Spiritual Sweet Tooth?

Do you have a sweet tooth?

How about a spiritual sweet tooth?

If you pay attention to the sidebar on this blog you may have noticed that over the past number of months I've been reading through a bunch of Christian classics. There's a cool little series of books called "Upper Room Spiritual Classics" (see them: here) that takes selected portions of Christian Classics and compiles them into nice little books of about 100 pages. They're cheap, easy to read, and I find them interesting because it's cool to see how people viewed their relationship with God throughout the centuries.

One of the books I finished recently was selected writings of the Spanish Carmelite, John of the Cross. I actually didn't really connect with much of what he had to say (when you're reading stuff written in the 1500s by a Spanish Catholic mystic in the middle of the Spanish Inquisition you want to have your filters up maybe a little more than usual!): I found that some of they ways he used scripture was questionable and that he leaned more toward philosophy than theology than I would like. Nonetheless, I couldn't question his sincerity.

Anyway, one thing that did strike me, particularly because of today's post-modern emphasis on personal experience, was his criticism of what he called a spiritual sweet

tooth.

The major theme of his writings that I picked up was the need to imitate Christ in self-denial. I think he takes this theme to questionable extremes but was intrigued when he noted that often people convert to Christianity for selfish reasons (again, remember that he was writing during the Spanish Inquisition... people would convert to Christianity [Catholicism] in order to save their hide). Even beyond this, he says that people who are constantly searching (no matter how legitimately) for a fresh experience with God are usually doing so for personal benefit/pleasure rather than out of a desire to imitate Christ... who always practice self-denial rather than self-gratification.

He says of this attitude of self-serving spirituality: "Such an attitude is not the hallmark of self-denial and nakedness of spirit but the indication of a spiritual sweet tooth" (pg 37).

As I said before, I think this connects within our own context of post-modernism. In many ways Church is seen in a consumeristic way: "if I don't experience God in a way that I like I'll move on to the next church... and the next church until I find what I want."

You see people who become worship junkies... even worship connoisseurs moving from one religious experience to the next seeking their next spiritual fix.

"A person makes progress only by imitating Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one goes to the Father but through him, as he states himself in Saint John. Accordingly, I would not consider any spirituality worthwhile that wants to walk in sweetness and ease and run from the imitation of Christ" (pg. 38).

I think this is a much needed challenge for many of us today.

On Silence

The second portion of Henri Nouwen's book, The Way of the Heart, is on silence.

Obviously, the disciplines of solitude and of silence are interconnected. This is how he connects the two:

"Silence is the way to make solitude a reality... Silence is an indispensable discipline in the spiritual life. Ever since James described the tongue as a 'whole wicked world in itself' (James

3:6) Christians have tried to practice silence as the way of self-control. Clearly silence is a discipline needed in many different

situations: in teaching and learning, in preaching and worship, in visiting and counseling. Silence is a very concrete, practical, and useful discipline in all our ministerial tasks. It can be seen as a portable cell taken with us from the solitary place into the midst of our ministry. Silence is solitude practiced in action" (Way of the Heart, 35-36).

Essentially, he is saying that (at least in part) the discipline of silence is our way of practicing solitude without having to literally leave the world behind us. We see Jesus putting this sort of thing into practice quite frequently: Matt 14:23, Mark 1:35, Luke 5:16, 6:12...

Nouwen insists that in our "wordy" culture these times of silence are more and more important:

"Wherever we go we are surrounded by words: words softly whispered, loudly proclaimed, or angrily screamed; words spoken, recited, or sung; words on records, in books, on walls, or in the sky; words in many sounds, many colours, or many forms; words to be heard, read, seen, or glanced at; words which flicker off and on, move slowly, dance, jump, or wiggle. Words, words, words! ... The result of this is that the main function of the word, which is communication, is no longer realized. The word no longer communicates, no longer fosters communion, no longer creates community, and therefore no longer gives life. The word no longer offers trustworthy ground on which people can meet each other and build society" (38-39).

I think he is right about this, particularly when encountering post-modern philosophy where language is viewed as a power tool; a tool to manipulate others toward a personal/corporate agenda.

But, as always, there are similar pitfalls for those of us within the church as well:

"Often it seems that we who study or teach theology find ourselves entangled in such a complex network of discussions, debates, and arguments about God and 'God-issues' that a simple conversation with God or a simple presence to God has become practically impossible. Our heightened verbal ability, which enables us to make many distinctions, has sometimes become a poor substitute for a single-minded commitment to the WORD who is life" (39).

Whether this applies to each one of us is a matter of individual introspection... But, as he always does, Nouwen does not allow this spiritual discipline to foster individualism. Instead, it is a way for God to refuel us to accomplish His ministry:

"Silence is primarily a quality of the heart that leads to ever-growing charity... Charity, not silence, is the purpose of the spiritual life and of ministry" (57).

So, what do you make of all this?

What other scriptures can you think of that address words, language, and silence?

Changing Orthodoxy?

So, while I have a fairly "high" view of orthodoxy, I do believe that God calls us to constantly evaluate and, if necessary, adjust our beliefs and practices in order to realign ourselves with His will.

But how is this done?

When it is simply a matter of an individual changing his/her beliefs/actions that is one thing... but what about when it is the/an entire church that needs to change their "orthodoxy?" What then?

This is where a number of passages (ie. Matt 16 & 18), but particularly Acts 15, come into play.

I would encourage you to take the time to read this chapter (here). If you have time, reading chapter 14 is also helpful for context.

The gist of what's going on in this chapter is that while Paul & Peter have been proclaiming the Gospel to everyone (including Gentiles) they clearly have not been requiring them to, upon conversion and baptism, begin adhering to the Mosaic Law (particularly after the whole Acts 10 deal: here).

Obviously this is a HUGE break in orthodoxy. Those Pharisees who have become Christians can't handle the idea that God wouldn't require Gentiles to follow the "Old" Covenant and begin debating with Paul and Barnabas on the matter.

So the Church convenes a council to address the matter.

The "orthodoxy" at issue: the practice of circumcision and adherence to the Law of Moses (15:5)

Due process is followed including:

- a gathering of the leaders of the Church (vs. 6)

- debate (vs. 7)

- reports of God's work as pertaining to the issue at hand (Peter, vs. 7-11; Paul & Barnabas, vs. 12)

- The leader of the Church (in this case, James) proclaims the judgement as reached in the council (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, vs.28).

In this case the answer is, No!, Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcised (the sign of the Old Covenant) nor do they need adhere to the Mosaic Law save on several points (vs. 29).

The precedent set by this situation is an excellent one, especially as far as changing orthodoxy goes. In my reading of this passage (and other key texts) I would say that no one person has any right or authority to change what orthodoxy is.

It is only when God's people gather together under the proper leadership that God has put in place and, led by the Spirit, they discuss, debate, and ultimately decide what orthodoxy is that orthodoxy can amended.

And, as we can see in this situation in Acts, this sort of orthodoxy making has the definite ring of authority.

Obviously, as I said above, the implications of all this are huge.

What sort of implications does this have?

What do you make of this? Why?

The Weight of Orthodoxy

How much weight does orthodoxy hold for you?

With post-modernity seemingly having its way among many circles within western Christianity I generally see two approaches of "deconstructing" (and presumably reassembling) our faith:

1) disassembling our current belief structures and attempting to "start from scratch."

2) a reinvestigation of what the Apostolic Church believed.

I'm sure there are more approaches than these and you can feel free to add them to the comments below, but these are the ones I've seen most often.

Which of these do you lean toward? Why/why not?

I believe that orthodoxy has a certain amount of weight. By this I mean that the foundational, central beliefs of the church throughout the past 2,000 odd years have a certain amount of authority.

Yes, of course, different denominations have various "distinctives" or unique beliefs that set them apart from other denominations. There are a lot of these: child-baptism vs. believer's baptism; just-war vs. pacifism; hierarchical vs. congregational; etc... There are lots of different "distinctives" and they are of varying significance. All of them are "Biblical" in the sense that they are based on a certain interpretation of the scriptures.

But that's not what I'm talking about when I talk about orthodoxy. I mean catholic (small "c") orthodoxy; universal orthodoxy. There are certain beliefs that 98.2% of the church has always believed (yes, I just made up that percentage). I could list off some of the things that I think are included in this category, but in the name of participation and interaction I'll ask you instead:

What beliefs do you think fit into this category?

The reason why I have great faith in Christian orthodoxy is because I have great faith in the Spirit of God. I believe that God is guiding His church in order to accomplish His goals for His church. After all, Jesus Himself said "... I will build my church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18).

No, this doesn't mean the church is infallible. Obviously there have been mistakes made, from the mildly disappointing to the near catastrophic, but in the midst of it all God continues to move and to guide His Bride. After all, when things get too out of line events like the Reformation happen which bring us back... which bring us closer God's intention for His church.

All of this is to say that when I see people going out and trashing the church or tossing aside orthodoxy as if it has no significance I can't help but think: don't you have any faith in God's guidance of His people and His history? Can you really set yourself against or above 20 centuries worth of Spirit guided followers of Christ?

But that's just my take.

What do you think?

Really big, fancy words

OK, so I was getting ready to do a post that I've wanted to do for a while now, but as I was thinking it through I realized that before we can eat the meal we need to set the table.

I realized that underneath the ideas of this post there were some pretty big assumptions. In order for for this post to make sense we need to have a common starting point.

Inaugurated Eschatology.

Yup, really big fancy words.

To inaugurate means: to initiate something or put it into operation.

Eschatology means: "eschatos" (Gr. last) "ology" the study of = the study of the last/end-times.

Inaugurated Eschatology.

I am assuming that underneath it all, we as Christians understand that a large part of what it means that we are a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), that Jesus is the firstborn among the dead (Col 1:18; Rev. 1:5), and that we have the firstfruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23) is that we are to live lives of inaugurated eschatology.

Basically what I'm saying is that as Christians we need to live our lives in light of God's future. The Kingdom of God is the breaking in of God's future reign into today, into the here and now.

It's a bit of an heady concept, no?

But truly, this is the basis for all Christian behaviour. Biblical theology shows us the "bookends" of our faith: Eden and the New Jerusalem. In between is the fallen world that we currently live in; God's good creation under the curse of sin.

But do we live our lives like the rest of the fallen world? Of course not! No, we seek to live our lives in light of the Gospel: the true Lordship and reign of the Christ which is seen in original creation and new creation.

"...Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven..."

In other words, we (as new creations) are to begin God's work of New Creation (as we see it in Gen. 1 & 2 and Rev. 21 & 22) here and now. We aren't just here to bide time until God cleans up our mess. No! We are to be working for the Kingdom of God.

Inaugurated Eschatology: to put into operation today the reality of God's future reign.

And so, in preparation for next week's post read through and ponder this passage from Romans:

Romans 8:19-23 (ESV)
¹⁹ For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²² For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. ²³ And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

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).

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?

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.

The Mystery of Faith

In what little spare time I've had recently I've been reading through G.K. Chesterton's oft-overlooked classic, "Orthodoxy." Published in 1908, Orthodoxy is Chesterton's view of apologetics (along with "Heretics" which I haven't read).


What I've been struck by as I've read this book is how countercultural Chesterton's views were. He was writing in the midst of the height of modernity. The "Myth of Progress" was in full swing and yet Chesterton says, "I freely confess all the idiotic ambitions of the end of the nineteenth century. I did, like all other solemn little boys, try to be in advance of the age. Like them I tried to be some ten minutes in advance of the truth. And I found that I was eighteen hundred years behind it..." (Chesterton 4). What modern Englishman would ever call the enlightenment ambitions "idiotic"?



He almost sounds like a postmodernist!



While he doesn't reject reason and logic outright he says that they need to be balanced by mysticism. “Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity” (Chesterton 23).


Orthodoxy is Chesterton's call for Christians to regain the mystery and adventure of Christianity. Stories say that Chesterton, a big fat jolly man, walked everywhere with a sword-cane (a walking stick with a sword hidden in the handle) just in case he ran into an adventure!



Do we as Christians need to regain our sense of adventure?
... of mystery?
What might that look like?

The Person who is Truth

So this last week I was in Winnipeg for our BGC national conference... hence last week's lame post on willow whistles:)

While we were there I attended another workshop by Tim Bartel. You may remember another post I had on one of his workshops from the 20/20 Summit in February. It was all about the clashing of the Modern and PostModern worldview within the church. If you care to, you can get a refresher here.

This workshop was very similar but the audience was totally different. Maybe next week I'll get into that but for this week I want to sort out something that has been driving my thoughts for a while now.

It became clear, once again, that Modern Christians do not understand PostModern Christians' perspective on truth. Modern Christians hold on to the notion of factual, propositional truth while PostModern Christians believe that truth is relational.

I believe that truth is a person.

The problem with the modern notion of truth is that it puts God in a box. The modern worldview focuses so much on logic/reason/empiricism that God becomes subject (hence not supreme) to these; God needs to measure up to our standards of logic/etc. I can't buy that.

Here is why I believe the PostModern perspective of personal truth may be stronger:

John 14:6 (ESV): Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus IS the path to God. Jesus IS truth. Jesus IS life.

Is Jesus literally "the way"? Yes. I don't think anyone who reads this blog is a universalist. We all believe that it is only through Christ that we can be in relationship with God. No arguments there.

Is Jesus literally "life"? Yes. Jesus is the source of all life. All things were made "through him" (Jn 1:3, 4, 10).

Is Jesus literally "truth"? Yes. After all, John 8:32 (ESV) says "...you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Who sets us free? The person of Jesus. It is not the adherence to static propositions that brings freedom into our lives. No, it is a personal relationship with the Christ; the Messiah that is the Way to God, the source of all reality (Truth), and the source of existence (Life).

In a way, these three (Way, Truth, Life) are their own mini-Trinity. They are both independent and co-dependant at the same time.

The only way to God is by experiencing the Life and Truth of relationship with Christ.
Truth is reality; the way things really are: true existence.
Existence itself has it's source in the Christ the Creator...

It's True!

Does any of this make sense?
Do you have anything to add to either the Modern or the PostModern perspectives?
Is this too much thinking for Summer?

Maybe I should just stick with Willow Whistles.

... and let's wrap this up (part II).

Let's hope this is actually the final part.

So, while I'm going to leave the specifics of this whole Oprah/Tolle thing behind, I want to deal with this idea of synkretism. As I said last week, we are now seeing within the Western world a generation rising that does not have a "Christian/Western" worldview as it's default perspective. People that we would normally think of as relatively intelligent, thoughtful people are adopting strange views of the world that, a few generations ago, we all would have scoffed at. Not only that, but they are starting to merge together seemingly incompatible modes of thought without even batting an eye. How does this happen?

Up until the last half century or so the "Modern" worldview (coming out of the Enlightenment) was the default in the Western world. This means that logic and reason are supreme. To believe anything requires definitive proof; either a flawless philosophical argument or undeniable empirical evidence. Thus, religion is ushered off to the sidelines of society while science takes it's "rightful" place at the head.

Contrast this with the Eastern Pantheism that is beginning to emerge: mystery is supreme. Life is not to be understood (that is impossible) but experienced. One cannot know the unknowable... but to experience the unknowable... now that's something!


Of course, these are ridiculously brief generalizations but I hope you get the gist of what I'm talking about. The difficult thing is that both of these perspectives have little bits of Truth in them yet are both incomplete. In his book, The Universe Next Door, James W. Sire argues that the only complete wordview in existence is Christianity (Christian Theism). In Christianity we see reason and mystery working in tandem.

We cannot say reason is supreme (because it denies all of the wonder and mystery that is so evident in our world) nor can we say that mystery is supreme (because the world works in a logical, orderly way... and we can prove it!). It is not a matter of "either/or." But neither is it a matter of "both/and" in the sense of merging the two together synkretistically.

One cannot simply supplement the weaknesses of one's worlview by merging it together with a contradictory one. Yet this is exactly what Oprah and Tolle are doing. Tolle says that we can't use logic to understand God... but he obviously used logic to figure that out! Mystery is a great and beautiful thing and God is full of mystery. But mystery is not nonsense. Nonsense is just plain old nonsense.

But in Christianity reason and mystery come together, not as enemies but (dare I say it?) as lovers. One without the other is incomplete but taking them and forcing them together is not how they were meant to be. In Christianity we can see how "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness..." (1 Tim 3:16) but at the same time Paul criticises the people of Israel because "...they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge" (Rom. 10:2).

The final word goes to the Apostle Paul:
Colossians 2:1-4 (ESV) "1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments."

... and let's wrap this up.

So, I don't want to harp on this too much but we're all going to be running into this Oprah, Tolle stuff and most people that we know will be aware of this too, so I think it's important to:
1. be aware of what they are teaching (15-20 million people watch Oprah's show every day).
2. go beyond knowing that this is nonsense to being able to articulate why it is nonsense.

But first, let's watch a little more of this nonsense:


This is synkretism (the merging together of incompatible beliefs) at it's best.

As with most synkretistic systems of thought I have seen here just enough truth integrated so as to make the rest of the tripe palatable:

Nuggets of Truth:
1. The Bigness of God
One thing that Tolle emphasizes is that God is bigger than our human understanding. This is true. God is bigger than what we can comprehend. [ie. Job 42:3; Isaiah 40]

2. The Limitations of Institutional Religion
If God is bigger than we can comprehend then He is also beyond our expressions of Him. One of the roles of formal religious institutions (ie. Churches) is to attempt to make the revelations of God understandable to God's creation. It is ultimately impossible to do this in a complete sense. Formalized religion and worship does not give us a complete picture of who God is. However, God himself chose to set up and work through such imperfect means. He, through His commands to His followers, set up worship in the Tabernacle, Temple, and (in the New Testament) His Bride: The Church.

Obviously there are many other small "nuggets" of truth interspersed throughout Tolle's philosophy. Watch for them and be aware of them. They can become bridges through which you can begin discussions with those who are following the ideas of Tolle.

The Problems:
1. Synkretism
Pluralism (the acceptance of multiple ideas) is nothing new to us in the Western World but not all pluralism is synkretistic. Tolle is merging together ideas from Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc... While there are some striking commonalities in some areas the big problem is that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to have exclusive access to Truth. Thus, someone's got to be wrong. So to take an idea or two from each and then discard the majority (which makes exclusive Truth claims) of what remains simply cannot work.

2. The Starting Point
I believe that this is where we as Christians become so thrown off by this kind of stuff. Tolle is not starting from a "Western/Christian" perspective. We've become so used to having "Western/Christian" beliefs at the core of our way of life that when we encounter something other than this we simply don't know how to deal with it other than simply saying, "well that's just wrong."

Tolle is very clearly coming from an Eastern, polytheistic background. Eastern philosophies have, for millennia, been synkretistic. Christianity has had such a terrible time in countries like India because the Indians simply accept Christ as just one more of their thousands of gods and it makes no real difference in their lives. If you come from a philosophical background that, as part of it's core beliefs, accepts contradictory modes of thought you will have no problem whatsoever adopting philosophies such as Tolle's.

What we are now encountering is a generation within North America that does not have a "Western/Christian" worldview as their default worldview. The problems that missionaries in Hindu and Buddhist societies have wrestled with for years are now coming home:
1. In Hinduism - Jesus is just another god.
2. In Buddhism - Jesus is just another "buddha" (person who has reached enlightenment).

OK, so maybe I won't be able to wrap this up this week.

What other "nuggets of truth" have you seen from this stuff?
What other problems have you seen?

Fact: 2+2= Truth?

As I've been going through my 'Christian Apologetics' class at Bethany I've been mulling over this thought, and I'm not quite sure what to do with it yet so help me out a bit:

Have we confused facts and the idea of absolute truth?

Now, don't worry, I'm not bringing absolute truth into question. I just wonder if we've done some dangerous blurring of the lines.

Christian Apologists will often attempt to prove that absolute truth exists by pointing to some easily demonstrable 'truth.' For example, CS Lewis (among others) often points to mathematics: ie. 2+2 always makes 4. I recently watched a video where Charles Colson referred to dropping a pencil: ie. due to gravity, it will always fall.

Because of these demonstrable facts they say that this proves the existence of absolute truth. The reason that I think this is so dangerous is because this method is clearly flawed. Facts change all the time.

Poor Pluto. It used to be a planet.

Back in the good old days when I was growing up there were 9 planets in our Solar System. Then, just a little while ago, they kicked Pluto out of the club.

His size wasn't quite right, his orbit wasn't quite right, blah, blah, blah. It used to be a fact that Pluto was a planet. Now the facts have changed. But Truth hasn't.

But what about mathematics. Surely this should be a safe indicator of absolute truth, right?
Well, maybe:

According to (the always authoritative) Wikipedia:

When dealing with certain measurements in Physics "...unless otherwise specified, "2" has only one significant digit, which means it represents a measurement with a margin of error of 0.5, which means the actual value may lie between 1.5 and 2.5. When adding such measurements together, the margins of error are also added, so 2 ± 0.5 + 2 ± 0.5 = 4 ± 1.0"

So, in some situations, 2+2 might actually make 5! ... or 3!

It looks like Orwell may have been right after all.

Facts are not the same as Truth. Let's not confuse the two. It's too easy; too simplistic.

The person who is TRUTH cannot be put in a box.

Christ is too big to be pinned down to gravity or mathematics.

Truth is a mystery. Knowing truth is a relationship not an equation.

So, what do you think?

Have I gone off the deep end this time?

Are there any better examples or proofs of truth that you have run into?

OK, so I'm going to continue my rant from last week...

The shortcomings of post-modernity are pretty much self-evident and have been highly publicized by modern Christian apologists for quite some time now. I am not going to deny them, I just would like to make note of the fact that every worldview has its own strengths and weaknesses. The moment you critique a perspective you need to realize that you are doing so from your own perspective along with its strengths and weaknesses.

Objectivity is Impossible.

This is something that the modern worldview completely missed the boat on. Modernity focused so much on calm, cool, collected logic and "objectivity" but didn't stop long enough to realize that, logically, that doesn't make any sense.

One of the strengths of post-modernity is that it recognizes "Social Location." Your social location is made up of the social aspects of your life that define the way you view the world.

For example, what is your:

Gender – Race – Age – Religion – Education – Nationality – Economic Status – etc?

So, I am a Caucasian male, 27, Christian, with post secondary education, Canadian, middle class, ...

Compare this with, for an extreme example, an Asian female, 72, Buddhist, completely uneducated, Chinese (Tibetan), unbelievably poor, ...

Now, this old woman and I live in the same world. However, if we were to reflect on the world around us and about events that we were both aware of do you think that we would be able to reach a common, 'objective' perspective? NOT A CHANCE!

Our racial, generational, religious, educational, ... differences have shaped us so much that it is virtually impossible that we would view things from the same 'objective' perspective.

Objectivity is a modern ideal, not a reality.

Even if our old Tibetan woman were converted to Christianity do you think that we would interpret the scriptures in the same way? I doubt it.

This is what Daniel Taylor has to say: "... in the broil of wider human enterprise, in deciding what is good and true and beautiful and worth living for in this world, there is so much sheer humanness at work (and their should be), that the claim of cool, rational objectivity is almost laughable. Only objects are truly objective." [The Myth of Certainty, pg. 51]

What do you have to say?

What are the weaknesses in this idea of 'Social Location?'
What are its strengths?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of modern 'objectivity?'

How might people of differing social locations view Christ and scripture differently?

Was Mother Teresa a Christian?

So, most of you who know me know that I'm kind of passionate about the concept of clashing worldviews. We currently live in a world where we are transitioning from a "Modern" worldview to a "Post-modern" worldview.

Now, I try not to beat this topic to death but I've had a specific request... and I must indulge my reading public! The request was to present some of the material of a seminar I sat in on last week. The seminar was titled "Worldviews in Tandem, Tension, and Conflict." It was exploring how this transition from Modernity to Post Modernity is showing itself within the Evangelical Churches of North America. The beauty of this seminar was that it was presented by a father and son. Both are knowledgable theologians; the father has been a pastor for several decades while the son is working on his doctorate at Canadian Baptist Seminary.

The father and his son; the pastor and the student; the modern and the post modern.

I can hardly begin to scratch the surface of what they got into so I'll just give you the outline and, should you choose to direct the comments, we can go from there.

Oh, and if you don't care then just skip down to the picture of Mother Teresa.

**Please keep in mind that these are hugely, broad generalizations that can only be understood to represent the very basic ideas of each worldview within an evangelical Christian context.**

Where the Modern and Post Modern Worldview are in:
Tandem: (agree)
1. The Centrality of Christ
2. The Reality of Relationship with God
3. The Importance of the Church

Tension: (may not totally agree but don't completely disagree either)
1. Perspectives on God
a. Post Modern emphasis on God's "Immanence" (closeness)
b. Modern emphasis on God's "Transcendance" (greatness, holiness, implied distance)
2. Perspective on Mission
a. Post Modern emphasis on Social Justice
b. Modern emphasis on Evangelism

Conflict: (areas where PM and M worlviews are in direct contradiction)
1. View of History
a. Post Modernity views us as being 'interdependant' with history. We are shaped by history... we do not live in a vacuum. This view also emphasises a return to a 'historical' view of Christianity.
b. Modernity is the era of the 'self made man.' Man is independant of history. History does not shape us, we shape the future.
2. View of Culture
a. Post Modern Evangelicalism views 'church culture' as being fabricated (see below). It is a false reality. Culture is something to be redeemed. Not only that, we can learn from culture. All truth is God's truth regardless it's cultural source.
b. Modern Evangelicalism views the world as the enemy. Thus the church focuses on protecting / isolating itself from the world more than interacting with it. Create a 'Christian Culture' so that we are not ruined by the world's culture.
3. Views of Truth ... THE BIG ONE
a. Post Modernity views truth as being a relationship to be engaged with. Truth is too big to be pinned down by propositional statements (see below). Truth is to be experienced.
b. Modernity views truth as being best described through propositional statements. Mental acceptance of truth statements are emphasised over lifestyle. Hence it's emphasis on flawless doctrine.

While there are about a billion things that could be discussed here I just want to highlight one example that they used. The modern christian worldview focused more on Right Belief than on Right Action. The post modern view is reversed; it is more important to act like a christian than to have all of your theological ducks in a row.

The perfect way to see this divergence is this: The modern evangelical would look at someone like Mother Teresa and question if she was actually a christian. They might say, "Sure she acted like she loved God and loved those around her... but she was a Catholic." Thus, disagreements with her theology overpower her obvious Christian lifestyle.

The post modern evangelical would say, "Sure I may not agree with all of her theological views, but come on! It's so obvious by her lifestyle that everything she did was driven by her love for God and her fellow mankind. Who cares if we don't agree on every little thing? The main thing is that she believed that Jesus was God's Messiah."

So, what do you think?
Talk to me.

A Disconnect

Just yesterday I was talking with a group of people and one of the people mentioned something that I found kind of amusing and ironic.

This person was saying how they were impressed by the fact that their doctor was open to discussing "natural" medicine. For the most part we all agreed that this was a positive thing. Most doctors of this next generation are opening up a bit to other medicinal options unlike most doctors of a more "modern" generation who think science is the be-all and end-all of their profession.

Anyway, after discussing all this we started to laugh as we then noted that this doctor's clinic also performs "medicinal aesthetics" like botox! So, on the one hand we have a return to a more "natural" way of life and health... but on the other hand these same people are injecting chemicals into people's faces so that they can look unnaturally youthful!

Obviously there is some sort of disconnect here. These two thought processes should not be considered to be compatible. And yet this is just one example of how seemingly incompatible beliefs are merged together. It's called 'syncretism'... and it happens all the time.

What other "disconnects" do you see in our pluralistic culture?

What other examples of syncretism can you come up with (incompatible beliefs being merged together)?

How often do you see divergent religious beliefs coming together?

Do you see any of this seeping it's way into the church?

Is this a bad thing? Is this a good thing?

Out of date = Out of mind

So, this semester I'm taking a class again at Bethany. This one is "Christian Apologetics". For those of you who may not know, apologetics can be briefly defined as "defending and commending the faith."

Ever since first reading CS Lewis' non-fiction more than a decade ago I've been interested in apologetics. Naturally, it all started when I first read Lewis' "Mere Christianity", the all-time classic Apologetic book.

I think it's important that Christians think through what they believe and why they believe it. I think it's important that Christians know they don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world that we are called to interact with. As such, we will have to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV). This verse is often used as a basis for Christian Apologetics.


There may be a few of you out there who have read both Lewis' "Mere Christianity" and NT Wright's "Simply Christian". Essentially, Wright wrote his book to be the "Mere Christianity" of

the post-modern age. It is.


Anyway, the point of all this is that I have a little beef with Apologetics and North American Christianity in general: why are we always several decades behind the times?


Have you ever been frustrated at how Christian culture often sees a trend in the world then goes to work making a crappy, B-rate, "Christian" knock-off version of it... and by the time it's out there it's already out of date?
Any examples?


My beef with apologetics is that you can see a similar trend. Every once in a while there is a CS Lewis or an NT Wright who is a true contemporary of his day or even ahead of the times but they are few and far between. It seems as though many, if not most, apologists are still trying to address the questions posed by modernity when the rest of society has moved on to post-modernity.


Thus they render themselves obsolete to everyone but those Christians who read their books and become obsolete themselves.


People won't even consider the church as a source of the answers to life's hard questions if we're completely culturally irrelevant.


Out of date = Out of mind.


Am I being too hard on these people? Probably.
Is apologetics still relevant in a Post-Modern age?
Who is apologetics for; Christians or non-Christians?
Which is more important; "defending" or "commending" our faith?
What examples of crappy "Christian" knock-off trends can you think of?

Art and Literature

I have grown to appreciate the art of Stanley Donwood. I know him best as the conceptual artist for the band, Radiohead, however his 'solo' works are equally intriguing. One of his series of paintings features city maps that he has painted over. On the top you see "London" and on the bottom, "Hollywood". Yes, very post-modern.

I think they are kind of facinating. What do you think? (click on them for a higher resolution)










On a different note, here (above) is my favourite new commercial. It makes me all warm on the inside.

Now go read a book!

A Post-modern view of the Modern world:

Life in the Post-modern world:

Art by Radiohead and artist Stanley Donwood.