What say you?
Dave Black linked to a blog that had the following from Craig Blomberg:
In our transient age, we need Christians from all walks of life who go to a place and stay for a long time.
I am in agreement with Blomberg, especially in the area of foreign missions – we need more people who will go to the furthest reaches of the earth, especially among the unreached places where there is little to no gospel presence and stay there among the people for a long time, if not their whole lives. Short term missions are great and needed, but so is the need for folks to go and plant themselves in a culture and society in need of the gospel,
And the point of the blog is well taken that just because we go to a place to serve the Lord and opposition arises that we are to pick up camp and move on – there will always be opposition, and it is the steady presence and persistence of Christian living and gospel preaching that will overcome the opposition.
The need for people to stay put is also relevant to leading congregations, be it the typical pastor role or the elder lead team – it takes a long time to disciple a congregation and that can be hard to do if or when congregations are having trouble holding down a pastor or when pastors are somewhat money hungry and always looking to move to larger better paid churches.
I am reading through Paul Hiebert, et al’s Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices
(Baker, 1999). It’s an interesting and insightful book. If you are a pastor and you haven’t read it you should really think about doing so. The problems associated with “folk religions” and even what is called “folk Christianity” isn’t a problem limited to developing countries or more traditional religious practices. It’s as much a problem right here in America as anywhere else. Why else are there problems of people reading the horoscopes, going to seances, playing with tarot cards and getting their palms read? That is all aspects of folk religions, not just slaying chickens or pigs or something. If you don’t think people in your own congregations are messing with this stuff (at least some) think again.
Anyways an early chapter is talking about the phenomenology of religion and looking at religion from a systems approach (evaluating how religion works in each of the human systems: spiritual, cultural, social, psychological and biophysical). What I want to share with you is a part of religion as a cultural system. Religion is an essential aspect of any culture. All cultures have one form of religious expression or another and within the cultural system there are three parts to any given belief system: ideas, feelings and values. Heibert et, al., make an interesting explanation about the role of feelings (and I am tagging on experience) in religion when they write the following:
Religions also involve deep feelings – expressions of joy and sorrow, fear and revulsion; and awe and worship. These powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods act as a wall, protecting beliefs from attacks from within and without by providing emotional support to their truthfulness. These emotions are expressed in different ways in different cultures. In some religions, the dominant emotions are awe and wonder in the presence of great mystery expressed in high rituals [liturgy?]. Others seek peace and calm by means of meditation and mysticism. Still others stress ecstasy, achieved by means of dance, drums, drugs, and self-torture. In short, religions vary greatly in the emotions they value and in the ways these emotions are expressed (37).
I find this interesting because I can see how they could replace “religions” with “denominations” or “sects” of Christianity as each different group seems to have different emotions they value and express these emotions in different ways. But then some say “but it is just all emotionalism” especially when talking about Pentecostals and Charismatics. I say, hold on a minute – and those who really like participating in the Divine Liturgy don’t get emotional about it? That’s not emotionalism? Perhaps they are not dancing and all that but they get caught up in it all experiencing deep emotions in worship. But if I raise my hands in worship, or shedding tears or even laughing (not wildly necessarily, I’m not talking about that) that is getting too involved? How?
There is nothing wrong with experiencing deep emotions in worship or getting all caught up in the worship service and part of worshiping God in a corporate setting – it is part of being human and part of being Christian. Now, if that is all some people are into then it can be a problem, but if it is part of the whole service, why is that a problem?
In fact, if the experience of deep emotions and feelings and experiences are quelched or discouraged, people will leave and move on either to another church or to a different religion. In fact Hiebert et. al., go on to say:
Cross cultural communicators often overlook the importance of this affective dimension in the lives of ordinary people. Leaders stress preaching of cognitive truth in church services, and downplay the importance of feelings in worship. They push to get work done and don’t see the emotional distress caused by their actions. People often leave the church with their heads full and their hearts empty. Most people make religious decisions on the basis of emotions and experience as much as on rational argument. On the other hand, stressing affectivity alone leaves people with their hearts full and their heads empty. Both cognition and affectivity are vital to religious life (37).
If I remember correctly, one of the speakers at a recent T4G conference very strongly discouraged emotional appeals to the gospel. He said no one should ever make an emotional appeal to the gospel, only intellectual appeals. That person needs to read this book and see they are not only wrong, they are hurting the people they preach to and even possibly hindering people from coming to the Lord. Very few people I know who made an emotional decision to follow Jesus ever regretted it. In fact, I know no such person. If they do, it has more to do with poor discipleship of the church at large then it does the problem of so-called emotionalism.
While we all talk about not “going to church” for selfish reasons and all but to go to serve others, well, the point is taken yet I know there are time we all “need” worship to get ourselves fixed up so to speak spiritually – I do that. Well, as a pastor, then I put in the worship CD and just listen to it and have a worship time and sometimes let the emotions go. Well, sometimes! lol!
So all that to share that emotions, feelings and experiences have a valid place in religious life and that if you as a pastor or pastoral leader, even an elder team are not allowing even encouraging this, you are hurting your people.
In case it hasn’t been known, I’ll let the cat out of the bag and share that I am not a huge fan of N.T. Wright and honestly, I have only read one book of his What Saint Paul Really Said (Eerdmans) or the main thrusts of the New Perspective on Paul (on which I did take a seminary level course and read quite extensively many articles and books related to the teaching). So some of my critique is not based on wide reading of his works – yet, at the same time, I have a feeling once one has read a book or two of his, you’ve pretty much heard what he has to say as it is all repeated in one fashion or another throughout.
Well, anyways, Mike Wittmer has a post reflecting on Kevin Vanhoozer’s response to Wright from during the recent Theology conference held at Wheaton. His reflections on Vahoozer’s thoughts and what Vanhoozer has to say, basically reflect my own sentiments. These sentiments are that there is something missing from the picture Wright tries to paint. My sentiments reflect what Vanhoozer sees right and what he sees wrong about Wright’s theology. His points about adoption are well taken and need to be more fully developed.
Here is part of what Wittmer writes:
Vanhoozer wisely and with good humor suggests that Wright is right in what he affirms (the communal nature of salvation) and wrong in what he rejects (the traditional Protestant understanding of justification). Vanhoozer shows how John Calvin already suggested what Wright seeks to accomplish, and that the theological category of adoption may be the best way to bring together the best that the traditional Protestants and the New Perspective has to offer.
I winced when Vanhoozer admitted that most systematic theologians do little with adoption. It’s an important part of our salvation, but we generally focus on more controversial topics such as justification and sanctification. Vanhoozer explained that adoption is able to account for both the Reformers’ focus on being accepted by God and the New Perspective’s emphasis on being in God’s family. Here’s the money quote, which I roughly paraphrase from memory: “What if the legal court is also an adoption court? What if the same court that declares us to be innocent also declares us to belong to God’s family?”
A similar reflection was made by Chris Tilling on his blog as well, especially when he notes:
By protecting NT texts so thoroughly from eisegesis, his [Wright's] presentation of the gospel has sometimes been framed in a way that eclipses the significance of the good news for me. Yeah, ‘modern individualism’ blah blah, but I challenge you to pick up Bultmann’s NT theology without finding yourself addressed by a gospel that speaks a clear word of hope to you personally – not just creation generally.
So what’s the issue? The issue is that when one reads Wight, there is little if any sense of he power of the gospel or the power of the cross for YOU personally - that redemption is for you personally, not just all of us corporately; that sin is a particular individual problem, not just a general problem that affects humanity and the creation. I accept that many need the corrective that salvation has its communal holistic aspects – that God is saving a people for himself, that he intends to redeem all creation. What seems to be missing is that Jesus came to save sinners too (1 Timothy 1;15). Wright seems to think that the only way of thinking for Paul was that of community and the creation at large. He seemed to miss the verse I just noted, 1 Timothy 1:15 (as an example) where Paul says,
“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” The individual aspect of Paul’s thinking is seen in his statement “of whom I am the worst.” (TNIV)
So, that is my main issue with the theology of N.T. Wright - perhaps he has put some emphasis on the individual aspects but so far as I can tell he hasn’t spelled it out clearly enough or, it is just not there (which I think if it was there more Reformed folk would support him). If he did have this dual emphasis of redemption being both individual communal, I think he win over more people and face less controversy.
It’s a both and not an either or – redemption is both individual and corporate – for both humanity and the whole of creation.
There you have it – there are plenty other issues to consider but this will suffice for now.
here is a video of our moldy house being moved out of the Park.
i was in a hurry to get over there so my babbling in the beginning was frustration at doing that part of the video.
I am thinking about checking out. It’s Allan R. Bevere‘s The Character of Our Discontent
Here’s a description:
The Character of Our Discontent grew out of the author’s conviction that pastors do not preach enough about the Old Testament. The result is 19 chapters, each of which represents a sermon on an Old Testament character. These sermons are lively, fast paced, and practical yet are rooted in sound scholarship and are examples of the homiletical art.
The Character of Our Discontent is an adventure in preaching and it invites us into the adventure of living in relationship with God, an adventure that has similar characteristics whether we are learning about God’s call to Abraham or how a call to mission in Africa came to a contemporary English teacher nearing retirement.
Christians who would like to learn how the Old Testament can enlighten and guide their Christian walk, and pastors who would like to learn how to preach more effectively from the Old Testament will both find these sermons an invaluable aid. While Dr. Bevere specializes in the New Testament and theology, he believes that pastors (and academics as well) can preach and teach effectively outside their areas of specialty. Indeed, they must, and this teaching can enrich their own learning and the fields of study into which they venture.
and bless the body of Christ too.
HT: Dave Black
I thought David at via Emmaus had a good post on what he calls do-it-yourself Christianity. He is preaching through Galatians and this is where that is coming from. Here is an excerpt:
Bottom line, do-it-yourself Christianity is trusting in yourself to continue what Christ has begun. When you compare that mindset to that of the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ, you will soon realize that such thinking is bankrupt of the gospel. Gospel living is a life marked by daily repentance and fresh faith in the living and active word of God. Salvation is not marked by checking a box, but is marked out by Spirit-produced fruit (cf Gal 5:22-23). Sadly, American Christianity is rife with do-it-yourself Christianity. It is a kind of religion that confesses Jesus, but denies his power.
Ouch but right on. I was especially convicted by some of the points he listed such as prayerlessness as evidence that you are trying to do things on your own.
Head over and read more.
the more I realize the less I know about the ways of the Lord (or that I have so much to learn, re-learn, adjust, etc), I remain convinced the Bible is the primary means by which we come to know and understand God, so far as we are able in our humanity though we experience him mostly through community and fellowship with one another. I also realize too that some things cause me to dig my heels deeper and other things I realize are too uncertain to take dogmatic stands on. But too, the more I read the more I appreciate the grace and mercy of the Lord, they are new every morning. Even so, I can’t say I’ve become less conservative more than less dogmatic, if that makes sense since I still land pretty squarely in the conservative evangelical camp. Additionally, the more I read and study Scripture the less cessationist I become (never was, but I realize more the presence and power of the Holy Spirit who is at work within and among us). It’s great to be Pentecostal – one who lives life in the empowerment of the Spirit – for he is the one who enables us to live like Christ (however that might look) as we give witness to him in word and in deed.
I also stand in agreement with what Jason put up.
I got an amazon gift card for my birthday, so among other things, I ordered Kenneth J. Archer’s book A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture And Community
It has a pretty good endorsement from Richard Bauckham himself which reads in part with the product description:
In this state of the art study, Kenneth J. Archer provides the most detailed and comprehensive analysis of Pentecostal Hermeneutics to date. Archer identifies the hermeneutical filter through which the Pentecostal story and identity is understood and meaning is made, with specific attention given to the Central Narrative Convictions of the Pentecostal Community. The model here proposed builds upon the tridactic negotiation for meaning that draws upon the biblical text, the Pentecostal community, and the role of the Holy Spirit. Archer offers a significant paradigm for all those interested in the topic of Pentecostal hermeneutics and its significance for contemporary belief and practice. ”Archer has provided . . . an insightful proposal for the kind of Pentecostal hermeneutic that is appropriate to our contemporary context.” (R. Bauckham, Prof of NT, Univ of St Andrew’s, UK).
Kenneth J. Archer (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is Associate Professor of Theology at the Church of God Theological Seminary Cleveland. In addition to his ministry in theological education, he has served for a number of years as a pastor and is an Ordained Bishop with the Church of God (Cleveland, TN).
Sounds like maybe Archer was a student of Bauckham? Perhaps. And does it sound like an interesting book (prolly a published dissertation) or what? Indeed. I am looking forward to reading this one.
Henry Neufield has some most excellent thoughts about “the problem” with the Jesus Paradigm as presented in Dave Black’s book The Jesus Paradigm. Here is a good quote:
I think we find the Bible very hard to read and apply because we’re so busy trying to avoid the overall uncomfortable message that we find it easy to get tangled up in the much more contentious details. Somehow we’d rather argue about the appropriate method and age for baptism than to deal with the death to self that’s involved. We’d much rather debate about styles of worship, orders of service, and the proper length for a sermon than to give ourselves wholeheartedly to God.
He’s right, we like to quibble about the details and avoid all out wholehearted consecration and devotion to God. Why? It’s too painful and involves death to self, hardship, suffering and changing into the image of Jesus Christ himself. Put simply, it’s just too hard to be humble obedient servants. We give lip service to putting God first, when will we do it?
