Molding Money

"Money, most common of temporal things, involves uncommon and eternal consequences. Even though it may be done quite unconsciously, money molds people--in the process of getting it, of savings it, of using it, of giving it, of accounting for it. Depending upon how it is handled, it proves a blessing or a curse to its possessor; either the person becomes master of the money, or the money becomes master of the person."

That quote was from 1918. How true today! Getting money is not amoral; saving money is not amoral; using money is not amoral; giving money is not amoral; accounting for money is not amoral. All of these are moral practices because they involve people, which are moral beings. As a Christian, I believe people are moral because God is moral, which means that making, saving, using, giving, and tracking money is theological. This means there are ways to save money that reflect God, but ways to save money that do not reflect God. There are ungodly ways of making, saving, using, giving, and accounting for money.

The Necessary Relevance and Irrelevance of the church and the church

The Necessary Relevance and Irrelevance of the church:

I am reading Bryan Stone’s book, “Evangelism After Christendom” which offers an approach to evangelism after the Modernity. Part of this means a rejection of the church’s desire to be relevant to its culture. Instead, part of the church’s faithful witness to culture is by being different. Yet this goes against the practice of most churches which desire to engage their culture in meaningful ways. I think there is room for agreement in both of these positions when we are clear what we mean by “church.” I think there are two ways one can faithfully use the word church:

1. Church as a politico-economic faith community; and
2. Church as a local organization dedicated to the systemic and organized proclamation and worship of Jesus.

If these are both faithful uses of the word church, then the church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture. To use an example close to my heart, the church (#1) cannot simply be an organization that teaches better money management than other not-for-profits that do that sort of thing. In this sense, it has to be irrelevant to a culture consumed with economics. However, the church (#2) must be relevant in proclaiming and practicing Christian faith in its culture, which means teaching financial management to people swamped with debt. This teaching is incredibly relevant, but irrelevant in its content because it should help to create that new faith community where money is not status. (The necessary point to the church (#2) is that it doesn’t teach financial management for reasons of self-perpetuation. That goes against the church (#1) being irrelevant.) The Good News of the church (#1) is not financial management, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through financial management.

Another example one could use is sexuality. The church (#1) must be irrelevant to its culture in that it asks completely different questions about sexuality than its culture, but the church (#2) must be completely relevant by understanding sexuality is a prominent issue facing its culture. The Good News of the church (#1) is not its promise of sexual fulfillment within its teaching, but the Good News of the church (#2) can come through its relevant teaching on sexuality.

Reflection: Justification by N.T. Wright

Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision is N.T. Wright's response to John Piper's The Future of Justification. It is a thorough, dense if somewhat brief explanation of Wright's take on Justification and why Piper is wrong. I am not qualified to review this book's content and engage critically with it. It is simply out of my league. It is, however, vintage Wright: Readable, dense, and enlightening, with some good one liners thrown in for good measure. As such, I simply offer some reflections.

Wright believes that justification can only be understood in a covenant setting for a Hebrew lawcourt. Justification is the declaration of God that a certain group of people are in the right and will be found in the right. This declaration is in complete accord with the Abrahamic covenant and so it exhibits God's righteousness. God, in this declaration, has remained faithful to the covenant he established because of the faithfulness of Jesus. Jesus has taken on himself the whole of the law and seen it through to make possible the accomplishment of what the law couldn't do, which was make righteous by the power of the Spirit. Wright works through this belief by emphasizing we read Romans in light of Galatians and all of these in light of Ephesians, Corinthians, and Philippians. Justification is about creating one group of people out of two.

Wright believes this formulations is more trinitarian and that it requires a high Christology and a high ecclesiology. Perhaps this has shied some Protestants away from its full impact. It also has a more robust eschatology because present justification always points forward to a future justification for those in Christ who have participated in the transformative power of the Spirit. Wright's emphasis on transformation as an aspect of justification--not earning it, not solidifying it, but flowing from it--was one of the most pastorally exciting aspects of the work. He believes there has been too much navel-gazing and laziness that has gone on because of fear in "works" and "synergism." He challenges that those who believe he is falling into some kind of works-righteousness have not grasped his pneumatology. It is more reliance on God, not less!

This is not a book that can be read quickly or without thorough knowledge of Romans. It's a challenge, but worth the effort. I expect it will take me several more reads of Romans and another two reads of Justification to begin to get a full appreciation of Wright's argument.

Review: Solomon Among the Postmoderns

SAP is Peter Leithart's attempt to see Solomonic wisdom among postmodern philosophers, but also to take a Solomonic "stance" against their conclusions. The outcome is a bit of a challenging read, but one worth the effort. I say challenging because Leithart is one of those writers who expects you to jump into the conversation he wants to have, rather than introducing you to one already taking place.

He begins by offering a different translation of Ecclesiastes 1:2 than with which most of us are familiar. Solomon didn't say that everything is meaningless and he didn't say it about everything that exists. Instead, 'under the sun' is a phrase of time (the present) and what is translated meaningless should be translated mist or vapor. Leithart says that Solomon believed that everything is fleeting at this present time. You can't shape the wind; you can't shepherd vapor. This, he says, is directly in opposition to the modern project of controlling everything.

Leithart begins with the Renaissance. The Renaissance, a return to classical art and literature, replaced God with humans at the center of creation and appreciated all the diversity of humanity. However, in the wake of the Reformation, the Renaissance helps set the stage for modernity: the human project to control the world, to shepherd the wind, Solomon might say. "We" became different from "They." Freedom, control, and progress became the new trinity. And yet the promise of modernity never materialized. Quantam physics. Violence. Death. Leithart says that postmodernism had three movements against modernity: unmasking, inverting, and instensifying.

Leithart gives three contexts for these movements. First, the elusive word. Postmodernism says that the boundaries modernity sets up between private/public, us/them, religion/politics all fade away. All is vapor. It's not so much that postmoderns are relativists, but that they are perspectivalists. Everyone has a perspective and there are no foundations to stand on. We all have limited, partial knowledge. There is always a way to frame history; never a grand story that is told from the grand perspective; always an element of persuasion in speech; never something outside the text. And Solomon agrees: We don't know the future; we all die. And yet, Solomon believes in God and points to the future where God will reign.

Second, the decentered self. Humans change and as a result identity changes. Descartes, however, wanted to find something that wouldn't, that couldn't, change. And so was born the human as a thinking thing. The human as the soul. The human as immaterial. But doesn't this make identity even more unstable? The human being--who is undoubtedly flesh--is now schizoid. Separate. Along comes John Locke who believes consciousness constitutes identity, but, as Joseph Butler points out, this becomes a constant dying and reforming of the self. Consciousness is never the same; it's always changing. Finally, David Hume believes that all identity is simply perception. This also fleshes out sociologically where people become disconnected from their families, cities, relations. They lose their story. Postmodernity intensifies this problem with urban developments, immigration, and reinvented celebrities. Who are we? Who we're told to be by the myriad of people who live around us. The changing self. Fat people now thin. Redesigned bodies and faces. If modernity said the self was changing, postmodernity through plastic surgery and liquid communities ramps the change up to hyperspeed. We're always playing roles. (I wonder, has anyone heard from Paris Hilton? And, if yes, from which one?) And Solomon agrees: All is vapor and that includes the self. We pass away. We fail bodily. The postmodern emerges with the hope of narrative identity! A helpful and valuable idea, but the postmodern is obsessed with death. And stories too often die with people. Never fear, Augustine (a Solomonic thinker) is here! For Christian identity is not in oneself, but in God, Father, Son, and Spirit.

Finally, Leithart turns to power. Oppressors always have power and in spite of modernity's promise for freedom, it only controlled all the more: There is always a threat to be seen; markets are always manipulated. And yet...economics are complex. Too complex for people. People are complex. Even Foucault, who sought to free forms of knowledge from science, is making a modern move even in his critique of it. Karl Marx, who saw economics in everything, never saw, and never will see, his utopia realized. Even those who see postmodernism as emerging as an unstoppable force are the intellectually elite of Europe and America. Religious fanaticism marches on. Responsible religion marches on. Postmodernity inverts the power of modernism and finds it just as caught up in its tracks. The desire to listen to the voiceless is enacted by cries of shut-up! (Did anyone else see the Gay Marriage episode on Dr Phil?) In other words, there is always, always, always power at play. Does Solomon agree? Yes. The poor are beaten down. The oppressed are silenced. A man who saves his city against foreign powers is forgotten (Ecclesiastes 9:14-16). And yet Solomon does not despair. There is always power, yes. But there is a Power greater, fairer, and better than all.

So, if SAP is Leithart's stance, formed by Solomon, among the postmoderns, then what is it? Simply this: Eat, drink, and be merry. But don't forget that Solomon built the temple and that eating, drinking, and being merry is connected with the promise of the temple (Deut 14:26). Eat, drink, be merry; be of faith, joy, and worship. Work hard and enjoy your work because your days are given by God. Enjoy being a human, even though humans are vapor, because...well, because God.

Women in Ministry

I am asked for my opinion on women in ministry from time to time. Just this morning I was asked and thought I would relay my thoughts on this subject here.

This is a great question and one that very smart and committed Christians disagree about, whether they are men or women. Up front, I am for people teaching and preaching who are gifted to do so. I don't care if they are men or women. If they are gifted by God, then they should do it. That doesn't address what the Bible says, though, and I always want my beliefs to line up with Scripture. So, here's the longer answer as to why I support women teaching. Please feel free to disagree, ask questions, and dialog further.

First, we see women in leadership and teaching roles in the New Testament. Priscilla helps to instruct Apollos (Acts 18:26), a man who worked at planting churches. Phoebe is a deacon (servant) of the church in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). Junias is mentioned as an apostle (Romans 16:8).

Second, Acts 2:17 and 1 Corinthians 11:5 have women prophesying (speaking God's words). Acts is the fulfillment of Joel's vision from the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians has odd instructions about how to pray and prophesy, saying that women should have their heads covered, but it has them prophesying, nonetheless.

Third, two passages seem to teach that women should not lead or preach in churches. 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 says that if women have questions, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. This seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? I don't think so. First, read 1 Corinthians 11:5 where women are speaking in church! So, what's going on here? The word for women that Paul uses could also mean 'wife,' which it likely does since Paul is speaking about asking their husbands. Paul wants the people to prophesy in turn so that people can think about what is said (verse 29) and so that not everyone is speaking up at once (verses 30-31). Paul wants there to be order in worship. So, think about it like this: Men and women have been prophesying to each other all through the service (11:5). At one point a man stands up to prophesy in his turn. His wife, having questions about what he said, starts questioning him right away, interrupting him. Paul says, "If a wife has a question, ask it at home." It's not a matter of women never speaking in church, but keeping order in worship services.

The other passage is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. Paul gives instructions to men and then to women. Men shouldn't be angry in worship and dispute and fight with one another. Women shouldn't impress with their hair and clothes, but with their lives. Also, women should learn, submitting to what is taught them. How do we understand this? First, remember that Paul is writing to Timothy, reminding Timothy that he is the teacher. This is important because lots of women in Ephesus were teachers in other temples of false gods and idols. When they became Christians, they would naturally teach and be in authority because of their gifts, but they still needed to learn and not be in authority. They didn't know enough to teach yet, so Paul says he doesn't permit women to teach or have authority. You can also translate this, "I am not permitting...", which implies that this advice would only be temporary. Would Paul have permitted women to teach once they had been sufficiently grounded in God's interaction with the Jews and the story of Jesus? I think so.

The Search to Belong by Joe Myers Part 2

Myers' book, The Search to Belong, emphasizes that all four spaces are necessary for groups and individuals to have healthy community. He says that the people trying to facilitate belonging need to become enviromentalists. You create environments so community can happen.

Here's an example. At our church, we created time between services called "Coffee Mingle." It's exactly how it sounds. It creates a good sense of place and belonging for people ending one service or starting the next. When we don't have it (the 5th Sunday of the month), people don't know what to do. They've lost that environment.

Myers' call is for people helping other to belong to help them learn how to navigate and live in all four spaces. Teach people how to be Christians not only in private, but in public, social, and personal ways. Let people belong in the ways they want to, without compromising their discipleship. Figure out how to disciple in public space and social space.

The Search to Belong by Joe Myers Part 1

Simply put, this is the best small groups book I've ever read. Beyond being quite readable and not overly drawn out, Myers argument rings true with my experience as a pastor that I haven't put into words. I want to give it the attention it deserves, so I'll be sharing three times on it.

Myers' thesis is that healthy belonging involves four "spaces" of belonging. He takes Edward Hall's idea of space and metaphorically applies it to community. Hall argued that you allow into certain space people you were comfortable with. The closer they got, the closer relationship you had. Myers takes this idea and says that we all need to belong in each of these spaces. None are better than the other; they are all necessary and they are all different.

So, what are the spaces? Public, social, personal, intimate.

PUBLIC: A relationship created by an outward force. Perhaps ways you could think of this are the friendship you join up with someone at a sporting event. You cheer together, High Five each other, maybe even share a spontaneous hug--and the game is enhanced because of it. But you wouldn't ask that person to come to your house.

SOCIAL: A space where you are putting your best foot forward. You are sharing snapshots of who you are and what it would be like to know you. This is what you do with your family doctor, your favorite restaurant server, some coworkers. This space happens when you go out to eat with people and it's not weird, but you are afraid you'd run out of things to talk about in your home. You're comfortable asking and being asked for small favours.

PERSONAL: A space where the other knows a lot about you. They don't know everything, but they know a lot. Likewise, you know a lot. These are people you "connect" with and call close friends.

INTIMATE: The one or two people who know you. Period. Myers uses the phrase "naked and not ashamed." This might be a spouse, but doesn't have to be.

So, how does this apply to small groups? Myers says that you choose how you belong to people and some small groups programs promise level of relationship that you just can't force. Second, we pressure people to belong in ways they might not be comfortable with. We (small groups pastors, etc.) will says things like, "Here's where the real community is." Not true, says Myers. All levels of belonging are necessary and essential to healthy community for groups as well as individuals. Maybe part of the reason people feel they don't belong is because we've created not only a Hollywood world of marriage, but of what it means to belong.

Political Ads

The Conservative Party of Canada has launched a series of ads questioning Michael Ignatieff's commitment to Canada. They finish with the phrase: Michael Ignatieff: Just Visiting. Here's one.



Michael Ignatieff responds by saying they are questioning the patriotism, the Canadian-ness of other Canadians who live abroad. He says the Conservatives think these Canadians are less Canadian.



Some would think I'd identify with Ignatieff because I am one of those Canadians who lives abroad. I am one of those Canadians who lives in the US and follows its state of affairs. But I don't. Here's why: It's legitimate to question one's commitment to a country when one is running for its highest office. Michael Ignatieff has missed the fact that no other Canadians who have lived abroad for over thirty years have their eye on being Prime Minister. He's the only one. And he's the one to say he'd move back had he lost in an earlier election. So, Dr Ignatieff, please don't lump me into your category. At least, not until I'm running for Prime Minister.

Why Read?

I love to read. I forget most of what I read. I takes notes to help retain. Still, I lose most of what I put in my head. I have decided that the greatest benefit of reading is not learning--though that remains a great benefit--but filling. If you are in a leadership position--and everybody influences somebody which means that everyone leads someone--then you have to give out. Reading helps fill me so that I have stuff--whether info, ideas, partially formed opinions, or an abundant spirit--to give.