Precision, Truth, Humor, and Conviction :: Thank You, Stanley Hauerwas

It is no secret that among my favorite theologians Stanley Hauerwas stands tall.  My closest friends who have read Hauerwas’s “work” recognize how my theology has been influenced by his thought, his cantankerousness, his wit, and, most importantly, his love for the church.  I am not just a “fan” of Hauerwas.  I have done my best to read his writings carefully and mine from the riches found there those things which ring true and bring them to expression in an actual lived life–my own.  I have learned from Hauerwas that to be Christian we must undergo training that teaches us how to see, and we learn how to see through saying, or liturgy.  We are trained as we participate in the life of the people called “Church.”  There we are taught how to be God’s peace in the world through the power of the Holy Spirit, the telling of the story of Scripture, and the witness of the saints.

This week I have been reading A Cross-Shattered Church: Reclaiming the Theological Heart of Preaching.  The book is a collection of sermons written on various occasions.  Some are written for weddings or other special life-happenings, some for worship in local churches, and others for those gathered as part of the Divinity School at Duke University.  This morning this quote gave me pause:

We are well schooled as Christians.  We know that we are not to identify with Judas.  Yet we cannot help but think, thief though he was, Judas was right–the costly perfume should have been sold and the money given to the poor.  If we are honest we cannot resist the conclusion: Judas is appealing.

Moreover, if any conviction characterizes what it means to be Christian in our day, it is surely the presumption that we ought to be on the side of the poor.  No longer sure we know what it means to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, we at least take comfort that to be a Christian requires that we care about those less well off.  Of course that means for us–that is, for the moderately well off–to care for the poor usually extends no farther than our attempt to make the poor like us, that is, moderately well off.

Given the world in which we find ourselves, a world that thinks what Christians believe must make us doubtful allies in the struggle for justice, the Christian concern for the poor can win us some respect.  The cultural despisers of the church at least have to acknowledge that Christians do some good in spite of our reactionary convictions.  So it is good that we burn with a passion for justice.  The only problem with such a passion is that it can put us on Judas’s side.

-Stanley Hauerwas, “The Appeal of Judas”, A Sermon for Duke Divinity School, March 28, 2007 in A Cross-Shattered Church, 95

This strikes me as true.  For those of us that deeply burn for justice, our temptation is to sell out Jesus for a bag of silver.  Preaching Jesus as God’s Son, God’s peace in a violent world, who, in being hung on a cross brings an end to violence, an end to sacrifice, expresses the full measure of God’s grace, and there declares the forgiveness of sin, are peculiar truths in a world like ours.  It is much easier to say that we should be nice people with a concern for those who are monetarily less well off.

Hauerwas continues his sermon by reminding us that Jesus’s response to Judas is something we wish he would have never said, “You will always have the poor with you, but you will not have me.”  Hauerwas further raises excellent questions for the church, saying, “The church has glossed over Jesus’s response to Judas by not asking, ‘What if we did more than care for the poor?’ or, ‘What if we celebrated the poor?’”  He then follows by simply stating, “That such questions are not asked reflects a church that has forgotten that Christianity is determinatively the faith of the poor.”

Hauerwas’s reminder extends in two directions.  First, Hauerwas gazes across the span of church history and acknowledges the church’s buildings, liturgy, music and hymns, is a beauty for the poor.  In addition, “The literature of the church, her theology and philosophy, is distorted if it does not contribute to the common life determined by the worship of a Savior who was poor.”  This last quotation leads directly to Hauewas second point of emphasis–the Messiah Christians worship was poor.  Indeed, “The poor you will always have with you.”

I can only hope that my theology as it has been embodied among my peers and among the students I have mentored has reflected a celebration of those who are poor.  I also hope that I am not among those who are “no longer sure what it means to believe Jesus is the Son of God.”  I hope that my care for those that are poor is an extension of my belief that Jesus is who Scripture and the Church across time has proclaimed him to be.  

As I begin this day, that is my prayer.

Read Full Post »

Speak the Truth to me. Don’t sell me.

Jesus is a person.  Not a product.  Introduce me.  Don’t sell me.

I’m quite accustomed to hearing Jesus presented as someone who can help me, lift me up when I am down, or solve my problems.  Through song and sermon I’ve become acquainted with “feel good” Jesus.  I’ve been told that I have needs only Jesus can address.  I have a problem, Jesus is the solution.   I have a question, Jesus is the answer.  Jesus will make me feel better.  Jesus is the missing piece in my life.

All of the above may be true.  Jesus might make me feel better about myself, about my relationship with others, and he will undoubtedly inspire my affections toward God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  But will he satisfy my intellect?  Are Christian convictions true?  And will you speak about them as if they were true, reasoning with me intelligently about things that matter, about the foundations of reality?  Or will you attempt to convince me purely through the affections, assuming “feel good” Jesus is sufficient?

I hope not.  I hope you will not only make me feel welcome, but satisfied in the knowledge of God.

John Wood Oman, in his 1931 book Grace and Personality, wrote:

There is only one right way of asking men to believe, which is to put before them what they ought to believe because it is true; and there is only one right way of persuading, which is to present what is true in such a way that nothing will prevent it from being seen except the desire to abide in darkness; and there is only one further way of helping them, which is to point out what they are cherishing that is opposed to faith.  When all this has been done, it is still necessary to recognize that faith is God’s gift, not our handiwork, of His manifestation of the truth by life, not of our demonstration by argument or of our impressing by eloquence; and that even He is willing to fail till He can have the only success love could value–personal acceptance of the truth simply because it is seen to be true.

Speak the truth to me.  Don’t sell me.  And through hearing the Truth, perhaps I will be set free.  Perhaps I will set my feet on the firm foundations of reality, and live on the basis of knowledge of Christ.  Stop talking about life in Christ as empty-headed and emotionally driven–purely a “leap of faith.”  As one entrusted with the gospel, preach it as though it were true, and suffer for it, if necessary (2 Timothy 1:8-12).  Appeal to my heart and my mind.

Fads come and go.  Jesus reigns forever.

Read Full Post »

The Four Evangelists

This past week I had the opportunity to teach Methodist kids from all over the Kansas East Conference about Jesus.  That’s right.  I did something I enjoy.  For the past three summers I’ve been part of iNstitute, which is a camp for high school youth sponsored by Kansas East and held at Baker University in Baldwin City.  Each summer I’ve made new friends and met some dynamic young people from around our area, some of whom have tremendous leadership capabilities that I can only hope will be utilized to their fullest potential.

As part of the camp students have an elective portion of their day called a “Lifesaver.”  Lifesavers are four day courses that students can sign up for based on their interests.  Once you commit to a Lifesaver, that is where you’ll be for the week.  These classes cover tough issues (grief, loss), hot-button issues (abortion), justice, relationships, prayer, and Bible skills.  For the past three summer I’ve covered some aspect of the biblical story.  For the first two years I did my best to help students frame the overall story of the Bible and see where we fit in.  Most of the students found this helpful, as the stories that they had heard in sermon and Sunday school were familiar, but in their minds were held as scrambled pieces of a very large puzzle.  How each story interlocked and related to the other was a bit unclear, and spending a few days covering creation, covenant, the exodus, the monarchy, the Babylonian exile and return, the coming of Christ and the early church helped establish the big picture.  Once the big picture of the Bible is established it is easier to recognize how church history has flowed from that, and then derive a trajectory upon which we are called to enter as the church awaits Christ’s return.

I changed directions this year, in a way, and decided to focus my teaching over four days on the life of Jesus.  After talking with high school students I found the highest degree of familiarity with Jesus’ birth and with his last week.  What happened in between was a bit of a fog.  Most of the students knew Jesus preached, but they couldn’t really say what.  The could name a few of his miracles, namely the feeding of the 5,000 or the healing of a person or two born blind.  Others could name one or two other narratives.  For the most part, however, the middle part of Jesus’ story seemed lost to these students.  Most of what students could say that they had heard in their churches were mainly some understanding of the atonement, or an explication of justification by faith (though they wouldn’t use those exact terms).  Any relationship to Jesus as teacher seemingly was lost–the Grand Exemplar of our faith, the one Christians are called to emulate, may have been referred to, but not closely examined.  His practices, his mode of relating to people, his way of challenging religious authorities, his way of encouraging and welcoming the oppressed, his announcement of the Kingdom of God, his understanding of Messiah as suffering servant, and more–these aspects may have been touched on, yes, but emphasized and carefully examined, no.  Jesus was understood as a nice guy who taught us how to love, and who wants us to love others, but not depicted as a Master to whom we owe our allegiance and discipleship–a discipleship that in costly ways will form us into people who may love as Jesus did, though not always result in our building a “nice” reputation.

Though I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised, my course on the life of Jesus included the highest number of students I had ever taught.  Over 20 students wanted to learn about Jesus.  Most of them said the same thing.  They had heard about the birth and the death/resurrection of Jesus.  They wanted to fill in the gaps.  They wanted to know more about the Master so that they could follow him better.  They wanted to be able to better tell the story.  Some openly expressed doubts about the whole Christian faith, and thought a good place to examine their doubts would be within the context of an exploration of the life of Jesus.  I was pleased and amazed at the turnout for the course.

During the week I chose to include a small lesson on the history of Christian artwork or architecture (historical) or a pop culture reference to Jesus, such as his appearances on South Park.  Each evening our camp community worshipped in Baldwin United Methodist Church, which includes some rather extravagant stained glass.  The largest stained glass piece is at the front of the sanctuary, behind the altar.  The lamb is at the center.  Lower, on the right and the left, are featured a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle.  These four images have traditionally symbolized the four evangelists–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  I asked our students after our first gathering if they had noticed those symbols.  Most had not.  Upon drawing them to the attention of the class, I asked if they knew what each symbol meant.  They did not.

The Four Evangelists

In our older church buildings, it seems as though our forebearers were wise in including numerous symbols to point to different elements of our tradition.  The human, lion, ox, and eagle are but one example.  These images are based on a verse found in Revelation 4:7, which portrays four winged beasts surrounding the heavenly throne.  They were applied to the four traditional gospels early in the tradition, each symbolizing some particular emphasis of that particular book.  The human, attached to the Gospel of Matthew, pointed to Jesus’ humanity.  The lion in Mark reminded the people of John the Baptist, who announced the Christ like “a lion in the wilderness.”  The ox reminds us of Jesus’ slow progress towards Jerusalem, as well as his strength and steadfastness as he marched to the cross.  The eagle, which has long been associated with the Gospel of John, reminds us of the evangelist’s emphasis on Jesus’ divine nature and the high Christology contained within this particular telling.

My point is this: we have plenty yet to tell about the life of Jesus.  For some of us, the signs are everywhere.  We know people who are asking questions and are interested in the life of Jesus.  We have the four witnesses in the New Testament to tell us the story, but we also have practices, artwork, and symbols that can open up the conversation about who Jesus was and is.  Young people are open to learning.

It is my hope that we’ll recognize this great opportunity we have to engage the story of Jesus, disciple people to be his followers, and join the adventure which Jesus is leading us on in our age.

I’ve got to head to the store.  My parents are coming in tonight!

Peace be upon you all.

Read Full Post »

Low-Hanging Fruit (John 15, anyone?)

Yesterday Seth Godin put forth an interesting question I couldn’t ignore.  Here’s an excerpt from his post:

Imagine that half the cars in the US get 10 miles per gallon. And half get 40 miles per gallon. Further stipulate that all cars are driven the same number of miles per year.

Now, you get one wish. You can give every low-mileage car a new set of spark plugs that will increase fuel efficiency by 5 mpg, up to 15. Or you can replace every 40 mpg car with a car that gets 75 mpg, an increase of 35 miles for every gallon driven.

Which is better?

So, what would you choose?  One might be inclined to increase the efficiency of the vehicles with the best fuel economy, but you’d be wrong.  Godin answers:

It turns out that the 5 mpg increase is far better for overall mileage than the 35 mpg increase, even though it’s smaller both as a percentage and absolutely. That’s because the 10 mpg hogs use up so much gas. They’re the low-hanging fruit, not just easy to fix, but worth fixing.

This seems counter intuitive, but it adds up.  All things being equal (fleet and miles driven), the overall percentage of fuel which would be conserved on the lower end would easily outweigh the decrease in fuel consumption by the most efficient vehicles.

You can read the rest of Godin’s post here.  This got me thinking: Jesus spoke of fruit in John 15, among other places.  Thinking specifically of his discussion of the vine and the branches in John 15, Jesus states:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit.” -John 15:1-2

As far as churches go, many leaders think of productive, growing, and dynamic ministries as prime targets for investigation, excitement, and hope.  People ask, “What is __________ ministry doing to increase in effectiveness, reach their community, and grow their church, and can it be replicated?”  People want to be like the big boys (or considering that the Church is portrayed as the bride of Christ, the big girls (hottest babes?)).

Within the context of some of these booming churches, the focus is on evangelization and church growth, continuing much of the excellent work that has already begun so that the ceiling can continue to be raised.  In order to continue this type of growth, these church ministries (and their congregants) demand excellence in staff hiring practices, desiring that the church only bring on the best quality staff people to lead that ministry, which results from time to time in large churches hiring the most capable people away from other churches.  Ministries must be highly effective, with effectiveness usually measured by number of participants.  When a ministry does take off, resources are placed behind that particular effort in order to push the envelope and continue to raise the ceiling.  Overall, I’m not saying that this growth at the top is bad.  It may just cause us to forget about the low-hanging fruit.

Godin’s post left me wondering–what is the low-hanging fruit in a denominational context, or in a local church context?  I’m not thinking about ministries and churches in the process of dying–I’m thinking of church ministries that are producing some fruit and with a little help, encouragement, and additional resources, might come to produce a little bit more.  I’m thinking of leaders who are tired and exhausted, yet continue to work hard, and could benefit greatly if someone would praise them and celebrate the work they are doing.  Perhaps a little encouragement, a little investment in the life of someone leading a smaller ministry might go a long way and have great overall benefits for the Kingdom of God.

Of course, my thesis here supposes that we can identify churches and ministries that would fit the category of producing “low-hanging fruit,” which I concede would be difficult, if not impossible.  Measuring these things would have to go beyond numbers, looking at other markers of spiritual health.  At the very least, this idea serves as a reminder to encourage my colleagues and my friends in ministry, to listen to their stories from their church contexts (both large and small), and to celebrate the good work that God might be doing through their life.

 

Read Full Post »

Clever Church Marketing

After searching the web for “Jesus Sign” or “Jesus Saves Billboards,” I came across this rather intriguing article from Church Marketing Sucks.  LifeChurch.tv launched the above campaign last year, posting a series of 5 billboards pointing drivers to SatanHatesLife.com.  My favorite in the series of 5 simply says, “LifeChurch.tv sucks.”  Though I’m normally not a fan of church marketing, this campaign struck me as clever, intriguing, and unexpected.  Billboard messages from Satan send us thinking in a direction which for many people is uncommon.  We tend to consider the Lover of our souls more readily than our enemy–perhaps sometimes at our own peril.

What initiated my quest was this article from FoxNews, in which two pilots crash landed near a Jesus Sign.  Both of the pilots are Christians, and did not fail to catch the irony of the circumstances.

Read Full Post »

Sometimes Eschatology Makes Me Want to Vomit

This story from FoxNews reports that a group of Christians holding a pre-tribulation, premillenial doctrinal understanding of eschatology (or “last things”) have launched a website which will alert friends and loved ones if the “Rapture” has occurred.  According to this report, “Final e-mails from vanished subscribers will be triggered when three of the site’s five Christian staffers fail to log in for six days in a row.”  Those persons administering the site seem quite certain they will be among those taken up in to heaven when the final trumpet sounds.

The site, http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/, will alert up to 62 loved ones of your departure via an email message if the above criteria are met.  This form of premillenialism has led the site administrators to also facilitate storage of financial account information.  This is so you might pass your assets on to family before the conclusion of the tribulation, which according to this strand of theology is a period lasting 7 years.

This story does include one bit of poor journalism, stating, “According to Christian theology, after the Rapture, Satan will rule a global government that will torment doubters with seven years of Tribulation”(emphasis mine).  Such broad statements about Christian theology fall short of the truth, as eschatology is but one of many historic doctrines which exhibit broad diversity between different Christian communities.  This reporter could have done a better job by indicating the strand of theology from which this perspective comes, rather than making a blanket statement that doesn’t do justice to the tradition.  Some Christians will no doubt be offended by this generalization, as they would claim that the particular eschatology which gave birth to this website is not only errant, but dangerous.

Dispensationalism (what we’re talking about here) can trace its roots to John Nelson Darby, a Christian leader during the 1800s.  His teaching became largely popularlized through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.  I know all about it–I went to seminary at a place that holds dispensationalism as a key doctrine.  I’ve had my fair share of conversations about premillenialism, postmillenialism, and amillenialism.  I’ve read books on the topic.  I’ve sat around discussions concerning the specifics of the “tribulation,” asking if the rapture will occur pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib. I’ve also been around persons who do their very best to match current events with what they understand as relevant biblical passages so that they might speculate on the timing of Jesus’s return.  I’ve spent a good deal of time thinking about these matters myself, continuing to study the different eschatological frameworks and measuring them against the biblical evidence so that I might arrive at a well-reasoned faith. 

We all know that dispensationalism has been popularized in recent years in the publication of the Left Behind series of Christian fiction.  LaHaye and Jenkins (and friends) have not only published books, but guides for Bible studies, a video game, and other forms of media to increase their following.  This particular product is quite interesting, to put it mildly.

For church leaders and preachers out there who don’t like premillenial dispensationalism, what is your response?  Clearly there is one particular form of eschatology that dominates the American landscape.  Aside from premillenial dispensationalism, are there any other options, and if so, are we teaching them?  If we are teaching them, do our people have the ability to clearly articulate the grounds upon which they might hold an amillenial or postmillenial viewpoint?  Can they make clear statements about the nature of God’s actions in history, and what Christians claim concerning Jesus’s awaited return?  Or are they pan-millenialists, asserting they are not worried about particulars, simply confident it will “all pan out in the end.”

Stories such as these present a challenge to church leaders across America, particularly those persons who exist in church traditions that believe dispensationalism is not our best option.  We do have other perspectives which have a rich historical and theological heritage, but are we teaching them?  How well are the people in the pews instructed concerning our belief in last things?

For some persons the response might be, “well, I’ll preach and teach about how dispensationalism is wrong.”  I say unto you, “OK, but are you going to construct a theology in its place that is historically and theologically well grounded?”  If you go about blasting away what you believe are misconceptions, you have to go about the work of construction.  You have to tell a narrative that makes sense.  Eschatology is about hope.  The doctrine which you teach on this aspect of theology is critical for your ministry.

I hope that pastors, church leaders, and Bible teachers who take this stuff seriously will consider how they might address eschatology. It is one of the essential pillars in building a systematic theology.  It deserves our reflection, our esteem, and our best efforts at teaching people in our congregations in a way that they might understand.  Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection are all events that in themselves are eschatological.  The world hasn’t been the same since God took on the flesh, died on the cross, and rose three days later.  Now, we await the culmination or full measure of the Kingdom of God to be brought about as we exist in the time between the times.  Until Jesus returns, what is our hope? 

That, my friends, is a question I hope we can stand to answer.

Read Full Post »

Developing and Shifting Theologies

This post from Dick Staub got me thinking, “How has my own perception(s) of the church emerging/Emergent continued to shift and change?”  I’ve encountered a number of bloggers, pastors, church leaders, and thinking Christians who have come across emerging church thinkers, leaders, and writers and have  strongly embraced the thinking and ethos of this strata of Christianity.  For the past two and half years I have been part of a church that is no exception.  The “emerging church conversation” has deeply impacted the ministry of those around me, as well as my own ministry.

In the past couple of years there have been reactions on the other extreme.  As emerging leaders have continued to publish and garner a higher level of exposure some Christian thinkers have launched critiques against the underlying presuppositions which fuel emerging/Emergent churches.  Criticism can most easily be found in the blogging world. 

Conservative evangelicals have rallied against “postmodernism,” predominantly because of a perception that emerging leaders are abandoning some form of “absolute truth” and embracing cultural relativism.  Some Christians perceive emerging Christianity as far too accomodationist, bowing to culture rather than to Christ and compromising the integrity of the Gospel.  Some of the criticism has been well formulated and well reasoned, while others have careless launched a disapproving tirade in a fashion unbecoming of appropriate Christian discourse (speaking the truth in love).  I’ve witnessed others who have cried foul because emerging leaders, after providing a helpful critique of contemporary Christianity, seemed to have created a void that they cannot fill.  In 2006 I had the opportunity to hear Dallas Willard speak at the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection.  After being asked about the “emerging church,” Willard seemed to imply just that critique.  His perception was that the “Emergent conversation” may have successfully broken down unhealthy facets of Christian practice during our time, but lacked a gospel.

Staub, in his blog cited above, notes two opposite and opposing forces which encumberour efforts to translate the Christian faith to our culture.  He see these two elements as problematic:

• a biblical, theological, historical literacy is a prerequisite for doing serious faith and cultural correlation. Many of today’s younger (and older) evangelical reformers possess a cultural literacy that far outweighs their literacy in our biblical, theological, historical legacy.
• when the culture suffers from an unbearable intellectual, spiritual, creative impoverishment produced by a soul-deadening, busy, commercialized, consumerised, marketized frenzy of activity — seeking relevance too often consists of taking on the very qualities that need to identified, confronted and eradicated, not emulated or imitated.

Simply stated, first we need to know the Bible and our roots better than we currently do.  Second, we need to recognize the ways we ourselves have been corrupted by the powerful cultural forces that surround us.  In other words, we have to delve deeper into the richness of our historical, biblical, and theological roots in order to resist the powers and the principalities.

I’m thankful for the ways I’ve been influenced by emerging pastors, thinkers, and leaders.  I’ll continue to pay attention to some of those I’ve come to respect–including Dan Kimball, Tim Keel, and Scot McKnight.  However, Ive found that I have a great deal of work to do in terms of understanding the biblical, theological, and historical roots of the Christian faith so that I might better be able to engage the world.  By becoming more well versed in the Christian story, I hope to increase my ability to contribute to the community called Church, so that we might more truthfully witness to the world-transforming work accomplished by the Jew from Nazareth whose life, death, and resurrection constitute our existence.

Read Full Post »

Recipients of Worship…

Read Full Post »

A Brief Recommendation

Last week I completed N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church.  For those interested in Christian theology and the historical development of the doctrine of the resurrection, the first two-thirds will be of great interest.  The final third is dedicated to specific applications for how a re-understanding of the resurrection will impact the ministry of the church.

I recognize that a short summary of Wright’s primary argument glosses important details that are critical to his presentation.  Regardless of this fact, the content found within this work is so interesting that I feel compelled to at least provide a taste for you, the reader.

Wright is an eloquent writer, constantly employing helpful illustrations in making his point.  He is also quite witty, poking fun at his opponents in ways that are entertaining.  Up front, I’m telling you that Surprised by Hope is very accessible to the reader, and anything but boring. 

Wright wonders in this book what has happened to the resurrection.  Why, he asks, have Christians lost the significance of this central doctrine in their preaching, ecclessiology, and understanding of mission?  Wright chronicles how the absence of a solid understanding of the resurrection has affected Christians on both the theological left and right, and urges his audience to revisit and leverage a better understanding of this Christian truth for greater effectiveness in the world.

Wright begins his book by sketching the resurrection as it has been understood historically–a helpful and important treatment.  Christians today will find the historical picture much different from the current reality, where heaven is presented as a place you go after death, and an emphasis on the resurrection to come is notably absent.  He then moves into Part II, entitled “God’s Future Plan.”  He moves from an eschatological description of the new heavens and the new earth, to Jesus and what his message had to do with heaven and the new creation, to the return of Jesus as judge, to the redemption of our bodies, and finally to a discussion of purgatory, paradise, and hell.

I will emphasize four key elements in Wright’s presentation.  First, Wright explains the significance of Jesus and his resurrection.  Second, Wright explores the significance of the Kingdom and the New Creation as central to the beliefs of the early church.  Third, Wright explains how hope in the future “marriage” between heaven and earth as it is found in Revelation 21-22 and the resurrected life to come in that new heaven and new earth rests at the historical center of Christian hope.  Lastly, between death and the time or the resurrection, a paradise awaits the faithful who will remain there until the return of Jesus to judge and to bring about the final aspects of the “new creation” which was begun at Jesus’ resurrection.

Part II is the meat of the book.  Part III, entitled, “Hope in Practice: Resurrection and the Mission of the Church,” spells out implications for the ministry of the church as announcing the salvation of God and participation with (he uses the term, “building”) the Kingdom of God.  He places great stress on the full redemption of God’s good creation and how the church is a key player in bringing that about.

As someone who grew up understanding heaven as mostly a place you go after you die, this book was quite challenging and refreshing as well.  This prior formulation of heaven, coupled with belief in a bodily resurrection, left a number of holes in how I understood God’s future.  If I would be raised physically, would my body be removed from this earth to another sphere of reality to dwell?  And if so, what would become of the earth upon which I once lived?  Would it be left behind as a ruin of a former age?

In the past few years I have been challenged to think deeply about what God intends to do with this planet.  Wright has supplemented my thinking, pontificating on the meaning of Revelation 21-22 and the marriage of the new heaven and new earth.  Wright’s theology gives us reason to express care and concern for our planet and to steward it responsibly.  It also provides reason to work for justice in this age as an act of claiming the victory Jesus has won on the cross, recognizing that the good work of the Kingdom accomplished now will endure till the coming of the new heaven and the new earth.

I recommend that you pick up this book and then return to this post.  I recognize that my account will be lacking. Leave your comments, questions, and points of contention you find in Wright’s presentation.  It is my hope that this book will serve as a helpful resource in the preaching ministry of the church, providing a basis from which the church might establish a more effective witness which entails a radical engagement with this world.

Read Full Post »

Dan Kimball :: They Like Jesus But Not the Church

Last week I picked up Dan Kimball’s They Like Jesus But Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations.  You can find Dan Kimball’s blog here.  Dan Kimball is a pastor in Santa Cruz, California at Vintage Faith Church, and has published The Emerging Church and Emerging Worship.  He is also one of the contributors to Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches.  Another contributor to Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches is Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill in Seattle.   Driscoll mentioned this book in a talk I was listening to on-line, and among the many things he said when talking about Kimball was that he is “a Christian.”  In context it was funny.  Anyway, I felt compelled to provide you with these links to Kimball’s corpus partly because I did not buy the book–I picked it up at the public library and read it in a couple days.  Sorry Dan.  Perhaps one of my readers will help you out and purchase a copy.  In my opinion, any church leader would be wise to pick up this book and listen to what Dan Kimball has to say.

There are three important emphases threaded throughout this book.  First, Kimball encourages his reader to be present in spaces where they can meet non-church people–to be in a position outside the church office where they can befriend non-Christians, develop relationships with them, and know what is going on in their lives so that they can be prayed for.  For example, Kimball has found ways to escape the “Christian bubble” by spending a couple of days during the week preparing his sermons at a local coffee shop.  Over time he has befriended other regulars and the employees there.  He doesn’t see these new friends as evangelistic targets, but human beings who need the ministry of the church.  Through developing relationships with people outside the church, he has found that emerging generations are extremely open to talking about Jesus and what Christians believe.  Most people Kimball spoke to dislike the church based on  their perceptions gained from news media presentations, street preachers, and televangelists.  Their impressions are from afar.  Kimball is challenging church leaders to present a compelling alternative within local contexts–many of the people Kimball spoke with couldn’t name Christian people they knew personally.

Second, Kimball identifies the following perceptions which emerging generations have of the church:

• The church is an organized religion with a political agenda.
• The church is judgmental and negative.
• The church is dominated by males and oppresses females.
• The church is homophobic.
• The church arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong.
• The church is full of fundamentalists who take the whole Bible literally.

Kimball is talking about perceptions that non-Christian people have of the church.  He is listening.  Kimball carefully explains the reasons why people outside the church have these perceptions.  In regard to homosexuality and women in pastoral leadership, Kimball challenges his readers (both liberal and conservative) to know the reasons behind their theological positions.  This portion of his work is incredibly helpful for Christian people who are trying to better understand the cultural landscape and engage as an effective witness for Jesus and his Kingdom.  This is an invaluable dialogue that could be recreated in any city.  Which brings me to Kimball’s final important contribution in this book.

In what could be a revolutionary idea, Kimball challenges us to listen to people in our city and respond in how we be the church.  Sounds like common sense.  He doesn’t recommend that we compromise our integrity as the people of God in responding to what we hear.  For example, one critique of the church that Kimball had heard is that it can become personality-driven–centered more on the pastor than on Jesus.  As a response, Kimball’s church has made the cross the centerpiece of their worship space, with the worship leaders and the pastor addressing the audience from a lower stage slightly off to the side of the cross.  Kimball challenges leaders to give a carefully thought out, biblical response to what is heard from those outside the church.

Kimball has reasons for hope in the future of the church.  I tend to agree with him.  He sees the emerging generation’s interest in Jesus as a great opportunity for Christian people to engage, share the gospel about Jesus, and invite people into a life of discipleship.  I think this is on point.

Pick up this book.  Read it.  Write in the margins (unless you pick it up from a library).  Agree.  Disagree.  This book will sharpen your thinking, broaden your understanding of the world we live in today, and challenge you to invite other people to follow Jesus.  It is a valuable contribution to the church that I pray more people will come to not only like, but love.

Read Full Post »