Out emerging Emergent

I reviewed Phyllis Tickle's book, The Great Emergence, a while ago and I finished Tony Jones' The New Christians just last week. (Review to come this week or next.) Jones' book reminded me of reading Clark Pinnock's, Most Moved Mover. Pinnock's was a defense of open theism, which, at the time of my reading, was intriguing me. After reading MMM, however, it didn't captivate me.

Jones' work was similar. I am sympathetic with large chunks of the emergent church, not only in content but philosophy. But Jones' book left me with less, I don't know, satisfaction in my sympathies. This week, I put my finger on part of what this feeling was.

Jones quite helpfully shares some of Emergent's early narrative--its meetings, discussions, people, etc. He shares one time in a restaurant talking theology and blurting out, "The Bible is propaganda!" He defended it by saying propaganda is meant to convince, call, and win to its side. I couldn't disagree that I think the Bible does this, but something was off. Eugene Peterson's Eat this Book let me in on the secret. He writes, "Words spoken to us under the metaphor of eating, words to be freely taken in, tasted, chewed, savored, swallowed, and digested, have a very different effect on us from those that come at us from the outside, whether in the form of propaganda or information. Propaganda works another person's will upon us, attempting to manipulate us to an action or a belief. Insofar as we are moved by it, we become less, the puppet of a puppetteer writer/speaker. There is no dignity, no soul, in a puppet" (p. 10). That seems to me a much better description of the Bible.

Here's the irony: Jones and Emergent talk about conversation a lot. I would say it's one of their core values. (This is one of the things I really like about them.) But if Jones really thinks the Bible is propaganda, then the Bible is not about conversation. Even if it's not as severe as what Peterson says, propaganda does not aim to listen, whereas the Bible is a constant development of voices who have kept on listening to each other even in its form revealing the listening God.

James the Mediator

We have been exploring James for a few weeks and something jumped out at me in my latest reading. I believe James is writing to Jewish Christians spread throughout the Roman empire. Some of them have land and status; some do not. James is writing to bridge the gap between them, writing to them about the possibilities of growth for the poor if things don't change, but also the necessity that they do.

One of the warnings James gives is in chapter 4. He begins the chapter with cautions about what actually starts all of the quarrelings among them: battles that rage within them. They covet; they desire. He then warns: Your friendship with the world is hatred toward God (v. 4). What they use to achieve status with the world despises God. Rather than achieving status with the world, they are to submit themselves to God. They are to wash their hands! They are are to purify their hearts! (v.8) Notice how James takes purity laws (wash your hands) and applies it in terms of how lives are lived in the context of the great promise of the prophets of a new covenant written on the hearts of people. James is appealing to the law and history of this group of people to establish a new context for their relations. He is mediating.

Then he finishes his warnings with advice: Do not slander one another. He is referring to them all, here, rich and poor alike. Poor, don't speak against the rich. Rich, don't speak against the poor. Why? Because when you speak you judge one another. And when you judge one another, you judge the law. And when you judge the law, you are setting yourself above it. Notice how James has now used the law--the great unifier of the Jewish people in dispersion--and shown how their disunity is a judgment on it.

James creates a new world for his hearers to live in, one that is shaped by their Scripture for them to live out the life of the church.

Pastoral Life as Practice

Sometimes people will ask what I do from 9-5 or 8-4 or 11-9 or whatever other hours my day consists of. It's a great question and one I've wrestled with myself. Lately, I've been thinking of the pastoral role as that of a utility player in baseball.

A utility player in baseball doesn't specialize in anything. Check that. A utility player specializes in being good at several things. The best utility player can play shortstop, left field, and first base; he can steal bases, go first to third on most singles, and score on most doubles; he hits for contact, beats out double plays, and drops bunts; he pinch hits, plays a string of games for an injured player then sits on the bench, and is a defensive substitution in the 8th and 9th innings in close games. What all of this amounts to is that a utility must be constantly ready to do any number of these things and in that readiness know his role.

The pastor's life is similar. Just as the utility must spend ample amounts of time preparing for any one of the duties that may be called of him, so must the pastor be prepared to comfort, encourage, celebrate, and advise. S/he must be able to give spiritual, career, and public assistance direction. S/he should know the Scriptures, the newspaper, and the times. Pastors who are worthy of their role know that one doesn't come across these things naturally or overnight. It takes practice, a cultivation of the skills of discernment, spiritual health, and hermeneutics. And in all of this, the pastor must know his/her role to love the people they serve seriously, honestly, and intentionally. Frankly, it takes time.

Reasons For God?

So we have looked at a few critiques Keller has for reasons against God, but as my friend Billy pointed out on Facebook, none of these are reasons for God. So, what reasons does Keller offer for belief in God? It must first be noted that Keller doesn't consider these ideas, quite old ones, "proofs" for God. One cannot prove God's existence. One can only offer reasons for believing in God's existence. In this case, Keller says that belief in God makes sense of a few facts of life.

1. Belief in God makes sense of the universe and its fine-tuning for life. The probability figures for life on this planet arising by chance are astronomically low. Billions and billions to one. Just the right combination of nitrogen and oxygen; just the right axis tilt; just the right distance to the sun; just the right atmospheric conditions... All such scientific findings are best explained by the presence of a creator. All of the big atheists take on this argument by saying that there could have been billions and billions of failed universes before this one came about. That's true. The odds are low, but, by definition, that does not mean impossible. So, Keller offers a story (originally Alvin Plantinga's). Suppose you are playing poker and your opponent, who is dealing, keeps turning aces for himself over and over again. Twenty straight times. You accuse him of cheating. He says, "The chances of me turning up aces are billions to one. But for every game of poker there is that chance that it will happen. Given all the universes that could exist where this doesn't happen, there's a chance it will happen in this universe." You can either accept his story or punch him in the nose. The absurdity of the story makes Keller's point: This finely tuned universe is no proof of God, but nobody lives other parts of their lives against such odds.

2. Belief in God makes sense of morality. We have senses of right and wrong that make no sense without an appeal to something beyond culture. One can believe certain practices are wrong and work against them, but unless there is a standard to which such practices are not conforming, then there is no reason to work for what one considers right. Of course, many people live with morals regardless of their strict adherence to religious teaching, but this only strengthens the argument that belief in a creator God whose image is borne in these people makes sense of this situation. Does it prove God's existence? No, but it does make it seem more understanable. Put to another level, what sense does love make in an enlightened culture that knows all processes that have brought humans to this level of development are simply a combination of chance and survival mechanisms? One now sits above these mechanisms and so all emotion is only chance and survival. Can one offer a story that makes sense of love in terms of chance and survival mechanisms? Sure. Does this story capture the essence of love (both friendship and/or romantic) to being human as well as God? That's the question.

3. God gives explanation to the meaning of life. Victor Frankl's chronicles of his time in a Nazi war camp revealed three groups of people in the camps. The first were those who succombed to the enemy and cohorted with them. The second were simply those who gave up and died. The third were those who lived for something beyond themselves. Those in the first two groups were out-survived and out-numbered by those in the third. Frankl's work captures an element of real-life and how we live our lives. What's the meaning? What's the purpose? That there are those who live with meaning and purpose in life--and they are the majority--can best be made sense of with the existence of God. Does this prove God? No. God just makes sense in light of meaning and purpose. (Interestingly, Phyllis Tickle makes the point in "The Great Emergence" that when work became less necessary and people found themselves with much more free time on their hands that purpose decreased. The gap that filled in the void for many of these people? Church. And that wasn't always a good thing!)

So, what do you think of Keller's reasons for believing in God? Which is the most important for you? Which is the strongest/weakest? Why?

Reasons against God?

Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God, is the basis for a lecture he recently gave, which sketched three reasons for God and three faith-filled reasons against God. All of his reasons and critiques are pastorally repackaged versions of older lines of thinking. Today we'll look at the reasons against God. By faith-filled reasons against God, I mean that Keller shows how three classical arguments against God have leaps of faith in them. Here they are:

1. "I can't believe in God because of evil and suffering and no all-powerful, all-good God would allow evil and suffering." Keller says that what this really boils down to is not that there is no reason God would allow evil and suffering, but that the person making the argument does not know what good reason God would have. Keller then offers an illustration. Suppose that I asked you to look in a pup tent and tell me if there are any Saint Bernards in it. You could look quickly and realize whether or not there are Saint Bernards. However, suppose I asked you to look and see if there were any mosquitos. That would be more difficult. Perhaps with the complexity of evil and suffering in our world, reasons for it are more akin to mosquitos, discernible only to a being of infinite intelligence. Saying definitively that no reason exists is a leap.

2. "I can't believe in God because no religion can capture everything about God." The classic picture is of five blind people stumbling upon an elephant and each experiencing a different side of it--the trunk, the body, the tail, the ears, the leg... Each has a different picture of the elephant and each is right, although each is significantly limited. Likewise different religions have different vantage points for God, though none has the full view. To say, however, that no religion captures the truth about God necessarily puts one in the position of being above all the other religions. If one knows that no religion captures the truth about God then one has superceded other religions, which is the very position this person wishes to critique. That's a leap.

3. "I can't believe in God because the Bible says x, and we know that x simply isn't true." Keller offers the example of vengeance being God's and Jesus' words to forgive. While most North Americans will say, "Hooray!", they will scoff at the Bible's teaching against sex outside marriage. On the other hand, some older cultures will readily applaud the Bible's teaching on sexual fidelity, but won't be willing to accept its teaching on forgiveness. How can both cultures be right? Keller says that to deny belief in God because the Bible teaches x shows not only great faith in one's culture, as shown above, but also great faith in one's moment of time. Consider that much of what skeptics and social liberals believe differs from their grandparents. Why should we not expect that our grandchildren won't have the same experience of doubting much of what we think? If we believe that our grandchildren will have the same beliefs, then we believe that our moment has achieved truth and enlightenment. That's a leap.

Instead, Keller suggests that if the Bible's teaching really is from God and that no culture or time has perfectly instituted and activated all of its teaching, then at some point every culture will be offended and disagree with the Bible.

Next week we'll look at ways believing in God helps make sense of some of the most important elements of life, though these elements do not prove God. Until then,
what do you think of these reasons and Keller's critiques?

The Blessing and Curse of Professors

This post by Dr John Stackhouse, Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, captures, in my opinion, the tremendous blessing and the tremendous curse that many theology professors offer to the church. Dr Stackhouse critiques contemporary worship music, specifically Chris Tomlin, with thoughtfulness and relevance, in a way that I simply could not. That's a blessing. But even as I agreed with his criticisms, I found myself thinking, "I just don't think that's the way Jesus would have done it." That's a curse. Dr Stackhouse is wanting to teach us how to row, but he's missed the boat. (An unmixed metaphor!!) I think JD Walt's response at post #58 is spot-on. Full disclosure: I know JD and like him very much.

A Jamesian Reflection on the Old Testament Law

Is the Old Testament law valuable? Can following the law be an important part of the faith of a Jewish Christian? Let me offer some reflections on these thoughts from James.

First, I believe that James writes to Jewish Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire in the diaspora. Some are wealthy, some poor; all are Christians. James's purpose in writing to them is to encourage them to get along and help one another out by appealing both to their Jewish faith and the life of the Lord Jesus, thereby saving them (5:20).

In the midst of this, he points that contrary to sin which brings death, God has given us life through the word of truth (1:18) which can save us (1:21). We should not just listen to this word, but do what it says (1:22) because when we listen but do not do, we make the word useless, like when we use a mirror but forget what we look like. This means that without following the word, it is useless to do what it can do; without us following us, it is useless to saving us. James then equates this "word" with the perfect law (1:25), saying the one who follows it will be blessed in what she does. This perfect law is the law that gives freedom.

James then encourages his hearers to speak and act as those who will be judged by this law (2:12). This is the perfect law whose royal form is loving one's neighbour as we love ourselves (2:8-9). Without loving your neighbour, it matters not a hoot whether one obeys the rest of the law; they have broken the whole thing (2:11).

Let me pull this together. I think James is fine with his hearers following their religious practices and the law. However, without inward transformation, these religious practices are useless. (This is what he means by controlling the tongue, which Jesus says speaks the overflow of our hearts.) Inward transformation, however, which is and is enabled by the word planted within us, is the perfect law, the complete law, the purposed law. The purpose of the law is to love one's neighbour as we love ourselves and we should act with this law in mind. This is the law that gives freedom to do just what it asks--not showing favourtism and loving our neighbours. This is our salvation because this is the life of our Lord Jesus--who is glorified.

[I think it will later takes Paul and theologians working out their thoughts on the Holy Spirit who makes this transformation possible because, as Paul and other prophets before him (like Jeremiah) tell us, the law is powerless to bring about this transformation.]

So, the perfect law is good, worth following and obeying and thereby becoming like Jesus in its and his royalty--loving indiscriminately. Anything less is useless.

Review: The Great Emergence

Phyllis Tickle is founding editor of the religious department of Publisher's Weekly. She describes having to become fluent in the conversation of religion quite quickly when the job came knocking. It seems that out of this building fluency, she has developed a narrative to describe and predict the emergent church, a movement she calls The Great Emergence.

Tickle's thesis is that every five hundred years or so, Christianity has a major shift. Gregory the Great solidified the church by preserving its leadership and educated in monasteries. The Great Schism provided the context in which the Western church could bloom. The Great Reformation allowed the principle of sola scriptura to change church structure and theology. And now the Great Emergence promises to do as all other other changes have done, which is to rework the question of who has authority.

What led to this question is the advancements of science and technology. Psychology and biology have destroyed the concept of the soul and the little man inside us all who runs us. Technology has allowed us to become much more fluid and less attached to our familial heritage. Moreover, everything has become relative--even time and space. Just living colours our perceptions. Or, to put it in Heisenbergian language, just observing a particle changes its course. Throw in changing family structure because of World War II and you've got a recipe for religious change. Who has authority when the spiritual leaders don't have a corner on the market of truth and experience?

Tickle says that those asking this question come from four quadrants: Liturgists (Roman Catholics, Anglicans, etc.), Renewalists (Pentecostal, Charismatic), Conservatives (Evangelicals), and Social Justice Christians (Mainliners). They remain in tension because the Lits and the Renewalists follow something beyond sola Scriptura and believe that things that are beautiful are true, whereas the SJCs and the Cons like sola Scriptura and believe God is the source of all truth. Meanwhile, the SJCs and the Lits are concerned with right practice whereas the Cons and the Renewalists like orthodoxy. Out of these tensions, a center forms which values all of these--and the conversations such tensions bring--and this is the Great Emergence. Where this will take us is more wholistic than any one of these quadrants can exhibit on its own. Questions of what is a human being? what is Atonement? what is truth? why is there suffering? In this gathering center, they value Scripture and the community and hesitate to place one over the other. Tension.

Ticke's book is a fun read. It's quick. It's always hard to understand. She talks like those she's wanting to describe which is helpful, but also forces one to be critical of her large beliefs about the promise of the emergent church. Her language is helpful because it forces me to wrestle with a paradigm that is not my own. But I got the feeling that Tickle wasn't just describing a phenomenon, but pushing it forward. Not only is this book about "How Christianity is Changing and Why" (the book's subtitle), but it wants to help it get there; it's really, "How Christianity is Changing and Why and my Part in Seeing it Happen." This comes out in two ways: First, the book's structure moves its story from description (What is it?) to explanation (Why is it?) to prediction (Where is it going?). The prediction, it seems to me, was a little intense--a redescription of all major religious feelings visavis authority in North America and possibly beyond. Second, at times the book is a little harsh or edgy or cutting. Its ability to move along at a quick pace is enabled by its sweeping statements and lack of appreciation for debate and dialog around issues like inerrancy, women in leadership, slavery, philosophy.

The book's impact will not be among those who don't know the emergent church. Frankly, it's too hard to understand at points what the heck she's talking about. As a person trained in theology and philosophy, I just had to admit, "This language is strange and I don't understand." It will help those who like the emergent church and want to see it progress because it reinforces their views over and again. Plus, it's speaking their language.

Culture, Power, and Oliver O'Donovan

I have been listening to a series of lectures on culture by Andy Crouch. They are quite good. Let me give a synopsis.

Culture is what we make of the world, in both senses. This means that what we make is culture and how we understand the world is culture because we make to make sense.

There are different postures one can take to culture: Condemnation (all is wrong), Critique (some is right), Consumption (all is right). Crouch says that a Christian response is to treat these not as postures, but as gestures. You cannot live condemnation; you cannot live critique; you cannot live consumption. But you can do all these things at various times. Rather, Crouch says we should take the posture of cultivating and creating. We cultivate what is already good in culture and see that it flourishes and we create cultural goods to add to culture.

How one creates cultural goods is from cultural power. This is not coercive power ("hard power") that brings its will by threat of violence, but that seeks to influence. Cultural power is that ability for one's creation of a cultural good to last and influence. This power can be exhibited in any places where there is culture--a university, a workplace, a family, a church, a small group, etc.

This is not to say that coercive power is always wrong, but that it cannot create. Whenever there is a war, there is less than when it began. Guns don't create. Bombs don't create. They destroy. I believe this alerts us, again, to the genius of Oliver O'Donovan and his thought on judgment. War is the most extreme form of judgment. Judgment establishes a new public context. War cannot create, but it can establish, in limited ways, contexts where creation is possible and in which cultures can flourish in which cultivation is possible.

My own thought regarding this is that the one in favour of war must also recognize that there are no cultures in which there is nothing worth cultivating. There is nothing devoid of good because once something is, though always damaged and sometimes very damaged, it is good. As such, the more extreme form of judgments (like war) must take very seriously the destruction they will cause. (I believe the Just War Theory fleshes these out practically as proportionality and reasonable chance of success.)

Preaching and "Lost"

"Lost" has stayed engaged with its audience with its twists and turns and consistent big finish. But it's getting time to wrap it up. Now the twists are just dragging things on...even when they are interesting. And they have so many ideas for big finishes that they build episodes around these in mind. All of this means that the story is no longer driving the show. The story is being driven by the show.

I think this reflects temptations in preaching. I am tempted to twist the Scripture back on itself to show all its intricacies, forgetting that the intricacies are pointers to the big story. I am tempted to finish with a bang, making the text I'm preaching fit this structure. And when this happens, the story is being driven by the show.

Keeping Oneself from Being Polluted

James tells us that part of what God accepts as pure and faultless religion is keeping oneself from being polluted by the world (1:27). Christians have often done this by attempting to recreate the world they live in ex nihilo. By this I mean that they have not tried being redemptive figures in their existing culture in order to remake it, but by creating a separate culture. As a result we have Christian wrestling, Christian mints, Christian games, Christian music. This is not a counter-culture, meant to be a critique of the existent culture; this is a separate culture, meant to enjoy all the pleasures of the existent culture with none of the pollution.

But James' words cannot be heeded in this way because the source of sin is not culture. James warns us that we are tempted by our own evil desires, that these desires give birth to sin, and that sin, when it is finished, gives birth to death (1:14-15). The source of sin is not culture; it is us. So, if keeping oneself from pollution is not done by separation, how is it done?

Consider the socio-spiritual rules of disease and illness that Jesus bucked. Being touched by a leper, bleeder, dead body, etc. brought uncleanness according to the law. But when touched by lepers, Jesus did not become unclean; they became clean. When touched by a bleeding woman, Jesus was not defiled; she was healed. When touched a dead girl, Jesus was not polluted; she was restored to life! By the power of God's Spirit in Jesus, sin's contagion was stopped and righteousness spread. Jesus was kept from pollution not in his separation from others, but in his relationship to the Father. Righteousness spread. Jesus kept from being polluted by the world by justifying / rightifying it (making it right).

Likewise for James. Believers are kept from being polluted by the world by entering into the actions of their glorious Lord Jesus (2:1): Not showing favouritism. Just as Jesus showed no favouritism by including the poor, the sick, the betrayer, etc., so do his followers keep from being polluted by showing love to the poor (2:2-7). They are encouraged to speak and act as Jesus--as though the law gave freedom (2:12-13). And in this life of obedience--of rightifying the world, to be rightified (2:24), to find their righteousness and friendship with God (2:23). And yet this is not a salvation by merit because it is only through the word of truth, planted in us (1:21) that God has given us birth (1:18).

Letter to Cindy Davidson

A letter to The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY brings up the issue of homosexuality and being Christian. (I will disregard the poor theology in the letter, where she says, "I have the right to a God of my understanding." This, of course, is true in the USA. However, it is not true outside that context in the world of God's creating. There you only have the right to the universal creator God as he has revealed himself in Jesus. All other gods bring no right.) If I could write a letter to this seemingly earnest lady, I would write something like this.

Dear Cindy,

First, let me say that human sexuality is a significant part of being human. Scripture's first declaration of human sexuality is that humans were created male and female--an intimate connection and bond. Moreover, humans--male and female--are created in the image of God. Something about the male-female creation that is humanity reflects God. This means that there are healthy ways for males to be attracted to males and females to be attracted to females. Of course, there are unhealthy attractions, as well--male to female, male to male, female to female, female to male. This is a broken world and this sexual brokenness is exploited and glorified by media and culture. This makes it an even more important issue for church today.

Second, I want to clarify true Evangelical thought. Being gay is not a sin. Same sex attraction is not a sin. Homosexual acts are a sin. There is an important difference to be made there. Many people will ask why it is a sin when it doesn't seem to hurt anybody. Why should people not be able to act on their feelings? It's because creation is for God's glory, meant to reflect him. In the male-female make up of humanity, there is the context for pro-creation. This is meant to reflect God, as well, in whom the Spirit is eternally generated in love the love the Father and the Son both have for each other. In homosexual behavior, there is no context for procreation. In the end, it is the desire of humans to remake themselves in the image of something other than the Triune God. It's also important to note that heterosexual activity is not always reflective of God's image, either, and in those cases it's the same sin of people wanting to remake themselves in the image of someone other than the Triune God.

With this in mind, I believe the church's call to preach against the sin of homosexual and heterosexual behavior must always be good news. This good news is multifaceted. First, there is the good news that God has entered this broken world, the Word of God made flesh--Jesus. Jesus was a full blooded human being with sexual desires. (He remains a human being now, of course, but I won't go into my opinions on the role sexuality plays in our new heaven and earth.) Jesus knows what it's like to be sexually attracted to someone. And yet he went unmarried--unsatisfied sexually. Jesus knows the restraint the law places on people outside the context of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Second, there is good news that Jesus is the image of God and we are being remade in his image. This means that we receive the fruit of his Spirit, part of which is self-control. This means that though sexual attraction outside marriage will occur--for both male and female, hetero- and homosexual--that we can live as Jesus lived. Third, there is good news that Jesus has created a community that is commanded and created to love perfectly, to walk through this sexual brokenness with all who come to them. That the church has failed is a given; it will never perfectly succeed. All you can hope to find are some who will better exhibit the life of Jesus.

Does Father by his Spirit transform some people who are gay so that they have heterosexual attractions? Yes. Does Father through his Son call some heterosexuals to live lives of singleness? Yes. Does Father leave some people who love him deeply with same sex attraction? Yes. Does he expect them to live as his Son in his singleness? Yes. Can they do this? Only by Father's Spirit.

Two Unrelated Thoughts

1. The stimulus package that President Obama says needs to be passed quickly is nearing 1600 hundred pages. That's a lot of dough...to print the thing off. Has anyone read every word? Can that amount of borrowed money make the US Dollar any more valuable?

2. Smart bullies become very good at their craft. If they cannot dominate with physical strength, they dominate with intimidation. If they cannot dominate with intimidation, they dominate with victimization and emotion. If they cannot dominate with victimization and emotion, they may just stand a chance of not being a bully and become pretty decent human beings.