NKoChristianity – Question #1 – Part Deux

In this post:

1. More Greco-Roman Narrative
2. Why folks, who might have been on Brian’s side before, are reacting to McLaren’s critique

Brian says:

In the Greco-Roman telling of the biblical narrative, salvation (which in this version of the story is virtually equivalent to atonement, justification, or redemption) occurs when Theos finds a way to forgive this fallen, dropout, broken, detestable creation for its descent from perfect holy being into pathetic, detestable becoming.”

And:

On an unconscious level, being forgiven, being saved, being born again, and being justified mean being rescued from the sad story of Aristotelian becoming and restored to the high, timeless plane of perfect Platonic being, so the creatures in question can be loved by Theos again.

Brian continues to get provocative as he ends his intro to the six line narrative and its god.  In the six-line greco-roman narrative, what happens to the unsaved souls?

Theos can’t permit or command their essence to be extinguished, because that essence is spirit rather than flesh and therefore incurably immortal.  Nor can Theos permit the universe to continue for much longer because the whole thing, after all, is fallen and now reeks of Aristotelian becoming, aka decay,  and that rotting smell is inherently detestable to Theos.  So, Theos has no choice, really; this tainted universe and all it contains must be destroyed, which will leave the eternal essences of the unredeemed all undressed with no place to go.  So, they are banished to hell – the Greek Hades, intensified and decorated with plenty of borrowings from its Zorastrian counterpart and seasoned liberally with imagery misappropriated from Jesus’s parables and sermons.  And what is hell?  It must be a state, since no story can ever exist in a universe purged of change and becoming.  That’s why nobody can ever repent and leave it.  There is a sign over its infernal, eternally locked gates: “Despair all who enter here: no becoming allowed.”

What remains in the end?  Theos, plus the perfected souls of the redeemed in heaven, plus everyone else suffering the absolute, “perfect” torment of eternal, unquenchable, pure, and unchanging hate from Theos, getting what they deserve for being part of the detestable fallen universe.

This is – more or less, and put baldly – the “good news” taught by much of the Western Christian religion (not all of it, thank God), the religion in which I was raised, in which I have done my life’s work, of which I am a part today.  True, it could be worse:  there could be even fewer in heaven and even more in hell.  True, it is seldom put this crudely.  True, its defenders will quarrel with various details here, because their version, no doubt, tries to avoid being this starkly dismal.  But even those who quarrel have to admit that this version, or something very close to it, keeps popping up in church history – if not in their backyard, then in somebody else’s.  Much of the energy of Christian Theology, I propose, seeks to save this story from being as barbarous and hideous as it wants to be because of the Greco-Roman lines of thinking that determine its shape.

And, that is where everyone starts to get frustrated, or maybe its the straw that breaks the camels back in Brian’s presentation.

Wait a minute here they say.  So, Brian is saying, if I affirm this six line narrative, I am against him?  This is a caricature of Christian theology, not what responsible thinkers really think. The ball has finally dropped and  I am now at odds with Brian McLaren.

(It is interesting as I watch the critiques to realize the critics don’t agree with one another about what the “right” interpretation is, but they do agree that Brian’s new take is WRONG.)

I don’t think this is what McLaren is doing.  He is not painting new “in/out” categories.  We are interpreting what he is doing as painting “in/out” categories with “orthodoxy” as out and “unorthodoxy” as in.  McLaren wants doctrine open for debate.  His invitation is for folks to join him on that mission.  He realizes some will say no thanks, but warns that saying no thanks because you reject the idea that doctrine is up for debate is close-minded and fearful.  He wants us to trust God enough to engage doctrine and ask for new revelation.  For some this is dangerous territory.  I understand that, but thank God Luther the other reformers didn’t succumb to their reality.  That is, that doctrine was not up for debate.

I would also say this:  I don’t think Brian is saying the Six Line Narrative does not present true concepts of the bible.  I think he is saying this interpretation of the biblical narrative has been co-opted and corrupted by so many well meaning AND evil meaning people, governments, and other institutions over the centuries, that it is worth throwing out the language to re-interpret the narrative in a more helpful way.  This is one of the problems people consistently have with Emergent – this desire for new language.

This is probably the way in which the “new Christianity” will separate itself from evangelicalism, fundamentalism, or any other perceived “orthodox” interpretation.  They will be willing to throw out old language, even if it means being misunderstood or perceived as “denying” doctrine by refusing to use the old language.

I think Brian did himself a disservice calling the OT a “coming of age” story.  He could have done better than that.  His attempts to frame the OT as Israel’s narrative about the “downside of progress” was also dissatisfying.  Why I say this, is because the new language he is choosing is tied to “liberalism” and it is too easy for his critiques to write pithy blog posts and witty magazine articles about how his new language is just old “liberalism.”

Sorry for all that commentary.  Brian says what I just said this way:

But, more and more of us are defecting from the project of cosmetically enhancing this story and trying to rehabilitate the image of Theos.  We want to try reading the Bible frontward for a while, to let it be a Jewish story that, through Jesus, opens to include all humanity.  We believe it is time to firmly escort the Greco-Roman reframing of the biblical narrative to the door and seek what master songwriter Michael Kelly Blanchard calls “the other God” – the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the god of the Greek philosophers and Roman potentates.

Brian says, its just not worth it to keep fighting the good fight for the old narrative.

I think it’s worth it to keep fighting the fight, but I also think we should be open to the possibility that our current understanding of doctrine is going to shift, change, and be transformed as we continue to experience God.

Two responses I have seen that I will continue to challenge.

1.  Where was the Holy Spirit when these doctrines were developed and advanced by the church?  Absent? If the fact that doctrine’s are popular and advance through history is proof that the Holy Spirit has endorsed said doctrine, we are in serious trouble.  It seems to me that Christian doctrine is often formed from the underbelly in protest against the institution.  Furthermore, God’s mission often advances from movements organized around the ideas of these underbelly theologians.  This includes the Protestant Reformation, but also monastic orders in Catholicism.

2.  We don’t need a “new” Christianity.  We just need to live the Christianity we have.  On one hand, I agree with this.  On the other, it takes a fresh perspective to be able to experience ancient truths in ways that are relevant and transformative in our contemporary way of living.  Sometimes, a new word, or a new interpretation, is what leads us to renewal and revival.  Sometimes, that is just a re-discovery of some interpretation that has new life in the contemporary context because of the cultural similarities b/w the now and the then.  But, usually this sentence is said because the person saying it is rejecting fresh thinking, new perspectives, and new interpretation.  That, I can’t get behind.

Vineyard USA – Are We Emerging? Part 3

In this post:

1. Ministry to the GLBT community is firstly a Justice Issue.
2. Ministry to the GLBT community is secondly a Reconciliation Issue.
3. Ministry to the GLBT community is secondly a Holiness and Purity Issue.
4. In reality, these things are happening all at once, or so close together, they are hard to decipher.
5. Vineyard values express a position which rightly realizes this trajectory.  But, the movement is probably not ready to do anything proactive about it.
6. Examples of this at work.

The Vineyard has Two Core Values that speak to several of the “characteristics” I brought up in my earlier post.

But here, I want to discuss the future of the church (Vineyard churches specifically) with reference to those struggling with sexual identity issues.   Namely, the GLBT community, but this must take into account the fact that many people are struggling with this issue , internally, and would not label themselves GLBT.

For me, this issue is first a JUSTICE issue.  The God of Scripture cares about the oppressed (read Isaiah) and wants them to receive his favor and healing.  The GLBT community is oppressed, primarily by God’s people.  The church of the future must realize this and adapt.  I personally don’t think the answer is putting 2000 years of church history concerning this issue in the can, but we will probably have to completely change the way we interact with this community for the Gospel to even have a chance. God’s Justice now is Jesus.  God’s offering or his solution is Jesus. Therefore…

This issue is secondly a RECONCILIATION issue.  The God of Scripture is reconciling creation unto himself.   Two things stick out to me.  First, Romans 3.   No one is righteous.  A common claim from God’s people is, “God says homosexuality is an abomination.”  Actually, God says that “WITHOUT CHRIST” I am an abomination.  I have no hope without Jesus.  The GLBT community has no hope without Jesus.  The church in the future must be committed to reconciling people to God through Jesus by the Spirit.  Period.  Therefore…

This issue is thirdly a Holiness and Purity issue.  God woos his elect into relationship.  He reconciles them unto himself and restores relationship between he and thee.  And then, the real work begins.  The working out of our salvation or sanctification is the process of God making His people holy.  Why do we, as sinning saints, who enjoy God’s grace in our messiness,  expect that this process would work different for anyone else?  Namely, the church expects the EXACT OPPOSITE TRAJECTORY.  Holiness first (renouncing the GLBT lifestyle), reconciliation second, and then justice.

I think this is why the Conservative Church and the rest of the world (liberal church and secular people) speak past each other.  I often hear Christians say, “we have to stand up for the truth” or, “we have to confront sin.” I would challenge these people to re-read the scriptures, especially the Gospels, to see how Jesus interacted with the oppressed.  Repent and believe is FIRST a call to Change your Mind and Ways concerning UNBELIEF. Jesus said this to the religious people too.  The presupposition being – the religious people don’t really believe God!

Ironically, the only people I have met that like being called sinners are Christians.  Christians get off on reveling in their depravity.  I think sometimes, simply because we are okay with being called sinners, we call others sinners too.  This path does not seem helpful.  It is much more helpful to allow Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and scripture to lead people to a revelation about their lives.  But, whether or not we call homosexuality sin, people who are gay need to be introduced to the just and reconciling God.  The God I know through Christ in the Spirit confronts and challenges the ungodliness in me – constantly.  I trust He will do the same for anyone else, including those struggling with their sexual identity.  Teaching people to hear and interpret the voice of God is much more difficult than just proclaiming my interpretation though.

What does this have to do with the Vineyard emerging?  The Vineyard Core Values –   Compassionate Ministry and Reconciling Community and Experiencing God- position VineyardUSA to be leaders in this contemporary endeavor:  taking God’s justice to the oppressed and displaying the path to reconciliation for the left out and overlooked.

I don’t think the universal church sees this as primarily a justice issue. Obviously.  And, the liberal or progressive church seems bent on throwing out church history and biblical interpretation for a more cultural interpretation.  That is, promoting the ordination of actively gay ministers and championing gay and lesbian marriage.  I think there is a third or middle way.

The conversation is forced into the “sin or not sin” discussion.  Again, Dave Schmelzer’s Stage 4 faith offers a way forward here.  It is not a one way or the other proposition, but a both/and one.  The question is not “out vs. in” but “toward Jesus or away from Jesus.” Stage 4 is primarily concerned with pointing people toward Jesus.  I don’t think a Stage 4 version of the faith minimizes or reduces sin to a back burner issue.  It just highlights the fact that God through Christ in the Spirit is the reveal-er of the truth.  He might use me, or you, to confront someone’s sinfulness, but I find that when I am in this type of circumstance, God has been making that person more and more aware of their sin than I ever could.

I recommend Andrew Marin’s book Love is an Orientation.  It needs to be required reading for the Vineyard as we move forward on this issue.

Andrew is also doing a long term empirical study with the GLBT community concerning issues of faith. It will be interesting to see some of that evidence.

Love is an Orientation 3

I apologize for the long blog posts.  I am processing this stuff as I go and writing about it helps me clarify what I believe.  I hope it is helping you do the same.

Note: I think what I like about Andrew Marin’s book, Love an Orientation, is that he is presenting a third way.  A non-dual approach that is not dependent on the “right or wrong” dichotomy.  It helps that I was coming at this book from that perspective, because I think Andrew’s approach will drive you nuts if you want him to come out a give you clear “for” or “against” opinions.  He is for the person.  He is for God through Jesus.  His approach mainly says, the only hope is Jesus.

I’m not going to talk about this, but in this chapter, Andrew talks about the use of the word “homosexual.”  This is a derogatory word to the GLBT community.  It is the equivalent of nigger for the African-American community.  If we as Christians care about moving forward and finding a third way, we will cease and desist the use of this word.

In Chapter 3, Andrew discusses: Stigma, Shame, and Politics.

Andrew talks about what I would call a double bind for anyone with same-sex attractions.  Gay and Lesbian people are given predominantly given two options by society.  A) Live up to a Christian ideal they find impossible to do (for Christians this is the only option to continue participating in the church)  OR B) come completely out of the closet and be “okay” with it (this is becoming more acceptable in society).

To a large percentage of the GLBT community, neither is a good option! And taking “neither” as the option is miserable.  BTW, living up to a Christian Ideal doesn’t sound like a good option to me either.  It sounds like Phariseeism.

So, those with same-sex attractions then never find a home.  They are constantly living a lie.  With the straight community, they are trying to act straight, so they aren’t “found out.”  With the GLBT community, they are trying to act gay, because they are supposed to, right?  In reality a lot of people don’t fit either category.

Andrew brings up the fact that 37% of the USA claim to be Christians.  1% to 7% admit to same-sex attraction.  Of the other 60% or so, the majority are still anti-same sex relationship and behavior.  If you don’t believe these statistics just think about California voting to overturn the decision to allow same-sex marriage.  CALIFORNIA!!!  The most blue state of states still has a majority of people who are anti-same sex marriage.

So, people with same sex attraction are a gigantic minority.  The Stigma and Shame of having those attractions is overwhelming.  The overwhelming perspective of society is that one should feel shame for their same sex attractions – both Christian society and non-Christian (however you define those).

The GLBT community has looked to politics for validation.  In the 60′s and 70′s the GLBT community decided to stand up for themselves as they were being abused. It became a civil rights issue.  And, unfortunately, Christians have taken the “against” side of the political debate.  We don’t want legal privileges to be given to those with a GLBT orientation,  because we are fearful of what that would mean for society at large.  A common fear being, “the GLBT community will take over schools and start teaching my kids that its okay to be gay,” or worse, “they will make my kids gay.”  The effect for the GLBT community is “Christian” equals against, or hate, or worse, violence.

From Love is an Orientation, “To those involved in the political battle, Jesus Christ is not God’s only Son who came to dide to forgive all of their sins but rather a rationalization for subjugation.  Cultural relevance is the key to systemic change, and if Christians are thought of as dead or irrelevant we have no tangible means to then make a systemic difference within our culture.”  (page 56)

My perspective is this.  I can communicate a point of view that is against the GLBT orientation – both identity and behavior – and accomplish absolutely nothing except entrenchment.

First, the GLBT community has completely shut down to this mode of operation.  They have stopped participating in that conversation.

Second, I communicate God hates (worst) or dislikes (best) anyone processing a GLBT orientation.

From an Arminian perspective, I don’t believe God hates or dislikes anyone.  I believe God operates first and foremost from LOVE.  If I am communicating the “against” position, I am not making space for the GLBT community to even begin to explore life with Christ – individually or corporately.  I also believe regeneration and sanctification are a process of justification, not necessary for salvation.  So, denying the GLBT community the space to explore God in Jesus Christ, closes off the opportunity for them to come to Jesus and begin a sanctifying relationship with him.

I think the Reformed perspective would agree that God chooses whom he will.  It is not the Christians job to do that.  It is the Christians job to present the Gospel in love.   I think Andrew is coming from this perspective (I am assuming, and could be wrong).  Andrew quotes Andy Crouch, author of Culture Making, and says, “Christians don’t change culture by critiquing culture, they change culture by making culture.”  This is a reformed perspective.

By being against, we represent neither perspective.

This is why I think “full embrace” of the GLBT community is necessary.  It is ultimately not my job to convict or transform the GLBT person.  That is God’s job.  Am I affirming the GLBT communities behavior by doing that?  I don’t think I am either affirming or not affirming.  I am introducing people to Jesus and allowing him to communicate with them.  I trust that He has the power to do that.

This is what trips up Christians.  “When do we get to tell them they are wrong?” we say.   Well, my experience as a pastor is that no matter who you are, whether you are gay, straight, Christian or non-Christian, until you invite me into your life in an authoritative way, it doesn’t matter what I say.  If someone comes to me about marital problems, I have to determine if they just me to listen or if they are inviting me to give them advice.  I usually ask, literally, “do you want to hear advice or do you just need an ear?.”  It amazes me sometimes that people come to me, ask for advice, listen to what I have to say, and then go do the exact opposite of my advice.  It just is what it is.  I learned really quickly to get over it.  It is God’s job to reveal himself, not mine.  Sometimes he uses me as an instrument of that revelation, but most of the time, I have no part in it.  This can be very disheartening for the Christian.  But, I have come to revel in the Power of God when I am not used.  I preach about 45 to 50 times a year and realize that a small percentage of my words have much impact on people.  The biggest impact I have is on the people that want relationship beyond the sermon.  The people I am walking through life with in a mentoring or discipleship role.  God has grabbed them, revealed himself to them, and I get to come along for the ride.  My pride wants it to be more about me and my effectiveness, but almost everyday, I realize I have little to do with it.

The most effective thing for my church or myself to do is to create safe spaces for people to engage God and experience the life changing living Word of God.  Both written and given.  Reading, studying, listening to, hearing, and acting upon God’s voice is the key.  One can’t do that if we hide Jesus from them.  Or require something before they get access to him.

On Again Off Again Relationship with Emergent 2

1. Women in Leadership – at times, this battle seems to be fought and won or lost (depending on which side you take)
   
1. I think there is a sound biblical argument for women in the role of elder and pastor.  
1. I see women affirmed in the OT and NT for the leadership roles of elder, deacon, or pastor.  Deborah (OT) and Priscilla (NT) are two examples.  
2. One of problems with Paul’s restrictions is the use of household language.  The church as a family, etc.  The context Paul writes from had a very different concept of family.  The family metaphor is broken in contemporary society.  Would Paul use different metaphors today?  I don’t know.  We must wrestle with the consequence of the breakdown of the family.  Are we to “require” Christians to have a biblical family before they can be in leadership in the church?  That might be the bigger question here. 
   
1. Experientially, I have as close to a “biblical” family as you can get in American society.  My wife and I have been married for 8 years in October; we are each others first spouse.  Both our parents have been married over 40 years.  Never divorced.  But, my wife works outside the home.  We use daycare and baby sitters for childcare.  
   
3. The body metaphor is not as restrictive.  Jesus is the head.  All parts of the body are equally important, but different in function.  The NT itself argues for females (as well as other groups considered “out” before Christ) being gifted equally and being called (to God through Jesus) and redeemed equally. 
   
1.  Ephesians 2:11-22  ^11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— ^12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. ^13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.   ^14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, ^15by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, ^16and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. ^17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. ^18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.   ^19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, ^20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. ^21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. ^22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. 
2.  Galatians 3:23- 29 ^23Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. ^24So the law was put in charge of us until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. ^25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.   ^26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, ^27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ^28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ^29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
   
4. The gift lists (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 14, etc) definitely don’t discriminate.  Is there a biblical argument for discrimination in role?  I.e. women have pastoral gifting, but not pastoral calling?  I don’t think so.  Although Paul seems to outright restrict women in this way in the pastoral epistles, his leadership and practice seem to offer a different perspective.  Why are women recognized as elders and oversees in his letters?  That’s the rub for me.  Paul seems to be a master of contextualization.  I think if women could effectively lead, then lead they did.  If it was unnacceptable culturally, prudence was encouraged. 
   
2. Culturally, there is no argument to be had in the USA.
1. Women lead in every area of society.
   
2. Telling a women she can be the next President of the United States, but cannot serve as an elder or pastor in the church is ridiculous.
3. You can be against this and desire to turn back the clock, but culturally, you will not be able to make ground.  Women are equal in talent, competence, and vocation. 
   
4. I think this is an issue of progressive freedom and calling for women.  (1 Corinthians 7:17-24)  We need to embrace it, not fight it.
   
3. As I see it, the battle here is about effective implementation.  Most movements have fought the biblical battle, but are not implementing any type of strategic or intentional plan to recruit, train/equip, and send female pastors.
1.  Most movements and denominations have fought the biblical battle on this issue.  They need to fight the praxis battle.  For those that have decided to assign women to elder roles and ordain to the position of pastor, there still remains the issue of implementation.  I don’t see many denominations or movements doing this very well.  I realize women have been ordained to pastoral ministry in many denominations, but I just don’t see women being encouraged along these lines.
4. Emergent is committed to this:  giving women opportunity and voice. 
   
1. Christianity 21 is a conference presented by JoPa Productions founded by Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt.  21 women 21 ideas.  Enough said.
5.  The Vineyard has a stated position on this issue.  The Vineyard ordains women to pastoral ministry – even Senior Pastor.  
1. The Vineyard has a women’s task force that is addressing this issue through training and leadership development. 
   
2. There are several women in the movement who “co-pastor” with their husbands.  I would consider my wife a co-pastor, but she is not officially recognized as such.  That might be a step we take in the future.
   
3. And, several pastor by themselves.  Most notably, John Wimber’s daughter – Christy. 
   
4. Also, there is momentum encouraging women to church plant.  A few women have been sent as church planters in the last few years.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Manifesto – 2 – Soteriology

I am going to make a commitment right from the beginning here.  I will attempt to mostly write about what I affirm; not about what I don’t affirm or what I reject or what confuses me, etc.  I will only make note of the opposite position to clarify what I am affirming.

Concerning soteriology.  I lean towards an Arminian perspective, but am a student of Craig Blomberg and as he said often in my Greek Exegesis class (on Romans) at Denver Seminary, both the Arminian and the Calvinistic perspective are present in the text.  A commitment to either is, in my opinion, not completely honest with the whole of scripture.

There are plenty of paradoxes in the NT and the quicker we embrace the mystery and the paradox of it all, the more we can live in our salvation and not question it or question God’s ability to save us.

The Arminian Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation) is:

Prevenient grace, Faith, [Union with Christ], Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification, Glorification.

I believe that the move from grace to sanctification is as quick as the time b/w flipping the light switch and the light coming on  (almost unnoticeable).  (I recommend the article on www.monergism.com to clarify the reformed or Calvinistic Ordo Salutis.  I especially see the Faith/Union/Justification thing as almost silmultaneous.

One of the primary reasons I lean in the Arminian direction is because I believe in a Prevenient Grace. That is a “preventing” grace that is present all the time due to the sacrificial and victorious death death and subsequent resurrection of the Christ.  The Calvinistic idea of limited atonement, election, and predestination are difficult for me to affirm because of my life experience – see below.

I affirm Total Depravity and affirm that it is grace that woos the person to Faith.

I affirm that we are saved by faith through grace.  I believe it is God’s grace that assumes the power to convert. After that power takes effect and the person has surrendered to Jesus, he or she is justified. That is, I don’t understand man as not marred enough to express faith in his own power.  I just think it is grace that converts vs. regeneration.  In other words, I think of converting faith as a free will act of surrendor to grace vs. the Calvinistic idea of the necessity of regeneration before faith.

Grace is many things.  I think it is primarily the gift of God’s love to the undeserved.  The subsititutionary act of Jesus dying on the cross took place while we were yet sinners because God so loved the world (John 3:16).  I believe that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were the climax of human history.  God’s covenant relationship with his people was extended to the gentile through Jesus’ death and resurrection (the Gospel) and the avenue to salvation for the Jew nows travels through Jesus and not through acceptance of prior covenants, race, nationality, and obedience to the law.

I believe the church (the community of the saved) is Israel.  I do not believe Israel the nation or people of the Jewish race has any special or privileged position with God since the Christ-Covenant.  I believe the only way to God is through Jesus Christ – for the Jew and the Gentile.

I believe the elect are those that have placed their faith in Jesus, been regenerated and are persevering in the faith by being sanctified.

I believe God is sovereign and providential, but that foreknowledge and predestination are quite mysterious.  But, experientially, I am aware of some magnetized attraction to Jesus that I cannot shake.  I say, “I am prone to follow” not “prone to wander.”  So, that might be a total contradiction to my position – I’m okay with that.

I am not sold on the blueprint model (Greg Boyd’s terminology) and it is not necessary for God to be Sovereign in that way to be trusted or believed in.  I believe God is active and alive in time and space and interacts with his people in the here and now while working towards a telos that ends the current age and transitions into the age to come.

I believe people can walk away from the faith. I think the warnings in Hebrews and Paul’s paradoxical relationship with Judaizers, disciples that get turned over to Satan, and statements like Phil. 2:12 “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” are reminders that human beings with free will do have responsibility to persevere in the covenant relationship.  I also think John and James had a theology that communicates perserverence.  John 15 is my favorite passage of scripture. The necessity for Jesus to communicate abiding in the vine, in my opinion, points to perserverence.

I believe this view mostly makes sense to me because it is intuitive to my experience. I run in a movement that is Charismatic.  The Charismatic movement in general, sees people come to faith later in life.  This is one of the biggest hurdles for me concerning the Reformed perspective.  If we are foreknown and predestined in the reformed way, why do people come to faith later in life?   I have heard the Calvinistic arguments, I am just not persuaded by them.  It makes more sense to me that God’s prevenient grace is always wooing people.  Some surrender while young and some further down the timeline. (Also, I believe the “problem” of those with lesser intellectual capabilities is under prevenient grace.  An intellectual assent is not necessarily needed.  I think the trinitarian God most desires our affection, not our mental assent to propositions.)

Regeneration as I have experienced it and watched people experience it is a process.  We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved.   Regeneration and Sanctification are the “being saved” part. I believe that those who are called unto Him undergo, in partnership with God through Jesus in the Power of the Spirit, a process that requires perserverence to come to  Paul says, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil. 2:2) The Calvinistic approach that Grace is Irresistible and that Regeneration happens before Faith and Justification is counter-intuitive to me.

I believe those placing their faith in Jesus and perservering in the faith will be glorified.  I look forward to that day.

I also think this really matters for the practicality of Salvation.  I am not on mission to convert people to a system or to a doctrinal statement.  I am living as one “given” by Christ to the world to proclaim the Gospel.  One of my hangups with the reformed perspective is that it can quickly become about the tradition and not about the mission.

I am called to relationship with Jesus and sent by him to proclaim the Gospel and continue the in-breaking reality of the Kingdom of God.

Well, that’s where I’m at.  I might change my mind.

Tony Jones

I was discouraged on Saturday evening when I read Justin Taylor’s post about Tony Jones.

It is ironic that Mr. Taylor posted this a few weeks ago.  He was very disturbed that Scot McKnight would caricature the New Reformed Crowd saying,

I want to be open to critique, and I know these other men do to (sic). But honestly, McKnight–who has frequently complained about statements about Emergent/ing that don’t make distinctions and paint with broad brush strokes–is doing the same in spades. In addition, he’s publicly caricaturing his brothers and sisters in Christ and doing so in a rather crude way. I hope he reconsiders.

I think JT does this often; he responds to being name called by name calling.  The issue I have with this, from either side, is that when one presents this kind of position, it doesn’t feel like name calling from their perspective, because they are just telling the truth!   I actually like JT’s blog.  It is very helpful and points to a ton of information on a daily basis.  JT also gives me access to the reformed world, which I don’t endorse, but want to understand.  Every once in a while, JT decides to enter the fray and help us all understand the heresy in Jones and the Emergent crowd. 

Furthermore, what I find so disheartening is that it seems silly to champion the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement (PSA) as “the only viable theory” and as the only “orthodox” and “true” theory.  Tony has followed up his provocative posts over the weekend with further explanation.  As he says, he only denies giving PSA primacy, he does not deny the validity of the actual theory.  This is never enough for the reformed crowd though.  Tony actually flatly denies that he denies the PSA.  But, the PSA has been raised up to the point of Orthodox Doctrine (i.e. an essential), when church history can not endorse that. 

This is the offending quote:

Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God’s wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.

Tony clearly does not deny anything.  Saying it is not compelling, is not the same as saying it is false.  Saying it is not compelling is saying that it is one of many theories, others of which he finds “more” compelling.  Many theologians around the world would say the same exact thing; probably even some reformed ones.

PSA is important, absolutely, and I think preachers need to figure out how to communicate it effectively in the 21st century.  We are so far removed from temple practice that it is down right difficult to communicate the PSA effectively.  One must teach a ton of history to present a contemporary expression of substitution.

I recommend a few resources to see that Tony is not a heretic and faslse teacher for not championing the PSA as the only way:

http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Atonement-Four-Views/dp/0830825703

http://www.amazon.com/Across-Spectrum-Understanding-Evangelical-Theology/dp/0801022762/ref=pd_sim_b_5

Across the Spectrum is actually a great resource to understand the diversity in orthodox theological thought. 

And, finally, Greg Boyd, author of Across the Spectrum (also a flaming heretic to the new reformed; he actually got chased out of the GBC by John Piper over his open theology perspective) champions the Christus Victor theory of atonement. 

I also would say the NT primarily presents the Christus Victor theory.

I am a Kingdom Theology proponet (that is why I am at home in the Vineyard) and Christus Victor is very important from that perspective.  If Jesus came to initiate his Kingdom Reign, he must also have defeated Satan and won the war over death.

Don Miller Blog » Why They Stay on Top

http://donmilleris.com/2009/03/04/what-u2-faces-when-they-create-an-album-and-why-they-stay-on-top/

Why do I care so much about what Don Miller thinks about U2?  I dunno, but he says what I would like to say.