A glimpse into the life of Tim

So, in lieu of a real post this week I BEG YOU to go and read Michael F. Bird's post over at the Euangelion blog (here). You may remember that I featured Michael Bird a few weeks ago (here). The reason why his post struck such a chord with me is because I also suffer from the INTJ personality type! His post applies to me in many ways!!

Anyway, enjoy some of the following INTJ humour!

Merry Christmas

I hope that all of you have a wonderful time this year celebrating the amazing incarnation of God!

I hope that the angels' blessing in Luke 2:14 rings true in your life.

But, of course, I can't just leave it at that! Here's a fun little video that we'll be using during our Christmas Eve service:

This is a fun way to bring a bit more of a realistic, Biblical focus to our sometimes overly traditional celebrations.

If you want to look into this a bit more I'll point you back to a post that I did back in '07 (here) and to a recent post that Ben Witherington III did on his blog (here). If you have the time, his post is definitely worth the read. You'll also notice that he backs up my own theory that Jesus was simply born in a house and not a cave (certainly not a stable!).

The Bible says nothing about stables or caves. It does however mention a house (Mt. 2:11) and a guest-room/upper-room (Lk. 2:7 - see the NEB or the TNIV). Plus, archeological records from the 1st century show that many houses had mangers in their houses in the entryways.

Jesus was born in a house.

Anyway, rather than continuing the deconstruction of Christmas traditions I will echo the sentiments expressed in that fun little video: however you celebrate Christmas, whatever it looks like, don't let it go by without taking some time to meditate on the enormity of God becoming fully human.

Merry Christmas.

In the beginning...

So, my main point from last week was that we need to let the Bible serve its own agenda rather than us pushing our agenda onto it. We need to come to the scriptures and let them shape us; let them tell us what they are designed to say.

One of my biggest beefs with "creationists" is that in many (...but not all...) cases I don't think they use the Scriptures properly. Week hermeneutics = poor theology.

Maybe I'm a heretic but I honestly don't think that the point God is trying to make through Genesis 1 is an historical (by modern standards...), chronological account of how He created.

If He thought it was important to let us know the exact "how", He would have given us more specifics. As it is, Genesis 1 is VERY unspecific (scientifically/historically speaking). Genesis 1 is moving; it is beautiful; it is powerful... it is theological... but it is not scientifically or historically precise.

If God wanted it to be, He would have made it that way.

If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "light" & "dark" (Day 1) before there was sun, moon, stars (day 4).

If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "evening" & "morning" (every day) before He had created the sun and moon (day 4).

In fact, how were there "day"s before day 4? How were they measured? Were these metaphorical days (day/age theory... Heb. "yom")? Were they 24 hr. periods (the Hebrew is rather ambiguous)?

There is just as much theory and speculation in creationism as there is in evolution.

Please do not read anything into the picture below: it's a joke! :)

As I mentioned last week, Genesis 1 is a Hebraic poem.

The 6 "days" of creation in Genesis 1 follow an ABC - ABC formula (with "day" 7 providing the "D" conclusion):

Day 1. A

Day 2. B

Day 3. C

Day 4. A

Day 5. B

Day 6. C

Day 7. D

Each of the "days" has a parallel.

A breakdown of the structure of Genesis 1 is as follows:

A. Day 1: Light and Dark || Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars

B. Day 2: Sea & Sky || Day 5: Fish & Birds

C. Day 3: Fertile Earth || Day 6: Land Animals (including Mankind)

D. Day 7: Rest

In the first half of the parallel God creates something and then in the second half He populates it: ie. Day 2 - God creates the sea; Day 5 God creates Fish.

Remember, most scholars agree that it was Moses who wrote Genesis. This was written so that it could be read to (not by) the people of God: it was an oral culture. Things were written so that when they were read they could be remembered (hence the Hebrew emphasis on REPETITION).

This was written to a people who did not know or value science. It was written to a people who needed to know who God was, what He had done, and how they were called to live in response to that.

These words still speak powerfully to us today but we cannot impose our western/modern cultural expectations onto an ancient religious text. When we do that we come up with some wacky stuff!

In the end I believe that what we are intended to know is simply this: GOD CREATED.

God created all that is.

God created us:

A. in His image

B. as the climax of His "good" creation

C. to live in unity with Him & the rest of His creation.

I am not trying to say that really getting into creation-science is wrong or bad, 'cause it's not. I think it is important to have "specialists" in all areas of Biblical scholarship... but it should be just that: people who are passionate about the theology of Genesis, not people who are passionate about reading science into the text.

Exegesis not eisegesis.

That's all for now. Let me know what you think!

Asking the right questions?

"Asking the [Bible] the right sort of questions, and avoiding asking the wrong ones, is a key not only to understanding the Bible as a written expression of God's Word, but it also prevents us from creating more troubles in interpretation than are necessary" (Ben Witherington III; The Living Word of God, 25).

** ** ** **

I have provided, as bookends for this post, two quotes that I hope can emphasize the point I am trying to make:

I hope that in post-modernism we as Christians may be able to regain a view of the Bible that was damaged during the modern era. Following the Enlightenment much of Western Christianity bought into the worldview of modernity. One of the results of this was an emphasis on "Systematic Theology." Systematic Theology was a way of approaching theology that followed the scientific method. Observe the following quotes from two prominent Christian Systematic Theologians:

“…the theologian must be guided by the same rules in the collection of facts, as govern the man of science.” - Charles Hodge

“the laws of methodology are as essential in the science of systematic theology as in any other science” - L.S. Chafer

“... the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other” - Hodge

I won't take the time and space right now to argue with these quotes other than simply saying that I think this approach to theology has had some very destructive results (if you want some of these ideas just ask and I can comment on them). One of these results is, in my opinion, the largely pointless debate of creationism/evolutionism.

One of the biggest follies Christians have committed is attempting to claim scientific truth in the scriptures. Just ask Copernicus, Galileo, etc...

Obviously this is a hugely dense topic with a tonne of baggage so there's no way I can deal with this with any justice in a blog post but for now I will just highlight one or two points.

Genre, people... genre. In most cases it is not very difficult to identify the genre of any given passage of scripture. For example, to argue that the earth is flat because Ps. 135:7 talks about the "ends of the earth"; or to say that the sun goes around the earth because Ps. 104:22 says that "the sun rises"... to argue these points is just plain silly. Why? (aside from the fact that science has clearly proven otherwise) Because it is poetry! Why on earth would one attempt to derive scientific fact from a sacred poem? Maybe it's just me, but you'd think that a religious poem would be trying to address something other than the natural sciences.

Here's the thing: the Bible has it's own agenda. In a sense it is providing us answers to questions that we may not be asking. So part of the interpretive task for any and every Christian is to find out what questions we need to be asking it (see top & bottom quotes). When we come to the scriptures with our own questions/hypothesis we are almost guaranteed to be misinterpreting it.

It is coming out of this that "Biblical Theology" has risen. The emphasis in Biblical Theology is to read the Bible as a whole and to discern what God's agenda is in the written Word and then yield our agenda's to His.

In short: Systematic Theology starts with our questions and looks to the Bible to answer them while Biblical Theology starts with the Bible's answers and asks us to change our questions.

[This is not to say that all Systematic Theology is bad or that all Biblical Theology is good; nor is it saying that Systematic Theology isn't Biblical or that Biblical Theology isn't in some sense systematic. They are just two different approaches]

So, if we are to even begin to address the creation/evolution debate we need to come to the creation account with no agenda (as much as is possible) on our own part. Or maybe I should say, our only agenda needs to be to hear the answers that God provides us with and then ask if we've been asking the right questions.

I'd like to keep going but I'm not sure how much more you poor readers will keep reading... maybe more next week.

Please provide me with your thoughts and comments :)

** ** ** **

"Even when only partly understood, the Bible remain(s) bigger than the niches to which it (has been) relegated. For it requires that we be hearers of the Word,

listening for what it asks us, not bringing our questions to find the Bible's answers, but prepared to have our current questions revised or even discredited by its own" (James McClendon; Ethics, 37).

A little fun...

So I'm going to be having a really busy week and won't have time to do a proper post. This will have to suffice.

For those of you who don't know, Michael Bird is an Australian NT scholar (and regularly posts on the Euangelion Blog) who teaches at a theological college in Scotland. He's a brilliant scholar and all-around good guy.

Anyway, Zondervan has been going around interviewing various prominent authors/scholars and asking them which authors/books have been influential in their lives. For example, here is the video of my favorite Greek scholar, Bill Mounce.

Mr. Bird decided to have some fun with his interview:

This has kept me laughing for a long time... My favorite is Joel Olsteen and Joyce Meyer as "sentinals" of the faith... hehehehehe.

You can see his real interview here.

Anyway, I'm off to have a bubble bath and read some Barth!

How to be un-Christ-like

I have to confess that I am doing in these last posts something that I hate when other people do it: intentionally stating things controversially just to get a reaction.

Please forgive me.

But there is a point behind all of this. What I desire is that we all understand who Jesus, the son of Mary & Joseph, really was: He was a first century Jew, living in first century Jewish culture.

As he heard the voice of the Father in His life He was obedient. This obedience led Him to observe the OT Law in the way that the Father originally desired all humanity to observe it. It was because of this perfect obedience that Jesus could be our all sufficient

sacrifice and completely fulfill the Law.

I'm assuming that most of us won't have too many issues with what I stated above. What I take issue with is that we don't usually let all of that interact with our Christian calling.

It is precisely because of all of this that we don't need to be like Christ.

Jesus was obedient to His God-given vocation to be the Son of Man; the Messiah.

I however, have not been called to be the Messiah. I have been called to be the best darned Timothy Braun that I can be; the one that God wants me to be. Jesus' vocation was to fulfill the OT Law. I have not been called to live under that Law. To do so would be to return to slavery (Gal. 5:1). Instead I have been called to live under the "law of the Spirit of Life" (Rom. 8:2).

Jesus didn't get to live under the Law of the Spirit...

Jesus didn't get to (in His unresurrected human life) live under the New Covenant because it was by His death that it was inaugurated (Heb. 9:15-22).

To actually live the way that Jesus lived would mean returning to the Old Covenant.

Don't be like Jesus; be who Jesus wants you to be.

Was Jesus a Christian?

Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew?

Maybe it's just me but I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Jesus was a Jew.

This is one reason why I think "What Would Jesus Do?" is actually kind of a silly question.

What would Jesus do?:

Jesus would eat kosher.

Jesus would worship corporately on Saturday.

Jesus would observe the Passover, the Feast of Booths, etc... all of the Jewish religious feasts.

Jesus's scriptures would consist of only the Old Testament.

Jesus would get his male children circumcised (had He married & had He then had children).

I think you get the idea.

The point of the Messiah (at least partly) was that He was the ultimate Human (that's what the phrase the Son of Man meant: the person who epitomizes what mankind was meant to be). In the context

of Judaism this means (in part) that the Messiah was to be the ultimate Law abider; as Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17 (ESV).

I think this is part of why it is so important that we seek to truly understand the Old Testament and Judaism in general. After all, if the purpose of the Messiah was to fulfill God's purpose for the Law then shouldn't we, as followers of that Messiah, seek to understand exactly what it was that He fulfilled?

If we neglect to understand His purposes how can we truly be followers of Him?

Galatians 5:1 (ESV) says: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Paul says that we no longer need to observe the Law because Christ fulfilled the Law; to return to the Law would be slavery.

However, if we don't understand what we have been freed from are we really free?

Ignorance is not freedom...

... nor is it bliss.

What do you think?

What do you think it means that Jesus was the ultimate human?

What do you think it means that Jesus was the ultimate Law abider?

How important do you think understanding the OT is?

** ** ** **

Any other ideas about what I should blog on?

Yup, I'm taking requests :)

Gathering & Committing

Today I am going to conclude our discussion on "church." It's been a long, much interrupted, series of posts but I hope you have benefited from them. I know I have.

When it comes right down to it, church is all about getting together and committing to something. We've talked about the meaning of the word church. The basic meaning of church is an assembly or a gathering. In its secular context a church (secular def'n of ekklesia) is a decision making assembly. When we look at the OT church (see LXX) we see a similar pattern. Whenever the people of Israel gather together in corporate worship and it is described as an ekklesia there is also a call to respond: they are covenant gatherings (ie. a call to renew the covenant). When the people leave the church (assembly) they have committed themselves to fulfilling their part of the covenant with God.

I think this is what church needs to be. When we assemble for corporate worship it is church. However, for it to truly be church there needs to be a response; we cannot leave church without having in some way committed ourselves anew to the cause of Christ & the Kingdom.

Now, some of you might balk when I use the phrase "leave church" but I use that phrase intentionally. I think there has been a fair bit of confusion over the years over what is the church and what is the body. [I acknowledge that what follows is probably an overly simplistic explanation but I think it holds true. If you take exception to it we can discuss it in the comments.]

The church is an assembly. Hence, once the assembly disperses you are no longer part of the assembly. The assembly is only an assembly when it has assembled... duh. So, when we are talking about the church as the local gathering of the Body of Christ then it is very simply what we have already described: a decision making gathering of the people of Christ.

However, regardless of whether we are assembling or not, we are all members of the Body of Christ; the Universal Church. I think the term universal church is a bit of a misnomer because it really isn't a church... or at least not yet. The entire Body of Christ has never assembled, nor will it until Recreation. That's something to look forward to!

So anyway, this conclusion is hardly revolutionary but I always think the journey's worth the work. Maybe we already knew when we started what the destination was but the hike is worth the work-out.

We may all be a part of the Body of Christ, but God has called us all to be a part of the local expression of the Body: the church.

I think as we gather for church, whatever that might look like, we need to keep in mind the OT Worship/Covenant gatherings. If we walk away from a gathering not having committed ourselves again to the grand purposes of God then we have missed the point.

Also, I find it compelling that Jesus said that "... the gates of hades will not prevail against..." the church (Mt. 16:18). When we assemble and these assemblies are times of worship and commitment the very gates of hades tremble.

That says something about church.

So, what do you think?

What else would you add to the discussion?

Is this the same or different than you've thought of church?

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

And if you only visit my blog for amazing YouTube clips, here's another DC*B video from last year's Dove Awards. The sound might bite, but it's a great song and I like the idea of what they did with the set. Enjoy.

The church, our Mother

Once again, I'm feeling kinda swamped and don't have the leisure to do too much abstract thought. But I want to keep up (and wrap up) our ongoing discussion about "church."

Most of you know that I have a great admiration for N.T. Wright. I think he's one of the most progressive, pragmatic, and biblically grounded theologians in recent history. And so, what I have to offer you today is an excerpt from his book "Simply Christian" (pg. 210-212):

"If God is our father, the church is our mother." The words are those of the Swiss Reformer John Calvin. Several biblical passages speak in this way (notably, Galatians 4:26-27, echoing Isaiah 54:1). They underline the fact that it is as impossible, unnecessary, and undesirable to be a Christian all by yourself as it is to be a newborn baby all by yourself.

The church is first and foremost a community, a collection of people who belong to one another because they belong to God, the God we know in andthrough Jesus. Though we often use the word "church" to denote a building, the point is that it's the building where this community meets. True, buildings can and do carry memories, and when people have been praying and worshiping and mourning and celebrating in a particular building for many years, the building itself may come to speak powerfully of God's welcoming presence. But it is the people who matter.

...

It is within the church, even when the church isn't getting everything quite right, that the Christian faith of which we have spoken is nourished and grows to maturity. As with any

family, the members discover who they are in relationship with one another. Churches vary enormously in size, from scattered handfuls of people in isolated villages to enormous congregations of many thousands in some parts of the world. But ideally every Christian should belong to a group that is small enough for individuals to get to know and care for one another, and particularly to pray in meaningful depth for one another, and also to a fellowship large enough to contain a wide variety in its membership, styles of worship, and kingdom-activity. The smaller the local community, the more important it is to be powerfully linked to a larger unit. The larger the regular gathering... the more important it is for each member to belong also to a smaller group...

So, what do you think?

What do you agree with?

What do you disagree with?

A little more Crowder

Hey everyone. As most of you know, me and my little family were on holidays this past week. We had a great time hanging out with family in the Radium, BC area.

I have no wonderful insights for you this week, although I hope to wrap up our ekklesia discussion very soon. But in the meantime I want to give you all a little more Crowder.

The David Crowder* Band recently released a new album, "Church Music." As usual, they have put together one of the most progressive "worship" albums out there. These guys are awesome.

They also happen to be very funny! To promo their album they posted a series of "Rockumentaries" on YouTube. Please enjoy the following responsibly:

[Sorry that the video doesn't fit properly on this blog template. Double click on the video to watch it properly on YouTube.]

Nature Deficit Disorder

This week I'm taking a week-long module class at Bethany College. It's been OK, but so far the highlight for me has been that the prof lent me a book that I've been wanting to buy for a while now: "Last Child in the Woods" by Richard Louv. This book talks about "Nature-Deficit Disorder." In this book Louv draws connections between our continuing disconnection with nature and the rise of a variety of things like obesity, attention disorders, and depression.

Below I offer you a paragraph from the first chapter:

"For children, nature comes in many forms. A newborn calf; a pet that lives and dies; a worn path through the woods; a fort nestled in stinging nettles; a damp, mysterious edge of a vacant lot -- whatever shape nature takes, it offers each child an older, larger world separate from parents. Unlike television, nature does not steal time; it amplifies it. Nature offers healing for a child living in a destructive family or neighbourhood. It serves as a blank slate upon which a child draws and reinterprets the culture's fantasies. Nature inspires creativity in a child by demanding visualization and the full use of the senses. Given a chance, a child will bring the confusion of the world to the woods, wash it in the creek, turn it over to see what lives on the unseen side of confusion. Nature can frighten a child, too, and this fright serves a purpose. In nature, a child finds freedom, fantasy, and privacy: a place distant from the adult world, a separate peace" (pg. 1).

What do you think?

MMW

Hey! Like the new look? I think it's great. Thanks to my lovely wife for doing it all for me:)

I apologize for the lack of post-age this week. It's been a really busy one. And next week I'll be in a class at Bethany for a week-long module, so I'm guessing there won't be a post next week either... but don't worry, I promise to come back. I won't ditch you like last time, I promise!

In the meantime I leave you with a clip from one of my favorite bands: Medeski, Martin, and Wood (or MMW). They are a sweet, crazy, experimental jazz trio. This clip is a trailer for their upcoming DVD.

It's a little weird and eclectic but even if you're not into this kind of stuff make sure to check out the organ solo at 2:10, and the piano vs. screwdriver at 4:40.

Please excuse (or avoid... you've been warned) the very unfortunate expletive at 5:10 :(

Synagogues and Churches?

As I've been thinking through all of this ekklesia stuff my mind keeps on coming back to the Jewish synagogue. This is because I have heard (I don't remember where) that as the ekklesia spread it modelled itself after the synagogue.

So how did ancient synagogues function?

In what ways is that similar/dissimilar to what we see in the early church?

Synagogues (literally, assemblies... like ekklesia it is a gathering of the people not a building) began during the Babylonian captivity. With the temple destroyed and the people in captivity the Rabbis of the day came up with a way for the people of God to have worship gatherings without the temple. Initially, these gatherings began as meetings in homes and then as they grew and became more established they built their own buildings, appointed elders to lead the gatherings, and hired rabbis to teach them and their children. Eventually, each community had its own synagogue with it's own elders and rabbis. Sound familiar?

These synagogue assemblies centred on the scriptures and prayer. Scriptures were read, a rabbi would explain the text, and debate/discussion would follow. Times of communal prayer also

took place. I have read nothing to indicate that music was a part of these synagogue gatherings but we all know how important the worship arts were to the people of Israel... that's for another

day.

Anyway, I don't know about you, but to me all of this sounds very similar to how the early church operated. [The picture is of the Synagogue in Capernaum]

So, how is this connected to our current discussion? In "Pagan Christianity" Viola makes the argument that the bulk of how we "do church" has its roots in Graeco-Roman paganism rather than in the scriptures. I would agree that much of how we do things is based on tradition and not the scriptures. But I'd say that today's church owes just as much (and I'd argue much more) to the Jewish synagogue than to pagan religions.

You guys are bright, intelligent people. What do you think?

What am I missing?

Do you know of other similarities (or dissimilarities) to synagogue worship?

And for those of you who really don't care about any of this:

Here's the newest trailer for the upcoming "Astro Boy" movie!

descriptive or prescriptive?

I think it goes without saying that all churches claim to be Biblically rooted, so I always think it's kind of funny when people say things like, "well, we're just trying to get back to the way they did it in the Bible." First of all I think it's funny because it comes across as more than a little pretentious (as if the rest of us aren't "biblical") and secondly... well, that leads me into the bulk of this post:

Whenever we're dealing with hermeneutics (interpretation of the scriptures) there are a number of questions that need to be asked. One very important one is this: is the text we are looking at descriptive or prescriptive? In other words, is the text we are looking at simply describing stuff that took place (with little or no bearing/obligation upon us to respond to it in a given way)

or is the text clearly stating something in such a way that it demands a specific response from us as we read it?

Our discussion on "church" is the perfect example. What we see in the NT is this:

1. Christians gathering at the temple/local synagogue to hear the scriptures read (no Christian would have their own copy of the scriptures).

2. they would then leave these rather large gatherings and meet in necessarily smaller groups in their own houses in order to discuss what they heard from the scriptures, pray, and break bread.

Now, the whole house church movement (backed up by Viola, Barna, the Dales... which started

this set of posts) is centred on #2. They see the descriptions of meeting house to house and say that the truly Biblical model is based on small groups of Christians meeting not in church owned buildings but in homes.

But I don't know if they asked this important hermeneutic question: is what we see in the NT (when it comes to ekklesia) descriptive or prescriptive?

When the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it simply a description of how they chose to meet? Ie. there is no obligation for future generations of Christians all around the globe to meet in this precise manner.

Or when the NT writers recorded what the ekklesia was doing was it prescriptive? Ie. how the early Christians met is the way that God requires all of us to be meeting.

Let's have a discussion around this.

What do you think?

What is church anyway?

Coming out of last week's post I think it might be good to do our own re-evaluation of what "church" really is. If we want to "do" church in the way that we believe the Holy Spirit is directing us through the scriptures then it can't hurt to crack the case wide open and take a good look. Please join me as I work through this. I firmly believe in community hermeneutics so I cherish your thoughts.

First of all, let's throw out the word "church"... for now. The history of the word "church" is slightly convoluted and even misleading. It has a whole lot of connotations wrapped up with it and no small amount of baggage. However, once we've rid ourselves of "church" (the word, not the concept) what we are left with is this: ekklesia (also sometimes spelt ecclesia; either way it is a transliteration of the Greek word, εκκλησια).

Ekklesia is the word used in the NT that we usually have translated for us as "church" (Acts 19:32 is the exception; here ekklesia is used in its secular context... see def'n below). However, there is a lot of stuff packed into this one word. From Mounce's Expository Dictionary...:

"church is derived from ekklesia ('to call out'), so the church is the 'called-out ones' of God. In

its secular use ekklesia refers to the gathering of the competent citizens of a city-state in order to decide issues regarding laws, office appointments, and public policy. But the prototype of the NT ekklesia lies not in Greco-Roman history but in the assembly of God's people in the OT (cf. Acts 7:38) which developed into the Jewish synagogue as the gathering of the community of God..." (my emphasis).

In the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint (henceforth abbreviated as LXX - if you are unfamiliar with the LXX it may be worth while checking out one of my previous posts here), the word ekklesia shows up quite often (see, for example, 1 Chron. 28:8, Deut. 31:30, Micah 2:5, Neh. 7:66). In these cases that I found, ekklesia is always translated as assembly; and not just any assembling of a group of people, it is always the assembly of the people of God. In fact, the phrase the church of God comes not from the NT but the OT; from the LXX.

So, the roots of our word for "church" actually come from the OT assemblies ("ekklesias" LXX) when the people of Israel were "called out" for God's purposes. This is the basis for what would become the Jewish synagogue. And the Apostle Paul (who uses the word ekklesia more in his letters than anywhere else in the NT combined) used the basic synagogue structure when planting churches. Also, as a semi-connected tidbit, it was Paul's branch of the pharisees that believed that the LXX was equally inspired and authoritative as the Hebrew scriptures.

SO WHAT?

First: Contrary to popular belief "Church" is not just a NT thing. It has deep roots in the OT worship/covenant gatherings. When Jesus used the word ekklesia (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) he wasn't coining a new term. The people of Jesus'/Paul's day knew the word and what it meant; namely, the gathering together of God's people for God's purposes.

Second: Ekklesia is primarily a gathering/assembly of like-minded people. Recently I have heard a lot of people and read a number of books that are trying to combat the idea that the church is a building by saying, "you can't go to something that you are." This is partly right... but I want to draw a distinction here. I am not the ekklesia; we are the ekklesia. "Church" cannot, by definition, be attached to anyone or anything singular. I, by myself, am not the "church"; I can't gather/assemble with myself . A Christian standing by himself/herself is just that: a lone Christian. The ekklesia, as Paul describes it, is a body with many parts. A finger severed from the hand is just a finger; when attached to the hand it is part of the body. So, if you have any illusions that you are the "church" get rid of them. You are not the ekklesia; but we are.

I think that's enough for today. I'll be continuing with this exploration over the next few weeks so please add your voice to this discussion.

In your mind what aspects define "church?"

What aspects of today's "church" life do you think are scriptural?

What aspects are cultural (man-made/society imposed)?

WHAT! A new post?

Yes, it's true; I've posted again!

So, what has caused me to break my silence? The short answer: George Barna.

Now, I've never been a big Barna fan. Even though he and the Barna Group have done some great things for the Western Church he's always just rubbed me the wrong way. It all started when I had to read "The Habits of Highly Effective Churches" as a text in College. It ticked me off that he even attempted to measure "the presence of God" (pg. 84) and put it on a pie chart.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the stats that the Barna Group have come up with... they truly can be quite helpful. But really? The presence of God on a pie chart!?!

Anyway, apparently Barna's newest gig is co-authoring books. I've recently been reading a couple of books on which his name has been slapped: "Pagan Christianity" (written by Frank Viola) and "The Rabbit and the Elephant" (by Tony & Felicity Dale). Both of these books were written by their real authors and Barna "co-authored" them by adding some statistics and a forward. I guess it doesn't take much to be a co-author these days.

I'll leave poor ol' George alone now.

My real beef with both of these books is that... well, let's just say that Viola could have had Dan Brown co-author this book. I think they'd get along pretty well.

Both of these books relish in vilifying the "traditional/institutional" church. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a good little post-modernist; I enjoy deconstructing institutions as much as the next guy but I just believe you have to use your brain while doing so.

If you are going to attack God's Bride you had better have your ducks in a row.

The basic premise of both of these books is that the "New Testament model" for church is that of house churches. We horrible, evil, brainless Western Christians have corrupted God's church by making them corporations. The only true church is the small, dynamic house church.

Now, I should say that The Elephant and the Rabbit doesn't put things quite so aggressively as that, but that is the underlying tone.

And in the case of Pagan Christianity, I think Viola mistook including copious amount of footnotes as real research.

My real frustration with these books is that I want to like them. Honestly, I agree with 75-80% of what these people have to say... but:

1. Their arguments are filled with pride. Rarely is there a hint of humility which says, "you know, this is what we believe and here are the reasons why we believe this, but we know that other intelligent, God-loving, Christians have come to other conclusions and we believe the Holy Spirit knows what he's doing and will guide the church." Instead, people who are a part of "institutional" churches are described as "well-intentioned" and "mis-guided." Really? I don't know about you but I find that a touch patronizing.

2. Oh, the hypocrisy. In the introduction, Barna accuses the institutional-church of using the Bible and "proof-texting" (pg. xxviii) defenses for our way of church (and there's some truth in that). And in the first chapter Viola warns the reader that he/she is about to "be confronted by unmovable historical fact" (pg. 7). And yet, to anyone who knows even a smattering of Church History, it quickly becomes very clear that Viola has been doing a grotesque amount of proof-texting in his research. He simply found all of the books that push his perspective and included them in his footnotes. Not only is that mildly dishonest... it's just straight-up bad scholarship!

3. Bad Theology. I think one of the things that really damages Christianity in the Western world is a poor theology. This is reflected in both of these books. The problem is that people have no idea how the OT and NT fit together. There is very little sense that God's plan flows and weaves its way through human history as a seamless tapestry. People are so confused by the OT that they have no clue what to do with it. Thus, they (I'm assuming very unintentionally) push the OT to the back of their minds and say that Jesus fixed all of that crazy OT stuff. Even though that simply isn't true (X fulfilled the OT; it didn't require fixing) it has huge implications... like in ECCLESIOLOGY: the study of church.

You see, the OT has a lot to say about how people gather together to worship God. I can't get into it all now (this post is already WAY TOO LONG... sorry) but my frustration with these books is that they don't even think of considering OT ecclesiology.

For example, Viola loves to attack (often rightly) Constantine. But he takes it to the point

where it doesn't even make sense: "Constantine is also noted for bringing to the Christian faith the idea of the holy site, which was based on the model of the pagan shrine" (pg. 20).

Is this the only possible explanation for the early Christians revering specific places as "holy"?

Oh, just wait, there's like a million places in the OT where monuments and shrines are set up to be remembered by future generations. In fact the term "holy ground" (Ex 3:5) not only comes from the OT, but the whole idea is initiated by God Himself!

But Viola states his "facts" so confidently ("ooh, and it's even backed up by a footnote... it must be accurate!") that the reader is lead to believe that this is the only logical explanation. Oh, man, does stuff like that tick me off!

I'm going to wrap things up here.

Both of these books make idiotic leaps like this all of the time. It's like they wrote their books all in one sitting without giving them to an editor who had a brain.

And the frustrating thing, like I already said, is that I want to like these books. I agree with a lot of what they say... it could just be said so much better by people who could make real arguments for their stance. Instead a lot of people become mis-informed and even mis-lead.

That's it. I'm done.

Judas: Saint or Villain?

It's funny that Jared should make the request that he did.  Just this last week I read this in "Christians at the Cross," which is a book of  Easter week sermons by NT Wright:

"... those of us who are used to hearing the story of Judas Iscariot may be a little hardened to it, and we need to remind ourselves what was actually happening.

Judas was one of Jesus' closest friends and trusted companions.  Trusted?  Yes: he kept the

 purse.  He was the treasurer... you give them a great temptation to misuse their trust, but

 Jesus presumably had trusted Judas, at least in the beginning.  We of course look back on the story and we know from early on that Judas was the traitor, but nobody else knew that at the time.  In the story we've just read, when Jesus says, 'One of you is going to betray me,' they don't all turn round and point the finder at Judas and say, 'Oh yes, we all know who that's going to be.'  They were all worried: it isn't going to be me, is it?  Only Jesus knows.  Judas is one of them.  He has been part of it all, has seen Jesus heal lepers, preach the gospel, raise the dead.  He's done it himself, casting out demons in Jesus' name, watching God's 

power do new things.  And now...

We don't know why Judas did it" (Wright 34).

What do you think?

Why did Judas do it?

Have turned Judas into a villain?

If so, does he deserve it?

Music

Unfortunately I've been kind of busy and uncreative lately and that has resulted in my lack blogging.

What I've got for you today is some of my musical inspirations.  Most days, as I work in my office, I have soundtrack music playing.  I love movie scores.  It works for me as I work because they are instrumental (I always get distracted by lyrical music... I end up singing along) and evocative.

So here are just a few of my favourite composers:

Joe Hisaishi performing one of his songs from the movie "Spirited Away."

Here's Hans Zimmer performing music from "Pirates of the Caribbean."  

It's not my favourite of his compositions, but it's sweet to see Hans rocking out on the guitar!

And, of course, since I'm a big LOTR fan here's a clip of Howard Shore's score:

I hope that you enjoyed these.

What do you listen to?

Why?

And because I'm temporarily out of compelling ideas:

What should I blog about next?
Any ideas?

148

How big is too big?

This is a question that every growing church or organization has to ask itself. This is especially an issue in churches (like mine) where one of the "growth engines" is relationships or fellowship or community or however you want to describe it. It's kind of ironic that people are drawn to community yet the more people that are drawn the harder it is to maintain; the very thing that draws people to the church is endangered by them being drawn into it.

As I've been thinking about these sorts of things over the past year or so, I keep coming back to Dunbar's Number: 148. Robin Dunbar is a British anthropologist who has stated that 147.8(usually just referred to as 150) is the "cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable relationships." Of course, he has done a crazy amount of research pointing from primate colonies to hunter/gatherer groups and tribalism, to military organizations (Ancient Rome's military units were 150 strong), etc...

Dunbar has given a pretty large margin of error for his number but has a "95% confidence interval of 100 to 230." As our church attendance nears 200+ I begin to wonder, "what do we do now?" This last year I met a pastor from BC whose church had planted several times. He said that once they got close to 150 they began preparing to split and plant a new church. I have no idea why he chose 150 but it does line up with Dunbar's number.

The fact is that the bigger a church gets the more likely (and maybe even necessary?) it is that cliques form in order for people to maintain a sense of closeness and connectedness with at least some people in the church. After all, if you can't get to know everyone you have to know someone.

Outside of the church there is a movement called "Neo-Tribalism" which is partially based on Dunbar's Number. This is a movement of people who say that, with the increase of globalization, the foundations of society have fallen apart. To combat this they have formed "tribes" of people who live (literally or even virtually) together. They base many of their principles on the teachings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others.

Christian Anthropologist David W. Shenk describes in his book, "Global Gods" the strengths of African Tribalism. He says that tribalism can be summarized as "'I am because we are, and we are because I am.' The person can exist only in community, and community can thrive only through the harmonious involvement of the person. The relationship between the person and the community is reciprocal, creative, and life enhancing."

I think it is safe to say that life in our contemporary society is far from "reciprocal, creative, and life enhancing."

What do you think?

So where does that leave each one of us?

What about the church?

How big is too big?

What do you think about Dunbar's Number?

What do you think of Neo-Tribalism?

More than Scripture?

Following up on the heels of my sermon from this last Sunday (which proposed that we need more than the Bible for our spiritual survival) here is another offering. On Sunday I asserted that we need community to survive. If you want to discuss that we certainly can but I'd also like to propose what has come to be known as the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral."


John and Charles Wesley were the 18th Century-Oxford-educated-brothers who founded the Methodist Movement. While I certainly don't buy into all of their theology these guys did some pretty sweet, radical things. They also preached in cool gowns as can be seen in this picture of John on the right.

Anyway, John proposed that we can know God in four different ways (hence the whole "quadrilateral" thing) and that without all four our relationship with God is incomplete and unstable. Thus the analogy is often of a square (4 sides) or of a 4-legged stool. Without 4 sides a square is not a square... without 4 legs the 4-legged stool will not hold weight, etc. You get the idea.

John's 4 ways to know God are usually summarized as:
1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience

In his own words, "… the Holy Scriptures [scripture] stand first and foremost, and yet subject to interpretations that are informed by ‘Christian Antiquity’ [tradition], critical reason [reason] and an existential appeal to the ‘Christian experience’ of grace [experience].”

So, while I know that evangelicals tend to get pretty squeamish when it sounds like we're taking any steps away from "sola scriptura" I think I stand closer to Wesley than Luther on this one.

Wesley very appropriately puts scripture "first and foremost." I don't think any of us would have any arguments with that. But while it is good that we hold firmly to the scriptures they cannot stand alone. We have only to look to our fundamentalist "cousins" to see what happens when people hold to nothing but the scriptures. I think they could use a little reason and experience to balance things out.

#2 poses a few more questions for a lot of evangelicals. Many evangelicals balk at the very mentioning of the word "tradition." They picture priests and monks quoting obscure "saints" alongside scripture as if they had equal authority and all sorts of stuff like that. However, most of this is myth.

Pretty much all denominations (including Catholics) that give any sort of credence to tradition define tradition as Wesley does: the "interpretations that are informed by ‘Christian Antiquity’." Tradition is simply the way in which others have historically interpreted scripture. I don't have much of a problem with that. In fact, according to this definition, any time that I quote someone in a paper or a sermon I am appealing to some sort of tradition.

#3 is reason. I don't think many of us will argue with this one either. We have all seen how people have used and abused scripture or misrepresented the Christian faith because they weren't using their brains. In order for us to properly interpret scripture (and thus create a healthy repository of tradition) it requires that we think critically. Without critical thought we are lost.

But reason needs to be balanced out by experience. I appreciate that Wesley said this back in the 1700s otherwise people might just think that this is a post-modern thing. But no, we need to recognize that the way that we interpret scripture and all of our critical thought is shaped by the ways in which we have (or haven't) experienced God in a personal way. I love the way John Wesley puts it: "an existential appeal to the ‘Christian experience’ of grace."

Of course, each one of these four could be expanded on but I don't want my posts to be too long or people will stop reading. The only remaining thing to be said is that in order for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to work properly none of the 4 can contradict any of the others. All of our traditions, our thoughts, and our experiences must be consistent with the Word of God and visa versa.

So, what do you think?
Are you comfortable with all of these?
Are there any of these 4 that you are more or less comfortable with?
In what ways can the Quadrilateral help us in our Christian walk?

HOLD EVERYTHING!!!

Hold Everything.
Stop what you're doing
All of your Oscar conjectures need to be put aside for the new benchmark of film-making.
Yes! It's true!
... or at least all of my wildest dreams are about to...

ASTRO BOY - The Movie!

The Bible as Literature: Chiasm

I hope last week's post inspired you all to learn the Biblical Languages! Having even a basic grasp of the languages that the scriptures were written in makes such a huge difference in interpretation. Often we miss out on what the author was trying to say because things just don't translate well. The Biblical writers frequently used literary devices that are very difficult to translate (ie. Ps 119 is an alliteration... doesn't really work when translated).

But what we often miss out on is that there are literary techniques used by the Biblical writers outside of the Poetic Books (ie. Ps, Pr, Ecc, Job, etc...). Sometimes a basic knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is required to catch them (like in the case of alliteration) but here is one that we can all catch if we are looking for it: chiasm.

The chiasm (or chiasmus) is named after the letter "chi" in the Greek alphabet (Gk: X; Eng: ch).

It is a literary form used often in the ancient world and there are many examples of it in Hebrew (the OT), Greek (Homer, the NT), and Latin (Seneca, Virgil). It is named after "chi" because the structure follows the > angle of that letter. A chiasm has inverted parallel statements with the most important concept sandwiched between them. Thus it will often have this type of structure: ABBA or ABCBA or ABCDCBA, etc.

Here is an example from 1 John 3:9 (ESV): No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.
A - No one born of God
--B - makes a practice of sinning
----C - for God's seed abides in him
--B - and he cannot keep on sinning
A - because he has been born of God.

So you can see, the "A" and "B" statements parallel each other while the key concept is literally central. Verses like this one are relatively easy to spot but some authors (like Paul) create really big, long, intricate chiasms. For example: 1 Cor 13:8-13 (this is just the structure)
A - love
--B - 3 things: prophecies, tongues, knowledge
----C - things we only know in part
------D - ... I put aside childish ways...
----C - things we only know in part
--B - 3 things: faith, hope, love
A - Love
As you can see, the "parallel" statements simply need to echo each other, they don't have to be exact replications of each other.

Here is another famous example from Isaiah 6:10:
A - Make the heart of this people dull
--B - and their ears heavy
----C - and blind their eyes
----C - lest they see with their eyes
--B - and hear with their ears
A - and understand with their hearts...

The reason that I brought this up is because during our whole "soulless" discussion I was wondering about Matthew 22:37 (and thus also Deuteronomy 6:5).

As I was thinking about these passages I realized that they might be chiastic!
Matt 22:37, 38:
A - "You shall love the Lord your God
--B - with all your heart
----C - and with all your soul
--B - and with all your mind
A - This is the first and greatest commandment."

This same chiastic structure can be seen in the original text that Jesus is referring to,
Deut 6:4-6:
A - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one
--B - You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart
----C - and with all your soul (NEPHESH)
--B - and with all your might.
A - And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.

If we can agree that when the Bible is talking about our souls it is really talking about our entire being (physical and spiritual) then it makes sense that the central point in the chiasm would be NEPHESH sandwiched by the other aspects.

Do these verses fit together with our soul discussion?
What other chiasms can you spot in the Bible?
What other literary forms do the Bible writers use?
How do you feel about God using poetic forms to teach us about Him?