I'm reading Practice Resurrection: A Conversation on Growing Up in Christ, by Eugene Peterson. Here are a couple excerpts that I thought were interesting:
Church is the textured context in which we grow up in Christ to maturity. But church is difficult. Sooner or later, though, if we are serious about growing up in Christ, we have to deal with the church...Many Christians find church to be the most difficult aspect of being a Christian. And many drop out-there may be more Christians who don't go to church or go only occasionally than who embrace it, warts and all...So why church? The short answer is because the Holy Spirit formed it to be a colony of heaven in the country of death. Church is the core element in the strategy of the Holy Spirit for providing human witness and physical presence to the Jesus-inaugurated kingdom of God in this world...But it takes both sustained effort and a determined imagination to understand and embrace church in its entirety. (11)
Worship is not first of all telling people how to live...Worship is first and foremost the redemptive re-ordering of our hearts and minds to God. One of the common dismissals of worship is that it is boring, nothing happens--"I don't get anything out of it." And so well-meaning people figure out ways to add "adrenaline" to it. But worship isn't supposed to make "something happen." Worship brings us into a presence in which God makes something happen. (37, 38)
Friday, September 23, 2011
Monday, May 09, 2011
Method or Madness
Several years ago I began to read extensively on church growth, contextual missions and theology, the emergent church, and other how-to-do-church-in-the-21st-century books. At the same time my pastor was challenging the idea of spectator Christianity. This is where ‘super-star’ musicians and preachers wow the crowds with their talent while the crowds seldom if ever engage in the worship activities: preaching, prayer, singing, service, etc.
After 30+ years of three songs, prayer, offering, announcements, special song, teaching, and final prayer I was ready for ‘real’ Christian ministry. The pattern of worship was so familiar that I began to despise it. I read McManus, Bell, Warren, Barna, Viola, McLaren and many others. I let the ideas of these good, honest men roll around in my head and a new framework of simple, Spirit-led church emerged in my imagination. On my daughter’s sixteenth birthday I woke up around 2 or 3 AM and started writing my own vision for how church should be ‘done’ (She’s approaching 21, so, you can see these things have been rattling around in my mind for some time).
Eighteen months ago I helped start a small church in East Tennessee. I was excited about the possibility of ‘doing church’ in the simple, Spirit-led manner I had imagined. Although it is good (at times exceptionally good) I am cured of the disease of believing that there is a ‘right’ method for doing church and worshiping God. I now believe that the pursuit of method can be a form of magic (I’ll explain more below). I believed, while I was worshipping in a traditional way, that the number and tempo of the songs, when we stood or sat, who spoke and when, would actually cause God to ‘move’. I came to believe, in my newly acquired framework of worship, that God would actually speak if we simply opened it up, kept it simple and intimate, and called for full participation of all the believers. If, however, a person has spent their week not seeking the will of God, not serving others in love, not looking into God’s word for direction, not praying for his guidance, and then attempt to ‘do church’; their efforts will fail no matter the method. But, if people adore God, serve others, and seek his will throughout the week then when they come together to celebrate God’s victory in their lives; whether it’s traditional, emergent, simple, charismatic, or liturgical God will meet with them and they will experience, both individually and collectively, the transcendent, life changing, presence of God.
Going back to my claim that method can be a form of magic. Magic is the art of invoking supernatural powers. Magicians would conjure through their actions or incantations some spell that would ‘obligate’ the supernatural powers to act. I have a feeling that in some ways we have come to think that God responds to us, through our methods, like the powers respond to a magician. But, there are a couple things to remember about God and I think they’re supremely important: 1) he acts unilaterally; and 2) he acts out of grace. These two points are corollary to each other. We could not act on our own so he had to act for us (that’s the whole Jesus in the flesh, on the cross thing). When we receive the Spirit and seek to do his will we can become participants in his work, but our efforts must be heart driven and not method driven. So, it is in my opinion that an individual or community of faith could be liturgical or charismatic in background and still experience and be changed by the presence of God.
I mean to imply that there are benefits in many of our traditions and also reasons to consider opening ourselves up to less structure, but the question of method is less important to the Christian community then the question of heart and desire for God. If you are at dis-ease by the methods of your church simply open your own heart toward God, seek him through the week, and serve others through love. When you return on Sunday embrace God through your spirit and see if you are not changed.
After 30+ years of three songs, prayer, offering, announcements, special song, teaching, and final prayer I was ready for ‘real’ Christian ministry. The pattern of worship was so familiar that I began to despise it. I read McManus, Bell, Warren, Barna, Viola, McLaren and many others. I let the ideas of these good, honest men roll around in my head and a new framework of simple, Spirit-led church emerged in my imagination. On my daughter’s sixteenth birthday I woke up around 2 or 3 AM and started writing my own vision for how church should be ‘done’ (She’s approaching 21, so, you can see these things have been rattling around in my mind for some time).
Eighteen months ago I helped start a small church in East Tennessee. I was excited about the possibility of ‘doing church’ in the simple, Spirit-led manner I had imagined. Although it is good (at times exceptionally good) I am cured of the disease of believing that there is a ‘right’ method for doing church and worshiping God. I now believe that the pursuit of method can be a form of magic (I’ll explain more below). I believed, while I was worshipping in a traditional way, that the number and tempo of the songs, when we stood or sat, who spoke and when, would actually cause God to ‘move’. I came to believe, in my newly acquired framework of worship, that God would actually speak if we simply opened it up, kept it simple and intimate, and called for full participation of all the believers. If, however, a person has spent their week not seeking the will of God, not serving others in love, not looking into God’s word for direction, not praying for his guidance, and then attempt to ‘do church’; their efforts will fail no matter the method. But, if people adore God, serve others, and seek his will throughout the week then when they come together to celebrate God’s victory in their lives; whether it’s traditional, emergent, simple, charismatic, or liturgical God will meet with them and they will experience, both individually and collectively, the transcendent, life changing, presence of God.
Going back to my claim that method can be a form of magic. Magic is the art of invoking supernatural powers. Magicians would conjure through their actions or incantations some spell that would ‘obligate’ the supernatural powers to act. I have a feeling that in some ways we have come to think that God responds to us, through our methods, like the powers respond to a magician. But, there are a couple things to remember about God and I think they’re supremely important: 1) he acts unilaterally; and 2) he acts out of grace. These two points are corollary to each other. We could not act on our own so he had to act for us (that’s the whole Jesus in the flesh, on the cross thing). When we receive the Spirit and seek to do his will we can become participants in his work, but our efforts must be heart driven and not method driven. So, it is in my opinion that an individual or community of faith could be liturgical or charismatic in background and still experience and be changed by the presence of God.
I mean to imply that there are benefits in many of our traditions and also reasons to consider opening ourselves up to less structure, but the question of method is less important to the Christian community then the question of heart and desire for God. If you are at dis-ease by the methods of your church simply open your own heart toward God, seek him through the week, and serve others through love. When you return on Sunday embrace God through your spirit and see if you are not changed.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Bin Laden is Dead - How Should We Then Live
I will never forget the morning of September 11th 2001. As I prepared for work my wife called me into the other room because the news was reporting that a plane had struck one of the trade towers in NYC. I was incredulous as to how a pilot could make that kind of mistake. Within a few minutes, when the other tower was struck, I instantly realized that something sinister was occurring. I pealed myself away from the television and drove to work. When I arrived at the office the monitors were lit up with the CNN news feed. I walked into the office in time to watch the first tower fall – I was sick – I will never forget the horror, the anger, and the dismay at what was occurring. The other tower fell, thousands died, and tens of thousands lost loved ones. America engaged in a war which has claimed additional lives of both soldiers and civilians. Think about the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The estimates vary greatly, but the most conservative numbers run at nearly 250,000 (probably more). Two-hundred, Fifty Thousand! The repercussive, exponential pain of a single action! The mind behind this act was Osama Bin Laden.
I love my country and never want to relive the events of 9/11. So, I hope my government continues to exercise its right and a responsibility to protect its citizens against attack. My hope is that we will continue to look for less violent ways to accomplish this (I write this with the full understanding that violent men often only accept violent ends). I am an American and I love my country, but I am first a Christian and a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is to those who are first a part of this kingdom that I address the rest of this post.
I fully understand the chest thumping victory cries of those who rallied at the White House and in NYC at the towers site last evening and this morning, but this is the response of people whose hope lies in a strong national presence; people who need proof that America is the world’s only ‘super-power’. Again, I understand hurting families and the need for justice and closure, but as Christians we recognize that justice will never be fully served in this life and will rarely, if ever, be administered properly by other broken, fallen people. Our hope, however, is in Jesus Christ, who has been exalted above all the powers and authorities of the earth (Ephesians 1) and has called us to join him in his kingdom as ambassadors of peace and reconciliation. In Ephesians 3.10-11 it says, “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the powers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The church is the visible representation of what God purposes to do for all humanity.
The church in the first century was having trouble integrating Jews and Gentiles within the same congregations, but this reconciliation was called for by its leaders so that tangible evidence that Jesus Christ had taken his throne could be seen and that “all things in heaven and earth” were being reconciled to him. The church today must gain a vision of the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of peace and reconciliation, which is both active now and will be more completely experienced in the future. The church must stand at a distance and distinct from the state in which it resides or it will never be able to call that state or its people to something better and higher. The church and its members in particular must reflect the peace of the world that is to come. The future Kingdom of God will be utopian in nature. In contrast to other utopian attempts where power and force are used as the primary tools of construction; God’s kingdom is constructed through self-sacrifice and meekness. A triumphal, pro-American faith only subjugates the Kingdom of God and essentially marginalizes the church. (I say the church is marginalized when it ties its destiny to that of its host state.)
As Christians, we believe that everything that defaces, distorts, damages, or spoils another person is evil. What Osama Bin Laden and his followers have done, and will no doubt continue to do, are evil and should be resisted. I doubt, however, that violent actions will ever beget peace. As Christians we should recognize that more than most. The Pax Romana was only peace to those who quietly subjugated themselves to the powers that were – Jesus found out that Roman Peace came at the end of a scourging whip and the top of a crucifixion stake. This is not how the Kingdom of God will create peace, however. NT Wright said, “revenge is keeping evil in circulation”. Can kingdom-peace be generated from violence? Or, will it come as we exemplify the character of God in our communities – ever expanding concentric circles of peaceful, integrated communities – not returning evil for evil, but blessings for cursing. Ezekiel 33:11 says, Say to them, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die?” Whenever wicked, evil people perish it should not be a day of rejoicing, but recognition of how far we are from accomplishing the commission our king has called us to.
God bless America, God bless the World.
I love my country and never want to relive the events of 9/11. So, I hope my government continues to exercise its right and a responsibility to protect its citizens against attack. My hope is that we will continue to look for less violent ways to accomplish this (I write this with the full understanding that violent men often only accept violent ends). I am an American and I love my country, but I am first a Christian and a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is to those who are first a part of this kingdom that I address the rest of this post.
I fully understand the chest thumping victory cries of those who rallied at the White House and in NYC at the towers site last evening and this morning, but this is the response of people whose hope lies in a strong national presence; people who need proof that America is the world’s only ‘super-power’. Again, I understand hurting families and the need for justice and closure, but as Christians we recognize that justice will never be fully served in this life and will rarely, if ever, be administered properly by other broken, fallen people. Our hope, however, is in Jesus Christ, who has been exalted above all the powers and authorities of the earth (Ephesians 1) and has called us to join him in his kingdom as ambassadors of peace and reconciliation. In Ephesians 3.10-11 it says, “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the powers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The church is the visible representation of what God purposes to do for all humanity.
The church in the first century was having trouble integrating Jews and Gentiles within the same congregations, but this reconciliation was called for by its leaders so that tangible evidence that Jesus Christ had taken his throne could be seen and that “all things in heaven and earth” were being reconciled to him. The church today must gain a vision of the Kingdom of God, a kingdom of peace and reconciliation, which is both active now and will be more completely experienced in the future. The church must stand at a distance and distinct from the state in which it resides or it will never be able to call that state or its people to something better and higher. The church and its members in particular must reflect the peace of the world that is to come. The future Kingdom of God will be utopian in nature. In contrast to other utopian attempts where power and force are used as the primary tools of construction; God’s kingdom is constructed through self-sacrifice and meekness. A triumphal, pro-American faith only subjugates the Kingdom of God and essentially marginalizes the church. (I say the church is marginalized when it ties its destiny to that of its host state.)
As Christians, we believe that everything that defaces, distorts, damages, or spoils another person is evil. What Osama Bin Laden and his followers have done, and will no doubt continue to do, are evil and should be resisted. I doubt, however, that violent actions will ever beget peace. As Christians we should recognize that more than most. The Pax Romana was only peace to those who quietly subjugated themselves to the powers that were – Jesus found out that Roman Peace came at the end of a scourging whip and the top of a crucifixion stake. This is not how the Kingdom of God will create peace, however. NT Wright said, “revenge is keeping evil in circulation”. Can kingdom-peace be generated from violence? Or, will it come as we exemplify the character of God in our communities – ever expanding concentric circles of peaceful, integrated communities – not returning evil for evil, but blessings for cursing. Ezekiel 33:11 says, Say to them, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die?” Whenever wicked, evil people perish it should not be a day of rejoicing, but recognition of how far we are from accomplishing the commission our king has called us to.
God bless America, God bless the World.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Repentance
I am not sure where I found this - its a little strong for my modern sensibilities, but that probably means there is some truth in it ;-).
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2 Cor. 7:10.
Conviction of sin is best portrayed in the words—
'My sins, my sins, my Saviour. How sad on Thee they fall.'
Conviction of sin is one of the rarest things that ever strikes a person. It is the threshold of an understanding of God. Jesus Christ said that when the Holy Spirit came He would convict of sin, and when the Holy Spirit rouses a person's conscience and brings her into the presence of God, it is not her relationship with others that bothers her, but her relationship with God—"against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight." Conviction of sin, the marvel of forgiveness, and holiness are so interwoven that it is only the forgiven man who is the holy man, he proves he is forgiven by being the opposite to what he was, by God's grace. Repentance always brings a man to this point: 'I have sinned.' The surest sign that God is at work is when a man says that and means it. Anything less than this is remorse for having made blunders, the reflex action of disgust at oneself.
The entrance into the Kingdom is through the pains of repentance crashing into a man's respectable goodness; then the Holy Ghost, which produces these agonies, begins the formation of the Son of God in the life. The new life will manifest itself in conscious repentance and unconscious holiness, never the other way about. The bedrock of Christianity is repentance. Strictly speaking, a man cannot repent when he chooses; repentance is a gift of God. The old Puritans used to pray for 'the gift of tears.' If ever you cease to know the virtue of repentance, you are in darkness. Examine yourself and see if you have forgotten how to be sorry.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
How My Christian World View Has Changed
Over the last several weeks my Christian worldview has been changed in three significant ways:
1) I now think the culture is not neutral, but is almost conscious in its efforts to undermine a purely Christian perspective; 2) I think the church in the west has become the lackey (maybe a less sinister term would be more balanced), the instrument, of the modern world and is really powerless to solve the problems of culture; and 3) Despite my incredulity at the possibility of solving the problems of the world I am more devoted in the effort than ever, but recognize that resolution of the world’s problems are not going to be applied globally, but locally and in small, seemingly insignificant ways.
The culture is not simply the style of the clothes and the genre of our music it is the way in which we are being conditioned to think. Technology and media are reconditioning human behavior. Marshall McLuhan had foresight when he claimed that the medium (i.e. Internet, Television, etc.) was the message. In a perverse way technology is becoming an extension of man. The social networks, like Facebook, Twitter, and My Space, will not achieve more human connectivity and interaction, but fewer, truly deep, abiding relationships. We are becoming voyeurs via the technology we now possess, not friends and lovers. The Christian perspective is one that is conditioned by the incarnation; not friend requests or instant messaging. The culture continues to preach a demythologizing message. Again, technology is the leading purveyor of this message, because the advances in technology itself are a message of rationality. Faith did not build the Internet - the arguement may begin. This constant barrage of unspoken messages undermines the foundation of a Christian perspective, that is, that God is known through intimate relatedness; he’s not an avatar on Second Life. He can be known and in knowing him all extensions to man are stripped away.
I now believe that the church is so encumbered by the weeds of modernity that it cannot produce the full fruit that the husbandman had intended. Let me give one, very obvious example, of how the church has embroiled itself in culture. During the 2000 elections I visited Pigeon Forge on a mini vacation from Nashville. I went into a bible bookstore only to be met by a life-size cutout of George W. Bush. It unsettled me that the evangelical right had sold itself to the political right in the same way that the Protestant left had given itself to the socialist minded left. I could not put it in words at the time, but now I know that Christianity as a movement is not to become intimate with these secular endeavors. Individuals who want to become civil servants are welcome, but they are not to speak for God in those roles. Nor should they attempt to create their particular brand of Christian utopianism within such roles. All these efforts do is marginalize God. He becomes a tool for modern pursuits. I threw myself into the Republican Revolution, the war on terror, and every other conservative evangelical position. I reject them all now that I realize that Protestantism is simply a messenger for cultures’ wants and whims.
The Church must stand opposite the culture where we can see more clearly to remove the mote from its eye. Standing opposite to the culture also places us nearer to God where he can share his will more distinctly with us. The church is now bearing the indictment from liberal members of society that we have contributed to the death of over one million Iraqi’s. What are we doing supporting the death of another people? If our government wants to execute a war for its interests then fine! The church, however, needs to position itself better. In this case our love for George W. Bush did not position us properly to evaluate the governments’ right to override the rights of hundreds of thousands to their lives. This is one of many examples of how the church has subjugated itself to the culture and thereby weakened God.
Finally, my perspective of God has increased to the point that I see him as higher and as more powerful than ever. Despite the futility of modern man’s efforts to resolve the world’s trouble I see a God who is able to redeem the state of the world. I want to position myself as a loving adversary to this world and the prevailing culture. I believe that God wants to redeem the deplorable, unjust conditions of man. He will use every individual and church community that opens themselves to the task. It is his will and his plan to redeem man, so, if we execute it with confidence he will come in with his power. The power of our words will not be our own, based on the criteria for power posited by the culture, but the supernatural effect of God’s word in the ears and hearts of man.
1) I now think the culture is not neutral, but is almost conscious in its efforts to undermine a purely Christian perspective; 2) I think the church in the west has become the lackey (maybe a less sinister term would be more balanced), the instrument, of the modern world and is really powerless to solve the problems of culture; and 3) Despite my incredulity at the possibility of solving the problems of the world I am more devoted in the effort than ever, but recognize that resolution of the world’s problems are not going to be applied globally, but locally and in small, seemingly insignificant ways.
The culture is not simply the style of the clothes and the genre of our music it is the way in which we are being conditioned to think. Technology and media are reconditioning human behavior. Marshall McLuhan had foresight when he claimed that the medium (i.e. Internet, Television, etc.) was the message. In a perverse way technology is becoming an extension of man. The social networks, like Facebook, Twitter, and My Space, will not achieve more human connectivity and interaction, but fewer, truly deep, abiding relationships. We are becoming voyeurs via the technology we now possess, not friends and lovers. The Christian perspective is one that is conditioned by the incarnation; not friend requests or instant messaging. The culture continues to preach a demythologizing message. Again, technology is the leading purveyor of this message, because the advances in technology itself are a message of rationality. Faith did not build the Internet - the arguement may begin. This constant barrage of unspoken messages undermines the foundation of a Christian perspective, that is, that God is known through intimate relatedness; he’s not an avatar on Second Life. He can be known and in knowing him all extensions to man are stripped away.
I now believe that the church is so encumbered by the weeds of modernity that it cannot produce the full fruit that the husbandman had intended. Let me give one, very obvious example, of how the church has embroiled itself in culture. During the 2000 elections I visited Pigeon Forge on a mini vacation from Nashville. I went into a bible bookstore only to be met by a life-size cutout of George W. Bush. It unsettled me that the evangelical right had sold itself to the political right in the same way that the Protestant left had given itself to the socialist minded left. I could not put it in words at the time, but now I know that Christianity as a movement is not to become intimate with these secular endeavors. Individuals who want to become civil servants are welcome, but they are not to speak for God in those roles. Nor should they attempt to create their particular brand of Christian utopianism within such roles. All these efforts do is marginalize God. He becomes a tool for modern pursuits. I threw myself into the Republican Revolution, the war on terror, and every other conservative evangelical position. I reject them all now that I realize that Protestantism is simply a messenger for cultures’ wants and whims.
The Church must stand opposite the culture where we can see more clearly to remove the mote from its eye. Standing opposite to the culture also places us nearer to God where he can share his will more distinctly with us. The church is now bearing the indictment from liberal members of society that we have contributed to the death of over one million Iraqi’s. What are we doing supporting the death of another people? If our government wants to execute a war for its interests then fine! The church, however, needs to position itself better. In this case our love for George W. Bush did not position us properly to evaluate the governments’ right to override the rights of hundreds of thousands to their lives. This is one of many examples of how the church has subjugated itself to the culture and thereby weakened God.
Finally, my perspective of God has increased to the point that I see him as higher and as more powerful than ever. Despite the futility of modern man’s efforts to resolve the world’s trouble I see a God who is able to redeem the state of the world. I want to position myself as a loving adversary to this world and the prevailing culture. I believe that God wants to redeem the deplorable, unjust conditions of man. He will use every individual and church community that opens themselves to the task. It is his will and his plan to redeem man, so, if we execute it with confidence he will come in with his power. The power of our words will not be our own, based on the criteria for power posited by the culture, but the supernatural effect of God’s word in the ears and hearts of man.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
What is Truth?
I should begin the response to my view of the meaning of truth by first examining what Pilate meant when he said, “What is truth”? Although the scene takes place in a legal setting, where Jesus is being tried for crimes against the state, I do not believe Pilate was saying, “What are the facts or what is accurate”. He was saying, “What is this reality you claim to represent”? With that perspective of Pilate’s words I think truth is whatever conforms to the reality of God. In him every proposition of truth must be confirmed. Whether we talk about general revelation found within the creation or special revelation found within scripture; truth is the objective reality based on God. Since God cannot be fully known then truth will always be in part.
I do not mean to imply that the reality or truths which have been made known are easily discernable or objectively clear. I actually believe that it is impossible to achieve a fully objective perspective on what is true because of a corollary belief, that is, man is by nature weak and imperfect. Reality is always obfuscated by human experience, education, and God. Our experiences taint our view of reality. Sigmund Freud and others who predate him claimed that people project their own thoughts or perspectives into the world. The world is actually shaped by our prejudiced perspective. Exposure to information through education or lack of exposure to information can blur our understanding of reality. Education does not necessarily clarify our understanding of truth or reality, because it may encourage us to depend on reason alone. A lack of education may leave us unprepared to examine truth empirically or rationally. Finally, God, may prevent us from knowing the truth. Paul claims that people who did not want to retain knowledge of God would give them over to a debased mind. So, it appears that knowledge of truth and reality can be available, but our minds would be unable to perceive it. Despite the seeming futility of really knowing truth or reality we can achieve some degree of understanding through open, faithful communities of Christ.
The reality that has been revealed is most fully discerned within community. Alone we are subject to circular, myopic thinking. Within community, however, truth can be discerned more perfectly. I bring my reality to the conversation and others bring their perspective - God himself abides in the midst of that fellowship to help bring understanding. Paul writes to Corinth, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14.29-34). It appears that men and women within community are to share what they understand from God and through this sharing “all may learn”.
Modernity, in contrast to my position above, does not allow for the use of faith to gain an insight into reality. Moderns rely on reason and empiricism. Truth is less what is real, but what is verifiable and demonstrable through the scientific method. The physical and material is real; in this my position is in concert, but moderns believe this is all there is to reality. The metaphysical, that is, the supernatural is rejected for being unobservable and, therefore, untrue. Because modernity believes the universe is a closed system and that man is capable of discovering truth and understanding the world; they believe that truth will eventually be disclosed in a full set of universal principles that all humanity will be able to access through reason. Since I believe that God has provided an overarching metanarrative through special revelation I am at odds with the general premise of most moderns that there is no rhyme or reason to the events of history.
Where I see God’s hand at work in history clarifying reality; moderns see a string of causes and effects. Although, we share some points of similarity on what truth and reality is the modern perspective leads to the postmodern position that there is no truth or verifiable reality.
Postmodernity is a strong reaction against the positivist claims of modernity and to some extent my claims above on reality and truth. When moderns failed to deliver on their truth claims of continuous societal improvements based on reason; there was a strong reaction against the whole idea of truth and reality. This was a justified response after two world wars, genocide, race riots, and other abuses that were supposedly the relics of a pre-modern age. Where my view of truth calls for trust; the postmodern view is strongly skeptical of any authority - ancient or modern. My position holds that truth is discoverable because God himself allows for it.
Postmodernism, in contrast, believes truth is made rather than discovered. Where postmodernism and I are in agreement is in the idea and skepticism that human language can accurately convey truth. I do not think it is completely impossible to develop a taxonomy capable of conveying truth. But, I do believe we need to patiently accept the possibility that our attempts to convey reality are limited by words and the imprecision of their use. Although I disagree with many of the claims of postmodern thinkers I am convinced they have done the church a favor by forcing us to review certain “orthodox” assumptions that are really the vestiges of failed manifestations of Christianity throughout the ages as it sought to control society through power instead of influence.
I do not mean to imply that the reality or truths which have been made known are easily discernable or objectively clear. I actually believe that it is impossible to achieve a fully objective perspective on what is true because of a corollary belief, that is, man is by nature weak and imperfect. Reality is always obfuscated by human experience, education, and God. Our experiences taint our view of reality. Sigmund Freud and others who predate him claimed that people project their own thoughts or perspectives into the world. The world is actually shaped by our prejudiced perspective. Exposure to information through education or lack of exposure to information can blur our understanding of reality. Education does not necessarily clarify our understanding of truth or reality, because it may encourage us to depend on reason alone. A lack of education may leave us unprepared to examine truth empirically or rationally. Finally, God, may prevent us from knowing the truth. Paul claims that people who did not want to retain knowledge of God would give them over to a debased mind. So, it appears that knowledge of truth and reality can be available, but our minds would be unable to perceive it. Despite the seeming futility of really knowing truth or reality we can achieve some degree of understanding through open, faithful communities of Christ.
The reality that has been revealed is most fully discerned within community. Alone we are subject to circular, myopic thinking. Within community, however, truth can be discerned more perfectly. I bring my reality to the conversation and others bring their perspective - God himself abides in the midst of that fellowship to help bring understanding. Paul writes to Corinth, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (1 Cor. 14.29-34). It appears that men and women within community are to share what they understand from God and through this sharing “all may learn”.
Modernity, in contrast to my position above, does not allow for the use of faith to gain an insight into reality. Moderns rely on reason and empiricism. Truth is less what is real, but what is verifiable and demonstrable through the scientific method. The physical and material is real; in this my position is in concert, but moderns believe this is all there is to reality. The metaphysical, that is, the supernatural is rejected for being unobservable and, therefore, untrue. Because modernity believes the universe is a closed system and that man is capable of discovering truth and understanding the world; they believe that truth will eventually be disclosed in a full set of universal principles that all humanity will be able to access through reason. Since I believe that God has provided an overarching metanarrative through special revelation I am at odds with the general premise of most moderns that there is no rhyme or reason to the events of history.
Where I see God’s hand at work in history clarifying reality; moderns see a string of causes and effects. Although, we share some points of similarity on what truth and reality is the modern perspective leads to the postmodern position that there is no truth or verifiable reality.
Postmodernity is a strong reaction against the positivist claims of modernity and to some extent my claims above on reality and truth. When moderns failed to deliver on their truth claims of continuous societal improvements based on reason; there was a strong reaction against the whole idea of truth and reality. This was a justified response after two world wars, genocide, race riots, and other abuses that were supposedly the relics of a pre-modern age. Where my view of truth calls for trust; the postmodern view is strongly skeptical of any authority - ancient or modern. My position holds that truth is discoverable because God himself allows for it.
Postmodernism, in contrast, believes truth is made rather than discovered. Where postmodernism and I are in agreement is in the idea and skepticism that human language can accurately convey truth. I do not think it is completely impossible to develop a taxonomy capable of conveying truth. But, I do believe we need to patiently accept the possibility that our attempts to convey reality are limited by words and the imprecision of their use. Although I disagree with many of the claims of postmodern thinkers I am convinced they have done the church a favor by forcing us to review certain “orthodox” assumptions that are really the vestiges of failed manifestations of Christianity throughout the ages as it sought to control society through power instead of influence.
Friday, February 04, 2011
Tools for Knowing God
Mankind, in distinction from the rest of God’s creation, obtains knowledge through empiricism, reason, intuition, and faith. It is through a synthesis of these ways of knowing that we can obtain knowledge of God.
Empirical knowledge is gained through scientific investigation and personal experience. Learning how to read and apply language, studying mathematics, understanding biology and geography are all foundational for understanding God and are gained through empirical knowledge. Studying the Old and New Testaments, examining the historical and literary context, is another, more specific example of how empirical knowledge can be leveraged to know God better.
Reason is another means for obtaining knowledge which can be used to know God. A traditional example of reason is seen in the formula: if A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C. Some deny the ability to know God and his will through this method, but Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 1:18, “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool”. The Lord was claiming that Isaiah’s listeners could use reason as a means for understanding his power to redeem them from their sins. They could reason that if he was interested enough to speak to the prophet he would be faithful enough to fulfill his word to them.
Intuition is another way mankind has for gaining knowledge. Intuition is the sense of right and wrong; the gut feeling that a person gets in a particular moment or during an event based on a backlog experience. Luke records the debate of the church leaders and includes the words, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). These men had reviewed scripture, had heated debate, but in the end they relied on what “seemed good”.
Faith is the final way in which we can come to know things. This is knowledge gained based on the word of a trusted authority. In reality this is how we gain most of our knowledge. Despite the rejection of faith by the scientific community much of their knowledge is based on the ideas and knowledge of trusted authorities and early scientific investigators. This is necessary because it would take too much time to gain the same knowledge through empiricism or reason. It is primarily through faith that we come to know God. Paul lays this process of gaining knowledge out in Romans 10:14-17 when he writes, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? …So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”. It is through faith in the word of trusted authorities, like Paul, that we come to believe on the Lord.
So, we can come to know God through all four means by which humanity can know. None of them alone, however, is sufficient for knowing God. Faith is inadequate to answer the critical questions of skeptics. Intuition is only as valuable as our interpretation of our experiences and our experiences are so varied from one another that the same event may trigger different intuitive responses. Intuition alone also proves to be inadequate for knowing God. Reason and empiricism are even more subject to human weakness because it is only through our filter of experience that we can apply reason and evaluate the outcomes of our empirical investigations. None of us are by nature perfect thinkers and we are often premature thinkers. So, with these inherent weaknesses in mankind reason and empirical investigation will always be subject to some degree of uncertainty. However, when all ways of knowing are applied, individually, but especially in community, whatever can be known of God is accessible.
These four ways for knowing can be used by both general and special revelation. General revelation is what can be known through creation. Reason and empirical investigation may be considered the primary tools for receiving general revelation, but as mentioned above so are intuition and faith. Special revelation is what can be known only because God has chosen to reveal it to mankind. The primary tool for special revelation is faith, but without empiricism, reason, and intuition a complete revelation is not possible.
Empirical knowledge is gained through scientific investigation and personal experience. Learning how to read and apply language, studying mathematics, understanding biology and geography are all foundational for understanding God and are gained through empirical knowledge. Studying the Old and New Testaments, examining the historical and literary context, is another, more specific example of how empirical knowledge can be leveraged to know God better.
Reason is another means for obtaining knowledge which can be used to know God. A traditional example of reason is seen in the formula: if A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C. Some deny the ability to know God and his will through this method, but Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 1:18, “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool”. The Lord was claiming that Isaiah’s listeners could use reason as a means for understanding his power to redeem them from their sins. They could reason that if he was interested enough to speak to the prophet he would be faithful enough to fulfill his word to them.
Intuition is another way mankind has for gaining knowledge. Intuition is the sense of right and wrong; the gut feeling that a person gets in a particular moment or during an event based on a backlog experience. Luke records the debate of the church leaders and includes the words, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” (Acts 15:22). These men had reviewed scripture, had heated debate, but in the end they relied on what “seemed good”.
Faith is the final way in which we can come to know things. This is knowledge gained based on the word of a trusted authority. In reality this is how we gain most of our knowledge. Despite the rejection of faith by the scientific community much of their knowledge is based on the ideas and knowledge of trusted authorities and early scientific investigators. This is necessary because it would take too much time to gain the same knowledge through empiricism or reason. It is primarily through faith that we come to know God. Paul lays this process of gaining knowledge out in Romans 10:14-17 when he writes, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? …So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”. It is through faith in the word of trusted authorities, like Paul, that we come to believe on the Lord.
So, we can come to know God through all four means by which humanity can know. None of them alone, however, is sufficient for knowing God. Faith is inadequate to answer the critical questions of skeptics. Intuition is only as valuable as our interpretation of our experiences and our experiences are so varied from one another that the same event may trigger different intuitive responses. Intuition alone also proves to be inadequate for knowing God. Reason and empiricism are even more subject to human weakness because it is only through our filter of experience that we can apply reason and evaluate the outcomes of our empirical investigations. None of us are by nature perfect thinkers and we are often premature thinkers. So, with these inherent weaknesses in mankind reason and empirical investigation will always be subject to some degree of uncertainty. However, when all ways of knowing are applied, individually, but especially in community, whatever can be known of God is accessible.
These four ways for knowing can be used by both general and special revelation. General revelation is what can be known through creation. Reason and empirical investigation may be considered the primary tools for receiving general revelation, but as mentioned above so are intuition and faith. Special revelation is what can be known only because God has chosen to reveal it to mankind. The primary tool for special revelation is faith, but without empiricism, reason, and intuition a complete revelation is not possible.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wish List for the Church
I want the church to be the church. I want it to embody a vibrant spirituality. I want the church to be an alternative to postmodern culture, not a mere echo of it. I want a church that is bold to be different and unafraid to be faithful, a church that is interested in something better than using slick marketing techniques to swell the numbers of warm bodies occupying sanctuaries, a church that reflects an integral and undiminished confidence in power of God's Word, a church that can find in the midst of our present cultural breakdown the opportunity to be God's people in a world that has abandoned God.
- David Wells (God in the Wasteland, p. 214)
I have been challenged by this book and two others. I challenge others to review God in the Wasteland, Resident Aliens by Stanley Hauerwas, and Transformed Thinking by Edward Curtis. I have read these books over the last three weeks and I'm convinced that the church in the west has chosen the wrong pill (Matrix reference). We have lost our voice in society and in our scramble to be noticed and significant we may have sold ourselves to culture – not understanding that none of it is true. This in contrast to what God has called us to, that is, providing a radical alternative to the world. He is the true and faithful and that's what he calls us to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)