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.

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.

Page CXVI / Hymns

Page CXVI / Hymns.

You must go here and download.

The song JOY is ASTOUNDING!  You have never heard it like this – never, never, never.

ATS – Association of Theological Schools Degree Enrollment Form Code

ATS – Degree Enrollment Form Code .

Andy Rowell Recommended a ThM for thos interested in a ThD or PhD.

The above link is to ATS’ page of schools offering that degree type.

Andy Rowell | Church Leadership Conversations

Andy Rowell | Church Leadership Conversations.

Andy Rowell has probably the most practical blog concerning Christian Education and Church Leadership I have read.  If you are considering theological education beyond the undergraduate level, Andy will get you thinking about some of the stuff needed to prepare yourself.

Speedreading | Student Services at Regent University

Speedreading | Student Services at Regent University.

I was recently reading someone’s blog who was asking for advice on speed reading.  This link is to a free online course at Regent University.

I am convinced that the Evelyn Wood book I purchased for 5 bucks at Barnes and Noble in 1999 got me through seminary!  The amount of reading was impossible to keep up with if you didn’t read above average speed.

mDNA

Highlight from Hirsch’s The Forgotten Ways.

Hirsch says (quoting Encyclopedia Brittanica) that DNA “codes genetic information for the transmission of inherited traits.” It is a “self-replicating material which is present in nearly all living organisms…It is the carrier of genetic information.”

The idea is that DNA is a metaphor that applies to a philosophical/organizational idea as well. Therefore, when you read the following and think missional church, you get excited.

• DNA is found in every living cell.
• It codes genetic info for the transmission of inherited traits beyond that of the initiating organism.
• It is self-replicating.
• It carries vital information for healthy reproduction.

As I was Googling DNA, I began to wonder about the “viral” effect of DNA. That is the literal viral effect of DNA, not the metaphorical one. That is, when a virus begins to spread, it does the same stuff, it has DNA and it replicates.  Viral replication is usually not a good thing.

The above is a picture of a Double Helix. The VISUAL IMAGE I got when I looked at this was the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. Now I know one DNA structure cannot represent both healthy and viral, but the color and the structure just immediately brought that parable to my mind and it was a weird moment.

The Parable of the Weeds

24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 ” ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 ” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ “

Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics – Books & Culture

Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics – Books & Culture

Statistics are hypnotic. They are crack cocaine for Christian Evangelicals. I just sat through a chapel service and was given a bunch of nasty statistics about how the church is going to hell in a handbasket and the Church of the Global South is going to save it. And the audience sat in a hypnotic state nodding their heads in agreement.

It was very satisfying. A year ago I would have done the same.

Here’s something to chew on. Something that gets thrown out all the time is how all these foreign missionaries are coming to America now: when was the last time you, as a white-middle-class-American were approached by one of these missionaries? Where are they? How are they bringing the Gospel back to North America? I don’t see them. Matthew 16:18 runs contrary to these statistics by the way. And, if the Gospel is to spread in North America, the indigenous Church in North America is going to have to Spread it. Just like the indigenous churches in the Global South are doing now! Just my take.

Absolutely

“The term God has a different meaning in philosophy from that which attaches to it in religion. In religion, the term God as Absolute Personality is interpreted to mean that He possesses in infinite perfection all that constitutes personality in finite beings. In philosophy, the term is a synonym for the Absolute in the sense of ultimate reality, whether conceived as personal or impersonal. The term absolute is not scriptural and not necessarily religious. It has come into current use in modern time only, and is used to express abstract thought concerning the ultimate nature of reality.”

H. Orton Wiley

Heretic! Just kidding.

The problem is trying to make philosophy scripture! And, trying to make epistemological frameworks the path to salvation or doctrine in general.

Excuse me, but this comes from my preparation for my doctrinal defense and I’m trying to frame a doctrine of God. When understanding the nature of God, we have to understand Him in many aspects, philosophical being one, but Absoluteness means different things philosophically and Christianly. For instance, philosophically, God is Absolute in the sense of the universal or pan-Theistic. In the Christian view, God is personal and invades the moral space. These two are by no means separate for the Christian, but they are distinguishable.

Deep thoughts on a Tuesday morning.