Category Archives: Theology

The Absurdity of Emergent Rhetoric on Mission

Posted on by
5

This past Sunday I was reading the “Faith and Values” section of The Lexington Herald Leader and came across an interesting article entitled “Evangelicals must rethink mission.” It was written by Chuck Queen the senior pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Frankfort, KY and the title immediately piqued my interest. You can read the article in its entirety by clicking on the link above as only excerpts and critique will be given below.

He begins by urging us to rethink mission an then points the reader to Luke 4:18-19 and explains that Jesus is not mandating “a triumphalistic missionary enterprise that seeks to impose a particular set of beliefs and culture on people who have a different set of beliefs and culture.” Rather the mission of Jesus “was a mission to the poor, the disadvantaged, the oppressed, and the spiritually blind. . . . Jesus realized that spiritual oppression from sin could not be separated from economical, political, and social oppression from the powers that be.”

I agree Jesus did not come to impose a particular culture; however, I always find it odd to hear individuals claiming “Jesus was concerned about the total person” and then reducing his ministry to a mere social ministry. How can Jesus minister to the total person if He comes only to shape their sociopolitical circumstances and not their belief structures as well?

The article continues:
Jesus’ vision for humanity was that of a world under God’s rule where peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice prevails. When a crowd of people tried to get Jesus to stay in their town Jesus said, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God (God’s vision for the world) to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43).

Jesus intended his community of disciples (the church) to be an outpost for the kingdom, reflecting the values and characteristics of God’s new world. But the church is not the kingdom, though it is part of the kingdom. The kingdom of God is much broader and wider than the church. So catching people into the net of God’s kingdom may or may not involve catching them into the net of the church.

The kingdom of God as it pertains to humanity is about human beings becoming more truly human; that means becoming the persons and communities God intended for us to be. It is not about propagating a particular brand of belief or doctrine. For Christians, Jesus is the representative, quintessential, revelatory human being on what it means to be human.

At this point I am beginning to wonder if he is just stringing together quotes and pithy sayings to make his version of Jesus sound cool. It is quite ironic that he speaks of Christ’s global vision and global kingdom, even going so far as to describe it as a place “under God’s rule where peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice prevails,” and yet he has the audacity to claim that the kingdom is not about doctrine. Maybe he thinks his readers are not listening or are too dumb to notice that he is giving us a doctrine of the kingdom.

As for the kingdom being larger than the church I agree the kingdom is global, as Abraham Kuyper has so vividly stated, “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine’(1)!” However, Queen oversteps his bounds by claiming that “catching people into the net of God’s kingdom may or may not involve catching them into the net of the church.” The church as the body of Christ is an outpost of the kingdom and a witness to the redemption and reconciliation that will extend to the whole of God’s creative order. Such an outpost is necessary because it exists amidst a world in need of reconciliation and redemption; a world of rival kingdoms and rival kings. What is the use of such an outpost within Queen’s theology where both those within and those without are members of the same kingdom? Maybe a kingdom divided against itself can stand after all.

Again I agree Jesus is the ideal human; however, we must frame this within the larger context of the imago Dei. Humanity was made in the image of God, that image was holistically and pervasively corrupted by the fall. Jesus comes as “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) and so redeemed humanity is being restored into the imago Christi. It is in this sense that Jesus is the ideal human, He is the ideal human in that He is the exegesis of God; in Christ we have the attributes of God demonstrated in concrete form. This is a problem for Queen as it undercuts his theologically amorphous version of God. Queen’s god cannot have his attributes concretely demonstrated because he cannot be described by “a particular brand of belief or doctrine.”

Now for some tidbits on Jesus:
For Christians Jesus is the way that leads to truth and life; though he is not exclusively the way for all people. A God of love would not be so stingy as to exclude vast numbers of humanity who happen to be born into non-Christian cultures.

Is it just me or do you recall Jesus arguing to the contrary of Queen’s statement? What does he mean by “God of love?” Whatever he means he is not using this in the sense that Scripture does (see here for a more thorough treatment of this.)

After all of this he concludes:
The mission of the church is to proclaim, teach, manifest, and work for the kingdom of God, not get people to believe what we believe about Jesus. And yet, as Christians, we invite people to be disciples of Jesus because we know that by following Jesus, God’s dream for the world can be realized.

What is the point? Who cares? If it does not matter what one believes about Jesus then why talk about him at all? If there are other, broader, more kingdom oriented ways to realize “God’s dream for the world” then why limit ourselves to the narrow perspective of Jesus and the church?

This is what makes emergent rhetoric on mission so absurd. After all their talking all and arguing that mission is not about doctrine but “peace, compassion, and distributive and restorative justice” we are left with nothing. We have an inconsequential Christ, a narrow and largely irrelevant church, and a god who is so theologically amorphous that he is hardly worth knowing.

Chuck if there is salvation outside of Jesus then why should your church waste their time looking like bigots by promoting some narrow-minded Jewish messiah who is practically useless to the rest of humanity?

(1) Abraham Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998) 488.

Ecclesiology in Dialogue — A Proposition

Posted on by
4

Recently I have been engaged in a conversation with several friends about the essential nature of the church and its implications. I want to continue that dialogue here and I hope you will help. In one of my early seminary classes we were asked to write a paper answering the question “What is the irreducible ecclesiological minimum?” That is the basically question I want to ask here; however, rather than tackle such a massive question in one post I want to divide it up into several smaller questions, that as a whole will answer the larger one.

I want you to post what you think those smaller questions should be. After this I will do another post where we can discuss the ordering of the questions as well as the validity of the questions. Then I will post each question individually and we will set out to answer them.

At this point I am not looking for anyone to justify the validity of their question I just want the questions themselves. Please read the other comments so that questions are not repeated. Please do not criticize questions posted by others. Feel free to post as many questions as you like, just make sure to leave a blank line between them so that they are easier to catalogue. Comments that do not conform to these guidelines will be deleted. I look forward to reading your comments and I hope this will be a beneficial dialogue. I will begin by posting the first question.

My Thoughts on Catalyzing Community

Posted on by
2

Please read Eric Bryant on Reaching the “Hard to Reach” for the background on this post. I hope that what follows does more to build off of what Bryant has written than to tear it down. I read his blog, his books, and have heard him speak on several occasions. I appreciate the evangelistic thrust of his writing and his continued emphasis on xenos; while we do differ at points I hope this post conveys that appreciation.

Principle #1: Christ Creates Community. (Bryant’s 1st Principle)
I mean this in two ways. First, Christ creates all things and all things are a reflection of His, i.e. God’s, attributes. So in this sense all community is a reflection of the intertrinitarian community. Second, as we are specifically speaking of the church we must also understand that Christ has created the church as His body to physically bear witness to Himself. Bryant argues that “cause creates community” and this is true; however, various causes create various communities which reflect the nature of the cause. Here we are forced to be more specific and focus upon the creator of community and subsequently the giver of cause, Jesus Christ.

Principle #2: Christ Transforms Humanity. (Bryant’s 2nd-5th Principles)
I appreciate Bryant’s 2nd-5th principles and my only critique is that, once understood within the biblical framework of the imago Dei, they become the same principle. Man was created in the image of the triune God this image was marred in the fall and now redeemed humanity is being transformed into the image of Christ. We must “develop authentic friendships with those [we] know” (Principle 4) because we were created in the image of a relational God and are being transformed into the image of a relational Christ. We must “meet the needs of those around us” (Principle 2) because we have been made in the image of a God who provided for those needs in the garden and are being transformed into the image of a Christ who met those very needs during his earthly ministry. Finally, we must “reach out to Xenos” (Principle 3 and 5) because we have been made in the image of a missional God and are being transformed into the image of a missional Christ who came to seek and save the lost. I think it is important to remember that these things take place within the context of relationship, not a “Christian” welfare system or environmental agency. We meet the needs of those whom we have relationships with as those needs become apparent to us and as we understand the context in which those needs can be properly met. Furthermore, we must understand that changed individuals create changed culture and so our approach to environmental and social issues comes through engaging individuals with the gospel and not through engaging social policymakers through legislative process.

For a further explanation of the imago Dei I recommend reading this essay.

Principle #3: Christ Leads His Church. (Bryant’s 6th and 7th Principles)
And we are His disciples whom He commanded, with the Great Commission, to make other disciples who will in turn make disciples who will do likewise. This process will not be complete until Christ calls a people from every tribe and language and people and nation. We must not be prone to self-centered spiritual myopia, but must look beyond ourselves and our circumstances toward what God is doing and is going to do among the nations. Then we must live and work towards the fulfillment of this great vision. Bryant’s 6th and 7th principles have a similar thrust; however, I want to focus beyond what God is doing in your particular locale to what God is doing throughout history and around the globe.

Extended Critique―Principle #5: Allow people to belong before they believe.
Under this principle Bryant writes, “We should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship. In fact, we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree. Go to www.mosaic.org/faq for more on the staff process at Mosaic.” In a sense this is redundant and simply expounds what is means to “reach out to Xenos.” Furthermore, I thoroughly agree that “we should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship” and that “we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree.”

Eric has commented below and I think his comments thoroughly clarify this point. Also I would recommend reading The Suicidal Missionary where in a comment following the post he exclaims, “I am calling for the proclaiming of the gospel AND embracing of all those who need to repent.” I think that is the heart of what it means to allow people to belong before they believe.

Eric Bryant on Reaching the “Hard to Reach”

Posted on by
5

Eric Bryant, the author of Peppermint-Filled Piñatas: Breaking Through Tolerance and Embracing Love, recently posted on “Hindus, Homosexuals, and the Hard to Reach.” He has written similar things before (see the audio file below) and I appreciate what he has to say; however, I also think there is room for critique. I have posted his seven points below and look forward to your thoughts; don’t forget to drop by his site as I know he would appreciate the feedback as well.

Principle #1: Cause creates community.
Our cause = moving people to become the person God created them to be.

Principle #2: Meet the needs of those around us.
We need to seek to meet the physical, emotional, economic, and spiritual needs of those around us. We should be pursue helping change the environment and change the individual who is looking for change.

Principle #3:Reach out to Xenos
Hospitality means loving strangers. A similar word, “hospice,” means “a safe place.” Our homes, our businesses, and our churches should become safe places for strangers to experience kindness and love.

Principle #4: Develop authentic friendships with those you know.
OIKOS is the Greek word for household (family, neighbors, co-workers and friends)

Principle #5: Allow people to belong before they believe.
We should never allow our convictions to become a litmus test for friendship. In fact, we should actively pursue friendships with people – even people with whom we may disagree. Go to http://www.mosaic.org/faqfor more on the staff process at Mosaic.

Principle #6: Raise up a team of leaders to replace you
MPAC = Ministry through a pastor, assimilator, and catalyst
We need to make decisions based on who is not yet here rather than who has been here the longest.

Principle #7: Start Over

Catalyzing Community: starting a small group, a ministry, a non-profit, or even a church (Download MP3 Here)

You can be Bought and You can be Sold: Exploring the Marvel of Modern Medicine and the Human Commodity

Posted on by
6

In December Connie Culp became the recipient of the world’s first ever complete face transplant thanks to the skilled doctors at the Cleveland Clinic. You can read the rest of the article here. What seems very hopeful quickly becomes disturbing when we come to read that “The family of a brain dead woman granted [the doctors] permission to use her face. . . . Surgeons sheared out the donor’s mid-facial area including the lower eyelids, cheekbones, the nose, some of the sinus and the whole upper jaw, with the blood vessels.” I posted on a similar topic in 2005 when a team of French doctors performed the first partial face transplant. My thoughts remain the same and I have reposted them below.

Earlier this week in France a 38-year-old woman underwent the world’s first partial face transplant. The CNN.com article Face transplant woman thanks team recounts this amazing medical feat. Of all the ensuing controversy, none of it has dealt with the true issue surrounding this surgery. CNN.com reports, “The donor tissue came from a woman who had been declared brain-dead, with the permission of that woman’s family, doctors said.” This surgery has ushered in a new age in human history, the birth of the Human Commodity.

The Human Commodity is nothing new; black-market organ sales have occurred for a long time and recently embryos have been used as a source for stem cells used in research. What this event represents is the normalizing of the abnormal that occurs due to ecumenism within the monoculture. From the normalizing of homosexuality into merely another alternative lifestyle to the “Dutch Cure,” the monoculture embraces and normalizes the most abhorrent and base behavior.

The issue is that the “donor tissue,” a female face, was removed from a living human being and surgically transplanted onto another. In the September/October 2005 issue of Foreign Policy Peter Singer writes, “During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments.” He goes on to assert that, “Hence, a decision to remove the feeding tube will be less controversial, for it will be a decision to end the life of a human body, but not of a person.” Singer believes that being alive does not necessarily constitute being a person and thus believes that there is a difference in killing a body and a person. The sanctity of human life is already collapsing and has already collapsed to the point that the organs of a living woman are now a harvestable commodity, with her family’s permission of course. According to the ecumenical monoculture, you are no longer a person you are a commodity, and your life has no intrinsic value.  (Click here to see original posting.)

We have come a long way in the past 70 years. In 1939 with Aktion T4 Hitler ordered the execution of the mentally disabled; now we use them as spare parts.