and they (unlike Zondervan) do not have a specific series devoted to the publishing 'genre.'  As I make this tongue-in-cheek comment I am again reminded why these books, while not without purpose or usefulness, have become rather dull in some of their effectiveness: it seems that we have developed an art form for writing and publishing in this style, tweaked it around what looks good to the average person and formatted it around what will sell in the marketplace.  This is perhaps why the last few of these types of books have been boring to navigate and slow to excite.

These books seem to have three basic types of essays: 1) the dogmatic assertion that this view is the only way to possibly understand the issue, with interaction towards the other writers which comes in slightly above name-calling; 2) the position which figures this is but one way to take this issue and the others are adding valuable insights to the discussion, there is nothing negative at all in their responses; 3) the middle-road of offering what seems to be good and then giving broad strokes as to why the other positions just to cut the mustard - never inspiring, always inviting.

This short treatment on the Lord's Supper (a brisk 143 pages) is no exception.  Five views are presented, and while the particular five could have perhaps been spread out a bit more there are a couple of perspectives that will certainly raise the interest of many (e.g. The Roman Catholic View and The Pentecostal View).  

1)  The Roman Catholic View is presented by Brother Jeffrey Gros, who is most concerned throughout the book with the unity of the Lord's Supper, at times bending over backward to envision this.  He works from the perspective: "We will know that the biblical koininoa is restored when we able, again, to partake together at the one Table of the Lord" (21).  He is certainly right in this view, but sacrifices space for dialogue with the other positions to promote his view.

2)  The Lutheran View is given by John R. Stephenson, who emphasizes the christological focus of the event and works primarily through the lens of church history (catechism and Luther abounds).  While reading Roger Olson's response I found echos of my own thinking after reading this view: that it was quite narrow in its scope and somewhat exclusive to other branches of Lutheranism.

3)  The Reformed View comes from Leanne Van Dyk, who largely presents out of Zwingli, Bullinger and Calvin.  This essay is fixed upon sacramentalism, working to explain what the commemoration of the Lord's Supper does and does not accomplish/represent.  This was a difficult challenge for any author, and Van Dyk gives a very good overview of the historical perspective on the topic (despite the 'Argh!' of the Lutheran Response).

4)  The Baptist View is given by Roger E. Olson who, as always, does a fine job in both presenting his case and interacting with the other ideas in play.  Although there are a bazillion sections of Baptist theology, he does well to find the common threads and offer them in meaningful and succinct fashion.  His approach is to emphasize the workings of the Lord's Supper in the community life of the believer: "Through the Communion service, then, God's people actually experience Christ's presence in their midst" (104).

5)  The Pentecostal View is presented by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and seeks to discover a "Pentecostal Sacramentology" (117).  Laying out the different strands of the Pentecostal perspective, one interesting addition to his essay is his discussion on the Lord's Supper and healing.  He concludes with four areas of meaning attributed to the Lord's Supper: community edification, mutual service, evangelistic witness, worship.

While no essay is particularly bad, none is either especially inspiring.  The responses are quite short (all shorter than two pages), which leaves the reader - especially the novice - wondering why these traditions are incompatible.  They clearly are at some level, otherwise the community which Brother Jeffrey so desires would already be a reality.  And such a more in-depth discussion would be fruitful for the book in taking steps toward this ideal becoming a reality.  As with all of these books, other perspectives could have been included but there has to be a stopping point somewhere.  Yet the range of diversity looks broader on the book's cover than in the words printed inside.

With two or three other multiple-views books already in existence, I remain curious as to what would make this one stand out.  Perhaps a good read and resource, but probably not at the top of the list for the topic.

catholic commentary on sacred scripture

George T. Montague, First and Second Timothy, Titus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008).

Another of the purchases which returned with me from Boston is one of the two inaugural volumes of Baker's "Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture" (cf. also, The Gospel of Mark).  There are a handful of significant gaps within traditional evangelical theology, many of which could be addressed with the infusion of varied voices within the Christian tradition (I remember The Professor - I. H. Marshall - mentioning a few years ago that we needed to see a liberal commentary on the New Testament emerge).  Dialogue is the key to advancing our theology, and with the plethora of commentaries which are flooding the marketplace it is striking how few innovative or new perspectives are being given.  This leads to the dulling of our own biblical understanding.

Having said this, when I purchased this volume I was hopeful that I would have more points of healthy disagreement or differing perspective that I would be forced to work through some of the text in a new way.  In fact, I remember that my reasoning on the sales floor in Boston was that I would choose the volume on the Pastoral Epistles over Mark because of the role of church tradition and leadership which would be addressed in the application sections of the work.  Unfortunately for my expectation, this was definitely not the case - it took 188 pages for a piece of significant disagreement with what Montague has offered.  I will say, however, that when it finally came the dam burst with his assertion: "Hence, sola Scriptura is a nonbiblical teaching that is used to affirm a nonexistent biblical teaching" (188).

Aside from this (which might contain a caricature of the Protestant view if pressed), the commentary itself is a helpful introductory text to the Pastoral Epistles which would be appropriate for many who seek to teach or study Scripture.  There is no overt Roman Catholic teaching in the text, though it is by no means hidden in the woodwork.  The focus remains on the message which Paul (assumed author of the three) is offering to Timothy, Titus and their respective congregations so as to properly hear the message being inspired by the Spirit to the church today.  Many times while reading the work I felt as though Montague had a good way of phrasing and capturing various thoughts and presenting them to the reader.  I look forward to incorporating some of this into my work at the church.

From a scholarly perspective, there is nothing new found in this volume - it is intended to be introductory and devotional.  There are sidebar notes and insertions throughout which focus on the biblical background as well as some aspect of the historical tradition which has been preserved within the RCC (in fact, on strength is the presence of the voices from tradition whereas many evangelical commentaries would simply not have ventured).  My only other criticism is that the application sections to each portion sometimes come across as strained and/or hurried by the author.  In other words, these do not always feel at home in the text and occasionally reach the stage of afterthought.  With so much solid work being done on this level in other areas, Baker would have done well to safeguard this feature of the commentary against such pitfalls.

Perhaps the tone of the commentary can best be captured with a line from the commentary on 1 Timothy 1:13: "Changed lives are the seal of the gospel's authenticity, and no change is more remarkable in the New Testament than that of Paul" (42).  Standing on solid hermeneutical ground, Montague provides a good commentary on the devotional use of the text for those desiring to bear the fruit of their faith.

nothing new for new year's

And so we come to the annual change of calendar which typically leaves our culture with a bit of sentiment, a waning portion of optimism, and some pieces of lingering hope for what might happen in the next 365 day cycle.  For some folks this is a very big deal, for others it passes by quietly in the night.  Perhaps everyone has had at least one or two years where they have made New Year's clock chime something to commemorate.  But I must confess that with each passing time through it becomes a little less of extravagance.

I would suppose that such sentiment is born out of increasing wisdom and passing fervor for the things that this world promises to be.  After all, today is till riddled with the same challenges of yesterday, even though they are designated by differing years.  Understanding that life will continue on with its ups and downs, successes and failures, laughter and tears makes this little more than an excuse to gather with family and wish good cheer to friends.  But in a few days we will eventually all reach the conclusion together that this is the same world with the same problems and the same corruption (yes, I travelled through Chicago today to be met with appropriate reminders of this).  And before this thought wanders into depression, it should especially be noted that this world still has the same hope and salvation that it ever has, and that is the really big news.

Yes, this may be an occasion to be happy but the reason to celebrate has already been given.  And it is not found in resolutions or promises or pledges or media-induced optimism.  These things are fleeting and have given their reward in full.  A greater faith might just mean understanding the world as a smaller entity with limited size and scope, except in the plan which has been infused to it by its Creator.  Let all things fade away in the light of this glory and grace.

Happy Renewed Year