There's Something about Mary

Mary the Mother of Jesus is becoming an important figure in Protestant theology. There is a significant publication coming in November, which this blog will review. There is also a publication coming from Scot McKnight. Here is a link to a sample chapter. If anyone is in the Johnson City area in early December and cares to join a discussion group about this book at that time, let me know.

The Work of God and the Work of the Church

I just finished a rather insightful and interesting (though somewhat needlessly lengthy) book called, Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church by Peter Schmiechen. Schmiechen outlined ten theories of atonement under four different purposes of God. He concludes his work showing how different theories of atonement and their subsequent modes of transmission (how the atonement is applied) shape the church. For example, and this is part Schmiechen and part me, Schmiechen lists John Wesley's theory of atonement as what he calls "wondrous love." The love of God is the rubric for considering all of God's work in Christ. (Schmiechen also shows how Wesley has other elements of atonement, as well.) The application of the atonement is emphasized by growth in grace and the development of perfected love in the believer. As a result, the shape of the church from Wesley's consideration would be centered around deep discipleship and both public and private acts of love.

If Schmiechen is correct and theories of atonement form ecclesiology, then what theory of atonement is driving the ecclesiology of the church growth movement? Across denominational lines, those influenced by Willow and Saddleback look fairly similar. What is the work of God that drives the church to work in this manner? I am open to thoughtful answers because I can't quite put my finger on it. Thoughts?

The Bible as Principle and the Absence of Logic: A Dangerous Combination

I am sick of hearing "timeless principles being taught from God's word." There is nothing wrong with principles. The right principles are, of course, right. ("Don't spend more than you make" is a great principle.) Maybe I should rephrase the first sentence: I am not sick of timeless principles being taught from God's word. I just hate preachers offering timeless truths they have unmined from the story of Scripture without considering that maybe the "timeless truth" is really their own (lack of?) common sense. When timeless truths need to be unmined from narratives in Scripture, then we usually end up with a form of question begging. For example, I heard ten principles on exponential thinking on a video teaching yesterday, most "mined" from stories. Each one of the principles was fairly uninsightful: Exponential Growth is God's blessing; Exponential Growth is Believing God for Big Things are two that come to mind.

Here's the problem: Detaching ourselves from the actual story of Scripture (the "mining" of principles that is hidden in the story, which apparently serves no other purpose) leaves us unhooked from God's narrative reorientation of all of life--including what his blessing looks like and what God considers big things. Once unhooked, then "Big Things" and "Blessings" can be filled with answers before even questioning what those might look like; in short, the preacher is begging the question--likely without realizing it.

Now, here's why it is dangerous: Alot of preachers are not money-grabbers and greedy. They love people. They love God. They are sincere. And they don't always "fill" the questions they are begging with bad answers. Sometimes they are filled with good answers....but that only makes the bad answer-filling all the worse. Because they are sincere, critical thinking takes a dive because people trust their heart and know that some of the principles the preacher has unmined have been great advice.

Preaching the story of Scripture means that alot more dialogue has to take place. It's alot harder to do. It takes a longer time in terms of years to see change. BUT, there is a greater chance that the change happening is not to the image of the preacher, but to the image of Christ. At least, I hope that's true. Of course, maybe I have just communicated a principle from my personal canon of common sense.

Sinlessness or Incarnation?

Romans Catholics affirm the Immaculate Conception (IC), which is different from the Virgin Birth, in order to preserve the sinless nature of Jesus. The doctrine of IC says that Mary was supernaturally preserved from sin so that Jesus was conceived in sinless union and not subject to original sin. The doctrine, like many, is a theological construct to help make systematic sense of other more basic doctrines.

A more relational view of sin, however, presents us with a deeper problem. If sin is relational--impure love and motive spread among relationship from person to person--then how could Mary have been sinless? In order for Mary to be sinless, Mary would have had to have perfect relationships. Otherwise while she may have loved purely, she would not have been loved purely and would have suffered the consequences. Of course, if she is not affected by imperfect love from others, then her relationships are a farce. Moreover, if relationship is part of what constitutes us as human, then being in non-reciprocal relationships (which would be the case if the impure love of the other does not affect Mary) would mean Mary ceases to be human. And if this is followed through to Jesus, then serious questions face the Incarnation.

It seems to me that if we think of sin in terms of relationship, then either Jesus could not have been sinless (and was shaped by the imperfect love of imperfect people [taking the issue back one generation to Mary does not solve it]) or he is not really human (if relationship is part of the meaning of humanity). If you accept this conclusion, then how can we think of Jesus' sinlessness? Was he sinless? How do we think of the Incarnation? Was he human?

Fear, Love, and the Law

I have been thinking about Proverbs and talking with my friend T.T. Branscombe. Solomon starts the provers by saying that the proverbs are to give knowledge to the young (1:4), apparently to help them be wise and lead fruitful lives. He then starts with the proverb "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."

I have been thinking about this. One friend asked me if I thought it possible that this meant that fear is an appropriate starting point for a relationship with God. It seemed possible. If fear is the beginning of knowledge and knowledge is given to the young for fruitful lives, then this form of fear cannot be paralyzing. It must be freedom inducing fear. That is a unique fear. If fear is the beginning of knowledge--driving me into the freedom of knowing, then fear cannot be the end. And John says that perfect love drives out fear.

Let me put this together: If where there is all love there is no fear, then as one moves into the freedom of knowledge one moves away from fear. Moreover if one is moving away from fear, then one is moving into love--as St Augustine said, "To know is to love." If the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, then love of the LORD is the purpose of knowledge and end of fear. The thing the started my path of knowledge which leads me into love of God is now destroyed and removed. In this way fear is akin to the law: That which marked covenant between God and humanity was powerless to accomplish what God intended. Clinging to it became a death sentence, then. Fear of God, which started knowledge, is powerless to achieve love. In fact, it is defeated by love. Growth in the love of God moves one beyond the beginning of knowledge and away from the fear that started the whole thing.

Short Reflection on The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis

I just finished The Four Loves by C.S. Lewis. I found it a little more complicated than it needed to be. Perhaps the things he thought would make things crystal clear just weren't that helpful for me. On a side note, I have come both to appreciate Lewis and disagree with him as I've become more mature in my theology. I appreciate his ability to frame things relationally; I disagree with his Platonism-lite. But three notions stuck out from this last work (I am putting some stuff in quotations, but it might not be a direct quote):

1. Because we are creatures we are in need of many things. Just as a child needs love from its mother, so do we humans need love from God. "Our existence is really just one vast need," says Lewis.

2. There is no way to avoid risk in love. If you love, it's a risk. You can lock up your heart and shut it away in a chest. If it never comes out, it will grow cold and hard--but it will be protected. Lewis makes the point quite well, then, when he says, "The only place to be safe from the dangers of love outside of heaven is hell."

3. If the universe is structured around love, which it surely is if the Creator is a loving triune being, then we should not be surprised to see love at work in places where there is no explicit confession of Christ. "Love is at work in people who know nothing of Him."

Let me see if I can figure out this photo thing

For all the masses, here you go.

Public Service Announcement: Or Good News in My Life

I interrupt the normally crusty/fight-picking/theological/political/biblical posts on this site for a personal announcement: I have started dating Heather Morgan. She's kind of a big deal.

What does Christianity offer?

One of the problems with combining marketing and Christianity or Church in the same sentence is that it conveys something to be acquired. Markets have products; they exist for the purpose of swapping goods. If Christianity is 'marketed' it means that it has something to offer. We are familiar with the obvious examples of Christianity offering something: Televangelists, name-it-and-claim it theology, etc. But it also takes more subtle forms. I watched Ted Haggard, President of the NAE, say that he tells the people who come to his church that if they will put into practice the biblical principles that he teaches them, they will be better off a year from today than they are right now. (That is almost verbatim.) Christianity promises a better life--just give it a year.

The problem is that that's false. Does following a Crucified Messiah gaurantee a better life in just twelve months? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's the wrong ball park; Christianity doesn't offer anything but the story that God is at work in the world by his Spirit and that you can be part of that story now. What does Christianity offer? Technically nothing. God gives himself in his Son and Spirit and Christianity is the construct that does its best to make sense of that gift. God offers himself.

Or, perhaps I can put this in terms familiar with St John the Divine in Revelation. To the conqueror, Jesus promises to give the morning star (Rev. 2.28). And who is the bright Morning Star? Jesus himself (Rev. 22:16).