Focusing on Jesus can miss the Message of the Bible

In a class on the Pentateuch and Historical Books of the Old Testament, our professor evoked a question regarding Jesus and how the Old Testament is taught.  In more than one opportunity Tim Keller has pointed out that whenever the Bible is taught or preached, the Gospel of Jesus Christ needs to be shared and pointed towards.  The question that our professor asked or at least pointed towards made the point that we should not teach the Bible and then point to Jesus not matter where we are at.  His statement is that we should let the Bible speak for itself and if there isn't explicit material that deals with the Gospel and/or with Christ, we don't need to put it in there.  Let the Bible speak for itself and don't push New Testament categories and themes on every Old Testament passage is the basic idea.

I first heard of this in college when it was discussed that Medieval theologians were faulted for using the allegorical method of interpretation too much.  Some saw Christ in the tent pegs of the Tent of Meeting = too far.  The Neo-Reformed/Tim Keller approach is an interpretive method of a different order.  What Keller and others like him are doing is trying to bring the Gospel into every passage of the Bible because of their Christo-centric hermeneutic.  Have they gone too far?  I think so and it would seem my professor agrees.  Karl Rahner in his book, Trinity, explains that most Christians are functionally Unitarians and that they focus attention too exclusively on the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, and ignore the Father and the Spirit all too much.  Roger Olson points this out in his book, Questions to all you Answers, and further points out the instead of saying, "Jesus is the answer," we should say, "the Trinity is the answer." Isaiah 53 is about Jesus, but it is also about Isaiah 53 and about the Father.  We bypass the beauty and profundity of Scripture when we look for our preconceived belief to overlay passages in Scripture.  If this happens too often, we bypass the ability for Scripture to speak on its own and begin to overlook and avoid the ability of the Bible to confront us with something other than what we're already looking for.  If you know what you want to get out of a passage, i.e. the Gospel, then you may be less and less open to allowing the Bible to speak to you on its own terms. 

This previous point was brought out by the professor.  To him, if we focus on getting to the Gospel and Jesus every time we preach or teach from a passage, then the richness of each passage can be circumvented and the Bible can turn into one big message about the New Testament reality about Jesus.  There are so many passages, especially in the OT that do not directly point to or deal with Jesus Christ.  If that's the case, then there is nothing wrong with teaching or preaching that passage without pointing to Christ each time. What if the messages of the Bible aren't always about Jesus?  They are indirectly of course but many messages don't point towards Jesus.

If the Bible were about one member of the Trinity, wouldn't it make more sense that the most important person to consider in the Trinity would be the Father.  These passages seem to point to that...

I Corinthians 15:26-28
²⁶The last enemy to be destroyed is death. ²⁷For he "has put everything under his feet."^[c] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. ²⁸When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Hebrews 1:1-4
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ²but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. ³The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. ⁴So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 

John 1:1;14

 ¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning...¹⁴The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.




So should we focus on one member of the Trinity for every passage of Scripture - should interpretation be directed by Christo-centrism?  What if we were to look at each passage and look at it through the lens of the Trinity?  We could then discern who might be the most important figure to consider, whether one, two or all three of them when looking at a pertinent passage.  We need a Triune-centric interpretation of Scripture which will include Christo-centricism.  The Bible isn't about Jesus, it is about the Trinity and though Jesus is a central figure throughout the Bible and a member of the Trinity, the Bible isn't about Jesus.  It has to be about the Trinity and the life of the Trinity as they carry out their ongoing plan.  Are there important implications to consider because of this?  Does it matter?  Yes.  But that's a whole different post.

We cannot minimize the storyline to one member of the Trinity or give pre-eminence to one member unless that is done with Yahweh himself.  He's the one who sends Christ, is the Father, is obeyed by Christ, is given all that Christ accomplishes, is the person of the Trinity who creates through his Son, is whom we access through Christ.  He is the Goal and He has the first and final Word.  But the point is that we don't need to pick one - we look at Scripture, as much as possible, through the eyes of the Trinity not just one member of the Trinity.

The 8 Marks of a Robust Gospel | Scot McKnight | The Christian Vision Project

The 8 Marks of a Robust Gospel | Scot McKnight | The Christian Vision Project

Posted using ShareThis

Peter Rollins' Insurrection Pub Tour Audio

Peter Rollins came to Chicago with Padraig and Johnny for the Insurrection Tour and left a whirlwind of questions, ponderings and hope.  If you missed it or would like to hear it again, the audio is right here.  I'd love to hear any responses to the presentation and what you heard.  Warning - there is some use of strong language and provocative prose but well worth hearing.

Vanilla flavored Gospel and SandCastles

Vanilla is a complicated and wondrous spice. The process to cultivate this flavor is extremely complex and requires excellent precision and timing. The processes that are used to cultivate the vanilla properly are largely un-related to any other cultivation process. The uniqueness of Vanilla cultivation sets it apart from the rest of the spices and plants. On a recent visit to a spice plantation in India, the process was explained, while we stared down at this simple looking plant. Each procedure to procure the spice was almost totally unrelated to the process that preceded it until finally the vanilla plant produced its yield. Interestingly, the process seemed to involve steps that would have required thousands and thousands of experiments to discover. I have no idea how that was done, nonetheless all the steps are necessary.

In reflection upon this, I was brought to the eras of the Bible and how we transitioned from era to the next. From our perspective, the process of God's revelation in the Old Testament seems to have little to do with the culture or our time today. For example, when was the last time, an angel visited you to inform you that your neighboring city was going to be destroyed or when was the last time a prophet in your midst was told to lay on his side for months on end to communicate a message from God. Take the sacrificial system for instance. When was the last time that you sacrificed a goat as an offering to the Lord or brought a grain offering in and had it offered by a priest to God to show your love and devotion to God.

Theologians talk about continuity and discontinuity, but if we are honest, there is little continuity in the structure and rituals of the Old Testament with our faith expressions today. Yet, there is overarching narrative that ties our chapter to theirs, but it seems so unrelated in so many ways.

Vanilla theology is theology that recognizes that what we begin with is going to go through so many different phases, that require the same vigilance and timing and radical transitioning that is required for this process to actually yield the final goal. The movement from era to era, though so different culturally, is telling the same story and projecting the same narrative. What I think isn't so sure, is the claim of continuity. C'mon - the process of salvation and revelation is bizarre and at points seemingly unrelated to what came before.

There is continuity - that is obvious but the foundation for this post is to provoke us to also realize how much discontinuity is required between eras in order for the next era to come to fruition. The ability for the core values of our faith to transition from era to era, generation to generation or culture to culture may require less continuity (though some is necessary) than we think and a lot more discontinuity.

The success of a core value is not the maintenance of the edifices that are built around it, but the ability of those who build those edifices to transition the essentials of the core values from edifice to edifice without without transitioning the actual edifices.

In short, we are all building sand castles - but it is not the castle that matters, it is what we do, gain and learn each time we build a sand castle - anticipating that what we have learned will be transferred to tomorrow's day on the beach after the evening's tide has washed away our castle.

To yield the vanilla that we want from the plant that we begin with, we need to be okay with transitioning to completely different yielding methods. These methods maintain the core essence of vanilla while at the same time shedding the unnecessary elements that keep us from reaching the goal. What is the goal? - pure vanilla flavor, a flavor and fragrance that can only be released at its full potential once the plant has transitioned through these increasingly unrelated but absolutely necessary steps of procurement.

Our Gospel is growing and transitioning in much the same way and it is doing so through the ongoing study and evolution of Scriptural interpretation, through the maturing transitions of the Church - Christ's body and bride, and through God's common grace revelation and work in history.

So the need then is to be a lot more comfortable with discontinuity and less comfortable with continuity. Human nature does the opposite, but if we want the true essence of the Gospel, both as it is as well as what it is continually unveiling about itself over time, we will need to embrace discontinuity more than we lean on continuity. This does not eject what is supported in the Gospel by continuity, but it does communicate to us that our default setting - our conventional thinking towards how this works - may not be as valuable as we "conventionally" and naturally think it to be.  To produce the purest and most potent yield may require passionately avant-garde methods of transition, methods that not only challenge status quo but transform it into a new status quo, that also anticipates the need for future methods of transition.  What we need are more builders, not protectors, of our sand castles.

How the Might Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In

This is a great review done by David L. Mays on Jim Collins' book, "How the Might Fall and Why Some Companies Never Give In"  David has helped with the page numbers for those who would like to reference the original work.  Of course, this analysis can be applied to more than just companies.

Jim Collins, student of companies, is the noted author of the highly regarded leadership books Built to Last and Good to Great.  "Decline, it turns out, is largely self-inflicted, and the path to recovery lies largely

within our own hands."  (back flyleaf)  For effective teaching, "don't try to come up with the right answers; focus on coming up with good questions." (2)

"I've come to see institutional decline like a staged disease: harder to detect but easier to cure in the early stages, easier to detect but harder to cure in the later stages.  An institution can look strong on the outside

but already be sick on the inside, dangerously on the cusp of a precipitous fall." (5)

"Every institution is vulnerable, no matter how great . Anyone can fall and most eventually do." (8)

"Clearly, the solution to decline lies not in the simple bromide 'Change or Die'; Bank of America changed a lot, and nearly killed itself in the process.  We need a more nuanced understanding of how decline happens." (22) This study is done by comparing pairs of companies that succeeded and failed

within the same businesses and the same time frame.

Five Stages of Decline:  Stage 1:  Hubris Born of Success

"Great enterprises can become insulated by success . and lose sight of the true underlying factors that created success in the first place."

Stage 2:  Undisciplined Pursuit of More 

Companies in stage 2 may overreach by making undisciplined leaps into areas where they cannot be great or growing faster than their ability to fill key spots with capable people. 

Stage 3:  Denial of Risk and Peril

Companies in stage 3 begin to discount or explain away disturbing data, blame outside forces, and take outsized risks without giving enough weight to the consequences.

Stage 4:  Grasping for Salvation

Instead of getting back to the disciplines that made them great, companies take dramatic action, seeking a silver bullet solution.

Stage 5:  Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death

Some companies move quickly through the stages while others take years or decades.

"One of the keys to sustained performance lies in understanding how greatness can be lost." (24) "Great companies can stumble, badly, and recover. Most companies eventually fall.  Yet our research indicates that organizational decline is largely self-inflicted, and recovery largely within our own control." (25)

Stage 1:  Hubris Born of Success

Past accomplishment guarantees nothing about future success.  (28)

"A core business that meets a fundamental human need rarely becomes obsolete."  (32)  Unless your primary flywheel faces inevitable demise or you have lost your passion for it, "continue to push your primary flywheel with as much imagination and fanatical intensity as you did when you first began."  This means never-ending creative renewal.  (35) Foster a productive tension between continuity and change.  Adhere to the principles that produced success but continually evolve and modify with creative and

intelligent adaptation.  (36)  Maintain humility and a learning orientation.

Stage 2:  Undisciplined Pursuit of More

Big acquisitions that do not fit your core values or undermine your culture or defy economic logic can bring you down.  The problem is not necessarily complacency or lack of energy.  Overambitious growth targets and frenetic innovation, while failing at the basics, can start a downward spiral. Undisciplined pursuit might be action inconsistent with your core values, launching into activities that do not fit,  addiction to scale, neglecting your core business, focusing on your own personal success, compromising your values, or losing sight of your core purpose are all examples of undisciplined pursuit.

Perhaps the best warning sign is a declining proportion of key seats filled with the right people.  (57)

"Leaders who fail the process of succession set their enterprises on a path to decline."  ".one of the most significant indicators of decline is the reallocation of power into the hands of leaders who fail to comprehend and/or lack the will to do what must be done--and equally, what must not be

done--to sustain greatness." (60)

"overreaching tends to increase after a legendary leader steps away."  "But whatever the underlying dynamic, when companies engage in Stage 2 overreaching and bungle the transfer of power, they tend to hurtle downward toward Stage 3 and beyond." (61)  ".the wrong leader vested with power can

almost single-handedly bring a company down."  (62)

Stage 3:  Denial of Risk and Peril

Making big bets in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.  Luck is not a reliable strategy.  "The greatest danger comes not in ignoring clear and unassailable facts, but in misinterpreting ambiguous data in situations when you face severe or catastrophic consequences if the ambiguity resolves

itself in a way that's not in your favor."  (70) (Read Challenger O-rings.)

"For businesses, our analysis suggests that any deterioration in gross margins, current ratio, or debt-to-equity ratio indicates an impending storm . Customer loyalty and stakeholder engagement also deserve

attention."  Externalizing blame is an indicator.

"Reorganizations and restructurings can create a false sense that you're actually doing something productive." (80)

Stage 4:  Grasping for Salvation

Stage 4 begins when an organization reacts to a downturn by lurching for a silver bullet.  This can take a wide range of possible forms, such as betting big on an unproven technology, pinning hopes on an untested strategy, relying upon the success of a splashy new product, seeking a 'game changing' acquisition, gambling on an image makeover, hiring consultants who promise salvation, seeking a savior CEO, expounding the rhetoric of 'revolution,' or in its very late stages, grasping for a financial rescue or

buyout.  The key point is that they go for a quick, big solution or bold stroke to jump-start a recovery, rather than embark on the more pedestrian, arduous process of rebuilding long-term momentum." (89)

"The signature of mediocrity is not an unwillingness to change.  The signature of mediocrity is chronic inconsistency." (92)

"rebuilding greatness requires a series of intelligent, well-executed actions that add up one on top of another.  Some decisions are bigger than others, but even the biggest decisions account for only a small fraction of the total outcome that makes a great company.  Most 'overnight success' stories are about twenty years in the making." (94)

"our ongoing research.shows a distinct negative correlation between building great companies and going outside for a CEO." (95)

"If you want to reverse decline, be rigorous about what not to do." (97)

One marker is confusion and cynicism.  "Instead of passionately believing in the organization's core values and purpose, people become distrustful, regarding visions and values as little more than PR and rhetoric." (101)

Stage 5: Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death

The company either capitulates or runs out of options and cash.  Hope alone is not enough; you need resources.

Near this stage, ask, "What would be lost, and how would the world be worse off, if we ceased to exist?"  If the noble course is to fight on, it should be "to build an enterprise that makes such a distinctive impact on the world it touches, . with such superior performance, that it would leave a gaping hole.if it ceased to exist."  (111-12)

Well-Founded Hope

"The path to recovery lies first and foremost in returning to sound management practices and rigorous strategic thinking." (117)  ".lack of management discipline correlates with decline, and passionate adherence to management discipline correlates with recovery and ascent." (118)

"If you're still strong, be vigilant for early markers of decline." Remember that "circumstances alone do not determine outcomes." (120)  ".the main message of our work remains: we are not imprisoned by our

circumstances, our setbacks, our history, our mistakes, or even staggering defeats along the way.  We are freed by our choices." (120)

Following Churchill's speech, "Never give in.  Be willing to change tactics, but never give up your core purpose.  Be willing to kill failed business ideas, even to shutter big operations you've been in for a long time, but never give up on the idea of building a great company.  Be willing to evolve into an entirely different portfolio of activities, even to the point of zero overlap with what you do today, but never give up on the principles that define your culture.  Be willing to embrace the inevitability of creative destruction, but never give up on the discipline to create your own future.  Be willing to embrace loss, to endure pain, to temporarily lose freedoms, but never give up faith in the ability to prevail.  Be willing to form alliances with former adversaries, to accept necessary compromise, but never--ever--give up on your core values."  (123)

Appendix 3: Fannie Mae and the Financial Crisis of 2008

"Whenever people begin to confuse the nobility of their cause with the goodness and wisdom of their actions-- 'We're good people in pursuit of a noble cause, and therefore our decisions are good and wise' --they can perhaps more easily lead themselves astray.  Bad decisions made with good intentions are still bad decisions." (148)

Appendix 5: What Makes for the 'Right People' in Key Seats?

The right people

* fit with the company's core values

* don't need to be tightly managed

* understand that they do not have 'jobs'; they have responsibilities

* fulfill their commitments

* are passionate about the company and its work

* display 'window and mirror' maturity (they give credit to others and take blame themselves.  (159-60)

We must first love what we want to change

"A true radical must be a man of roots. In words that I have used elsewhere, 'The revolutionary can be an "outsider" to the structure he would see collapse: indeed, he must set himself outside of it. But the radical goes to the roots of his own tradition. He must love it: he must weep over Jerusalem, even if he ...has to pronounce its doom.' " 

 

- John A.T. Robinson

Resurrection - It's only just begun

The transfomative power of inspiration, affirmation and imagination is beyond our comprehension - we can never get enough of a life lived under the banner of these values.  Everything matters and it's only just begun!




Resurrection: Rob Bell from The Work of Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Imagination keeps us from insanity!

“Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad, but chess players do...Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea and so make it finite...Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as there is mystery, there is health.” 

- G.K. Chesterton

Indian Colors!

MC Boogalu and Moral One make it to India and come back with a song.  Don't be sipping any chai when you listen to this one - it's hot and makes you move - maybe a head shake or two.  Thanks Alert for esteeming India - makes my wife proud!

Deconstruction - the Father of all Learning

Some say that "Repetition is the mother of all learning."  Well at least the dean at my conservative Christian college used to say it.  I didn't like hearing it said, because I am not a repeater.  I don't like repetition.  It's boring and uncomfortable.  I remember trying to beat a Native American group drum with a group of men and realized that I couldn't keep time with them and to do so was killing me.  Over time, I'm sure I could get used to it, but regardless, I'm not a repeater and so I didn't get on with the mother of all learning.

On the other hand, I resonated immensely with the father of all learning.  Some would call him chaos or disorder, but I warmly call him "Deconstruction."  I am so comfortable in his presence.  We get on just fine and I love prating around in his nurturing environment.  I get the sense that not many others do though, but maybe not.  It seems that he isn't a favorite for some but for others, he spoils them rotten.  I know that he's the grandfather who sneaks candy to his grand-kids when grandmother is not watching - always upsetting the status quo for a little fun.

So if "repetition is the mother" and "deconstruction is the father" who is reconstruction?  Reconstruction is me, it is my identity.  It is the time and place in my life when I take all that my mother and father have given me and I make something of it.  In my response I take each repetition seriously but repetition by itself is mind numbing - for me at least.  You see, each repetition must come to an end but not necessarily an end.  It must come to a hill, a hard hill to climb and that's where deconstruction takes over.  One of the aspects of deconstruction is that it likes a challenge, a hill to climb, an unexpected situation that causes it to respond 'in the moment.'   It does not like the plains, the plateaus or the prairies - they are numbing.  But repetition or as she is otherwise known - "construction" - she loves the prairies - the flatland of predictability, the status quo highway - "practice makes perfect" she likes to quip and she quips it often, almost predictably.

The great thing is that mother construction and father deconstruction love each other.  They are distinct and have very unique features that make them so different from each other, but there's a cuteness about them.  Without them being together, I guess I would feel a deep sense of loss.  Divorce is out of the question though it has happened to some of other "reconstructing friends."  Either they get stuck with mother repetition and can't be found anywhere else except for where they will always be or they get lost with father deconstruction and just can't be found at all.

I have noticed that I really needed my mother, a lot.  I have to say that when I'm done reconstructing, I'll lean more easily on my father's side of the family but without my mother, I would be lost, lost deconstructing and never getting to that point in my adult life of reconstruction - or it may just take a much longer time.  I really enjoy hanging out with my dad, but honestly, left to himself, he's a mess.  I don't want to end up like him unless I can have a wife like my mom.  I'm so glad that they are there for each other when each of them gets stuck or lost in their own little worlds.

Each time there is difficulty or a mountain, my mom climbs on my dad's back and they begin their nascent ascent.  They always arrive at some new place, that generally speaking - only my dad has the courage to discover and bring my mom towards.  But upon arrival, it is she who knows what to do.  She begins her rhythmic process of bringing them both across the prairie - guiding him back onto the flat path that will lead them to the next mountain where once again they will ascend.

It hasn't always been like this.  Dad was always stamping about, to and fro, looking for more mountains to climb, problems to solve and chaos to swim in, not entrusting himself to her swooning glide across the prairie floor - so rhythmic, so smooth, so guided.   Mom would haggle and complain at the base of the mountain, repeating her complaints over and over, refusing to get on his back and just let him climb - wanting to circle again and again so as to avoid the fearful climb.  Funny thing is, she'd rather continue going around in circles at the base of the mountain than going up the mountain. She wanted the comfort of her plateau, to go straight once more again and not to have to climb the difficult slopes.   He wanted to climb, to know something new and novel and never seen before.  After short spurts across the plain, he would eventually ease into a depressive gait drawing his strength from her loyal love.  Over time, they learned, they learned that there will always be mountains to climb and plateaus to traverse.  They learned to trust each other when at the mouth of the trail, she might get lost, or in the wide open, he might get tossed.

When all's been walked and climbed, what caused them to retreat from the battle of "I'm better than you," was my birth.  I began to walk with them, climb with.  They found that if they were right and the other oh so wrong, that my very life would suffer years beyond their ego's death. They found that my reconstruction required them both - dancing and whirling, rhythmically free around each other.  This not for their hope or future or joy, but for mine - they gave up the fight for me and now I must honor them with this plea - Whether meant for the straight plateau of your mother, or the upward bounding of your father, until you know what you are, honor each by being the reconstruction of you. 

-Nathan Smith

Can we worship love?

love from God can be worshiped because in some ways, it is inaccessible, unexplainable and non-repeatable and of a kind, genre and capacity that humans don't even have categories for. 
 
To love is also human but a kind of love that we have capacity for, can access and is repeatable - something we grow into. 

We have the leaf he has the forest. Christ limited himself to carrying and passing out leaves while on earth, but remained the Creator of the forest.

4th Member of the Trinity?

We have learned that there are at least 3 members of the trinity, but what if there are more?  At least one notable theologian has gone "off-record" to say that it's possible that the numerical persons of the Trinity are at least 3 but philosophically and Biblically there could be more.  What if there were?  Would that cause problems and what would they be?

The "second" person, classicly understood as the Son, Jesus Christ, is both divine and human at the same time.  As we celebrate and reflect upon his resurrection today, I've have a serious lingering question.  What if Jesus could be approached as two people.  Of course he is both human and divine united in one person, but the problem comes from a question a friend of mine had.

"If we are supposed to live life in the way of Jesus, then how am I supposed to worship his humanity.  If I am supposed to become like him, then how I am supposed to worship that which I am to become.  If I become what I've been worshipping, then I will no longer need to worship what I will one day become?"

My tentative suggestion to this great question was that we aren't supposed to worship the humanity of Jesus, because we will eventually become like him in his humanity, but we can still worship his divinity because, though we may share in his divinity, we will never be divine. 

So the fourth person of the Trinity (figuratively speaking) could be the humanity of Jesus that we aren't necessarily supposed to worship.

The question is further provoked by the unique aspects of what it means to be human.  As a member of humanity, I am a member of a community whether I like it or not.  As part of that community (humanity), I have a communal as well as a separate identity.  As a member of that community I have an inherent need for that community, i.e. if I'm a human being, then de facto, I need other human beings and they need me.  To be a member of the human race requires that I "need" other human beings.  From birth to death and life, my humanity requires the humanity of others.

If the third member of the Trinity entered the community of humanity, it is inherent to his existence then to need other human beings.  He continues to this day to exist as  a human being and therefore continues to "need" us as the community of humanity that he belongs to.  Does he need us because without us he wouldn't exist - not at all.  That's not necessary.  He chose to need us, not to exist, but simply as a result of how he created humanity to need each other continuously.

So we can conclude from this at minimum, that a member of the Trinity "needs" us.  Though He chose for it to work this way, the entailment from this is that God needs us.  Why would he choose to need us?

Again, it isn't a need based upon his ability to be God, but a need based upon a decision that he made - the decision to enter the human race.  The result - God so esteems humanity, our identity and role in his Creation, that he chose to become one of us with the ensuing implication that he would always need us at some level.

We should not worship then that which needs us?  The need to worship God, the triune God, must exclude the need to worship his humanity.  Why does it seem like I'm splitting hairs?  Because I might be, but if I am not, there might be a form of idolatry that accompanies how we worship God in Christ's humanity not if we worship God.

The point of this is actually positive.  God so esteems humanity and wants to elevate our view of humanity to its proper evaluation through his eyes.  He knows that  that cannot happen without physical incarnation, without him becoming one of us.  One of the purposes of the incarnation and the resurrection was God's desire to so esteem humanity in the eyes of humanity that we could envision a future where our existence matters and our actions have cosmic implications - because that is the way God planned it to happen, not because the universe is dependent upon us to exist.

Left to our own devices, our retributive view of God, our selfishness and self-hatred, we could never envision what humanity is actually supposed to become.  God chose to incarnate himself to esteem humanity by his presence within humanity and give us a glimpse of our future by resurrecting himself into his resurrection body - a bodily existence that surpassed what all humans had ever experienced or could ever dream of existing as.  The resurrection is the projection of the endless opporutnities that our bodily identity actually has latent within us.  Sin's implications do not only need a Redeemer to free us from our past death, but also a Future Vision that will project the possibilities that we have been entrusted with in our yet-to-be resurrected humanity.

Someone has said, "we become what we worship."  First thing to note is that that isn't in the Bible.  It may actually be wrong.  We could actually re-phrase it to say, "we worship because God is causing us 'to become.'"  What are we becoming?  We are becoming what humanity was intended to become, the very process that sin spoiled, the process that Christ came to rescue and then to release us back into.  This process of becoming always returns the glory back to God, so becoming the human race that we were meant to become is worship.  We don't become like God because we worship him, we are becoming who we are supposed to be in the way of Christ because God is doing a work in our lives that we aren't in control of even though we participate with the process.  If I become like Christ it won't be because I was worshiping God.  That is ultimately spitting in the face of the sufficiency of what Christ accomplished.  I worship God because he is making me like the human Christ.  I don't worship Him so that I can become like the human Christ.  It's a response to God's action and love, not an action that produces God's response.  That would be idolatry.

So should we worship the "4th person" - the humanity of Christ?  I'm not so sure.  Should we worship his divinity - absolutely Yes!  Is he one person, both divine and human, yep.  Can you or I explain how the incarnation actually works - nope.  But we can talk about how to respond to the incarnation.  Because this is a theology in process, I invite any kickbacks or disagreement or elaborations.  Resurrection Sunday is a day to rejoice in - not only for what we get from it, but also for how it invites us to see the potential of our humanity through God's eyes and consequently, our incredible role in his plan.

He is Risen - it's only just begun...

Holy Saturday Keeps My Head out of the Sand

Holy Saturday tells us something about our desire to bury our heads in the sand. We know death and what it does.  If we follow Christ, we have faith that our resurrection is coming. But Holy Saturday represents this era - the era of 'in-between' death and resurrection.  It is the time of exile, of pilgrimage - the need to return 'home' and the journey towards a 'home' we've never seen. To believe in Jesus' death and resurrection requires faith, but it is a more unique and difficult faith to live in the tension of the 'in-between' and that tension is what we're living in right now.  

What do we do with unresolved tension?  We ignore it, deny it, look straight through it, anesthetize it, medicate it, store it in a box in the closet or build moats around our hearts of certainty and hope that it really isn't out there holding our city at siege.   The harder we fight to keep it out, the more creatively invasive it becomes until we are forced to wage an all out war on the "in-between."  When we realize we can't win, we can't run and we can't hide, we bury our heads in the sand and hope that it goes away. 

What if the "in-between" were our friend, our comrade, our ally, our tutor, our teacher, or our mentor?  Holy Saturday teaches us that it's okay - that our era of waiting yet wanting so much more is good.  It's part of the plan and the plan is good.  What do we do in the meantime?  We wait, we work, we give courage, we hope-monger and we pursue peace.  We rest in the exile as we pursue the peace of the city and we pilgrimage onward towards the Heavenly city.  

If Holy Saturday were to speak to us, she'd say, "Embrace the 'in-between' and for Christ's sake, keep your heads out of the sand."

Restoring Pangea

Restoring Pangea

This morning I heard about the new draft pick for the lowest ranked team in Major League Baseball, the Washington Nationals.  I don't know much about sports, but apparently, they got the best pick of the season - 1st round pick or something like that.  The funny thing was that though they are the lowest ranked team with 100 straight losses (whereas the Yankees have at least 9 players with $150 million dollar contracts and have won the world series at least 4 times in the last 10 or 15 years) they chose to put the highest ranked rookie of the season down into their junior team.  You'd think they'd want to pull him into the Major League as soon as they got him.  Not so in baseball.  Baseball is a sport that you need time to play into.  Apparently the fear is that if a high ranked rookie goes straight to the Majors, he could get eaten up and overwhelmed with the level of play and professional intensity. 

Though he has the talent, he does not have the maturity and needed experience to play in the Majors yet.  The teams decision reflects their hard earned wisdom - that no matter how good a rookie is, he needs to play at a level that gives him an increased sense of confidence and experience before he's launched out into the big leagues.  This matures him as well as giving him an honest appraisal of what he's got himself into.  The concern in sending him into the malaise of the Big Leagues is that if its done to soon too fast, he won't last and a great career could come to a halting crash as a result.  By starting the super star in a league below the Majors, he builds confidence, gets experience, and matures into a position and an ability that matches the intense environment of the Majors - thereby extending his life in the Majors as well as procuring a matured playing style that will give him success in the long run rather than in the short run.

Anxiety can take place in the lives of people going through this process and cause them to shortchange themselves and everyone else. This reminds me of the horses at Arlington Race Track.  As they stand in the gate, ready to launch out, waiting for the gun to fire and the gate to fly open, they anticipate the launch.  So much, though, has been put into their preparation for their first race.  Many teenagers and young adults feel this same anticipation, this same longing to launch out into the world and make an impact.  Many of us want responsibility before we are entrusted with the authority that comes with time or we want authority without fulfilling the responsibility that accompanies the authority.  The time that is required to go through this process of waiting is difficult.

It has been said "Waiting is the hardest work of hope." -Smedes ( I believe ).

In the New Testament, Peter points out, "Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.' Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.  Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you."

God cares about the anxiety involved in the process of waiting that we are going through.  In due time we will be given the responsibility and authority to lead others into an ongoing and responsible encounter with God.  We don't have to be "professional Christians" to do this, we simply need to pursue maturity in Christ and wait for God's timing.  What do we do in the meantime - play in the juniors, practice in the off season, be submissive to those who are older and practice acts of humility ( that's what helps one to become humble, because we aren't naturally ). Whatever strengths you have as a leader will come out and benefit the people that you lead immensely.  Whatever insecurities you have will come out and have the potential of harming the people that you lead, but they don't have to.  In a forthcoming post, I will talk about how to deal with those insecurities.  One of my insecurities is that my blog won't be read - so please come back.

Questions to ponder?

1. What happens to us when we short-change this process or are impatient?
2. Who are examples of people who waited for God's timing in life and in the Bible?
3. Who are examples of people who didn't wait for God's timing in life and in the Bible?
4. Have there been times in our lives when we didn't wait or did wait and what were the results?
5. What are some of our insecurities and how do we choose to cope with them?  How do other have to cope with them?
6. What are some of our natural talents?  How are we engaging and providing time and space for those talents to be matured and used.

Why Miracles and Revivals are Bad

One of the primary themes of this blog is,

"God does not want to circumvent Creation, humanity and the institutions cultivated by humanity to accomplish his purposes." 

This does not mean that miracles are not true but that miracles are an intervention into God's natural cultivation of humanity, not a normative or ideal function of how God works.  It's the back up plan and at times it's necessary but not normative.  Miracles are a way for God to show that he's authoritative in order to build our trust in him and mature us so that he doesn't need to "intervene" as much.  Miracles of intervention are caused by a lack of maturity, not the opposite.  It is actually disappointing that God has to intervene and show his authority through a miracle rather than receiving simple trust from us.  After each miracle that Jesus performs - notice his attitude towards those who receive the benefits of his miracle.  Many times he's compassionate, but there are times, he's disappointed.  Miracles are necessary at times, but in the history of Israel, there are times when the beneficiaries got so far from interdependence upon God that they had to receive a miracle to remember who God was, who they were and who they needed to have regular dependence upon.  Many times the miracle was preceded by eras of pain, oppression and separation from God.  At other times, miracles are simply God's gift to us for no reason other than love.  What is true in both instances, is that they do build our confidence in God. 

The point is that miracles are not always a good thing because many times they are a last resort - they are an intervention (though not all).  The hope is that we don't get to the point of intervention.  If we do - God is faithful and will rescue us and that is good.  We are human and childlike.  A parent should never fault a child for having to intervene in that child's life, but the tension of the intervention is that the parent is can grow to be frustrated and hopes that he or she does not have to intervene again, with the assurance that if they have to, they will. 

This is done with a lot of patience.  There are at least nine passages in the Old Testament that tell us that,
""The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." - Exodus 34:6-7 (also Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17, Psalm 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah. 1:3).

So can we rejoice in revivals and miracles of intervention - YES - the same way we rejoice when someone is rescued from their own destruction. 

Where do we go from here?  That is the point of this blog. 

In the future we will discuss

1. Deconstruction - Promising Process or Potential Problem?
2. Avoiding God - Do Discipline and Openness promise His presence or His absence? 
3. 3rd Way as a Crutch
4. Abraham and Van Gogh
5. AT&T and Tectonic Plate shifting.
6. Dependence, Independence and Interdependence - a movement of maturity, history and theology

From Confirmation to Affirmation

How to heal the happy way.  In the history of psychology, the focus has generally been to identify the problem or pathology and then diagnose the problem.  By focusing on the problem and then the solution, it was thought that a person could heal and move on to wholeness and health.

Recently, a movement called, Positive Psychology has critiqued this approach.  Instead of basing one's prognosis of an individual on the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders), a prognosis would be based upon the CSV (Character Strengths and Virtues handbook) and then the DSM could be consulted for a balanced approach.

It seems humanistic because it is.  If stress causes back pains and neurosis, then bravery or love can cause improved health and wholeness - not exclusively but inclusively.

So what does that have to do with Confirmation and Affirmation.  Most who grow up in a faith tradition look to God for "direction" or "confirmation" in their decision making.  This isn't wrong for certain stages of growth in one's journey.  In fact there doesn't need to be a battle between the options.

The pattern we need to look for moves from "Direction," to "Confirmation" to "Affirmation" which then gives the individual in question the ability to eventually give others "Direction," "Confirmation" and "Affirmation."

When we are making decisions that we are praying about, it seems that God works predominantly in each of those categories through different stages in one's life.  It starts early in life with "Direction" (Direct supervision and decision making on behalf of the individual by God), then moves to "Confirmation" (God's final stamp of authority on decisions initiated by us),  and finally to "Affirmation" (God's affirmative nod to decisions initiated, made and qualified by our growth in wisdom).

The predominance of each category throughout stages of our life doesn't exclude the influence of the other two categories.  For instance, if I am at the stage where "Confirmation" is predominant, there will still be decisions that I need to make out of direct obedience (Direction) or out of Wisdom (Affirmation) but they will be fewer than those initiated by me and "Confirmed" by God (Confirmation).

"Jordan  walks up to the counter, gives the cashier his items to purchase and a $20 bill.  The items ring up as $13.57.  The cashier bags the items and hands Jordan $15.43 in change.  Instead of handing Jordan a $5 bill and a $1 bill he hands him a $5 and $10 bill.  Jordan walks outside throws the items in his backseat and notices that there is a $10 bill instead of $1 bill in his hand.  His choice is to take it back or pocket it.  The dilemma begins.  Jordan is 30 years old, has a job and isn't in need of extra money but wonders if the difference of $9 dollars really makes a difference.  15 years earlier as a 15 year old, he would have struggled immensely with what decision to make but he has consistently made the decision to take the money back  over time and now he immediately returns the difference to the cashier and drives off without a second thought about it."

"God is watching over this whole process of decision making and remembers the day when he had to intervene through his Spirit to nudge, push and sometimes drag Jordan towards the right decision.  He smiles and nods affirmatively, looking forward to this growing partnership with Jordan in establishing his kingdom on earth as Jordan drives away.  Jordan's decision at the age of 30 reflects the 'Affirmation' stage of decision making, while his decision at the age of 15, when it was more of a dilemma and struggle to make the same decision, was more in the 'Direction' or 'Confirmation' stage of maturity.  Now God begins the work of nudging Jordan to work with others who are struggling with their maturity and knows more and more that he can trust Jordan and consequently entrust others to Jordan."

How does this process of maturity relate to Positive Psychology?  Well, we need to be aware of our strengths and weaknesses.  Usually we focus on one more than the other and either turn into selfish narcissists or depressed masochists (extreme, I know).  By balancing the awareness of our pathologies and weaknesses with the awareness and cultivation of our Strengths, Character and Virtues, we are able to overwhelm the desire to make destructive decisions.  It is unhealthy to be so aware of your weaknesses and yet ignore your strengths or so aware of your strengths and ignore your weaknesses.  If we hold them in tension, we are able to mature.  We are able to move through the three stages of decision making at a rate that is healthy and normal.  We are able to see our future in a positive light and make brave decisions based upon our strengths or realistic decisions based upon our limits.

Does this sound like positive humanism - it does because it is.  But that's because God has a much more positive view of our humanity and our role in his plan as humans than any of us could ever imagine.  One theme that this blog will consistently draw from is that "God does not want to circumvent Creation, humanity and the institutions cultivated by humanity to accomplish his purposes."  This does not mean that miracles are not true but that miracles are an intervention into God's natural cultivation of humanity, not a normative or an ideal function of how God wants to work.

Next time we'll talk about the groundbreaking book and why this idea from a non-Christian author is so Christ-like.

"Strengthfinders" - the thesis...

"From the cradle to the cubicle, we devote more time to fixing our shortcomings than to developing our strengths."

3 Quotes and a Poster

"Without somehow destroying me in the process, how could God reveal himself in a way that would leave no room for doubt? If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me." --Frederick Buechner

"Propaganda makes up our minds for us, but in such a way that it leaves us the sense of pride and satisfaction of men who have made up their own minds. And in the last analysis, propaganda achieves this effect because we want it to." --Thomas Merton

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --Thomas Jefferson

Memory Loss

Dignity

We are called to restore it especially if it has been historically taken from other human beings by people who identify themselves as Christians.

Colonialism



What if God's mission for us was that we would co-operate in redeeming what had been destroyed, stolen, raped, disregarded, abused, used, etc...

I love walking down the streets of London and seeing how beautiful they are. Why are they beautiful - because the streets of Lagos, Nigeria are not. In America, why does the south have so many beautiful homes, with long drives overcast with gorgeous weeping willows - because the homes on the coasts of West Africa were emptied and the ocean floor was filled with dead bodies from here to there. I recently was given a picture of a plantation in the south as a decorative piece for my home. That picture will never be on the walls of my home.

What if our role as those who follow Christ was to come alongside cultures that have been lost to colonialistic and imperialistic impulses of stronger nations - to help re-discover where their true cultural identity actually is. This could be done imperialistically as well so great care and sensitivity would need to be present. What if that were the case? That that's how we as the church were to serve other nations in a post-colonial era? Does that sound colonial in and of itself?

God help us.

Redeem

Faith, Science and Agnosticism

In a discussion on Facebook I recently wrote this in response to the question about what our favorite presuppositions are. My friend, Joe said,

"So, I have to identify my most basic presuppostion that governs my worldview...I think its this: "An absolutely true reality exists and is objectively knowable". What's your favorite presupposition?"


One of my responses was,

"Joe - is it possible to maintain the first half of your presupposition and accept the second half in faith and ongoing discovery. There is a view I hold to in that regard called Confessional Realism. It is much like Critical Realism which is a view held by N.T. Wright, Paul Hiebert among others. Basically, the world does make sense, spirituality... See more, science, physics, emotions, etc... all line up and have always lined up without question but based upon our inabilities, infantilities and finitude, we can't see how that works as of yet. The responses vary from the escape into fundamentalist faith or to sola science or agreeable agnosticism. The choice that I've made thus far is Confessional Realism. This basically posits that the world functions as a whole and we are the ones that dissect it and then take positions against each other based upon our view of what is more important to us and how we integrate that arena of thought or discipline in our identity. This is not how God planned us to form our identity - by what the reality of the world is but at the same time we can discover some of his reality through the natural world. Either way, the integrated network of everything is available to us and as Christians we are the most apt to discover those connections but are unable because it might require learning something from someone else that would loosen our faith fidelity. Regardless, all disciplines have a connection to all other disciplines. If we want it to work like that, then we are called to discover and journey towards those connections and not to stop on and build a moat around our first discoveries. Realism posits that there is much more to discover. Given the categories that Christians can have that non-Christians don't have and vice versa, we are holding each other back. The difference is that our side requires a bit more of direct submission to a Person rather than an idea. That is the issue - spiritual knowledge (I Cor. 3) has more to do with categories of belief that unbelievers won't accept because to do so would require submission to the Persons of the Trinity. not an easy thing to do on a relational level unless you have been reached by the Holy Spirit.

It seems it would be best to accept the three different positions - fidel faith, sola science and agreeable agnosticism. In one way we accept the reality of the world, God and his sovereignty through faith while at the same time embracing the freedom and joy of scientific discovery and how that continues to coincide with our discoveries of God. This is going on while at the same time humbly believing through a lens of agnosticism that holds our own contextual situatedness in check. There have to be check and balances for each position and each one does well to listen to the other so we don't end up burning people for believing that the the universe is heliocentric or put people in jail for having anti-government hymn sings or revile those who actually want to take a stand instead of maintaining a neutral and ultimately unjust lifestyle. I wonder what your thoughts would be."

I do wonder!

Eating for Two

I have a friend who experienced really bad "winds" for awhile in his adult life. He didn't really think it was a problem (as in it shouldn't have happened as much as it did) until he got married. His and his wife decided to go on a detox diet and cut everything out of their diet that causes abnormal "winds." They began slowly adding the items to their daily diet that had been removed and discovered that it was actually the dairy products that were causing the problems. All his life my friend had loved dairy and had eaten it without concern and never thought it would be connected to his "winds." What was most interesting to me was the process that they had to do in order to first cleanse themselves and then move to rebuild their diet to recognize what was harming them. I guess he would have hoped it was something that he was impartial towards or at the least an expensive and largely unavailable item that he wouldn't really need anyways (I'm sure he was hoping for cheap beer to come up as the culprit, leaving no choice but to buy the good stuff), but alas, it was the dairy one of his favorites. Now dairy is not bad for others and in fact it is very good, especially for those who are developing physically. Although some cultures can handle a lot less than others.

Lately, I have been "detoxing" from Christianity. Not necessarily historic Christianity but our cultural, Western, Evangelical, church culture Christianity. I have cut back the diet (i.e. Quiet time, church, Christian music and radio, churchianity, Christianese, doctrines handed to me sealed in earth destroying plastic and made somewhere else or in someone else's context, etc...). I have trimmed my portions. Many may believe me to be back-sliding while others will just dismiss it as a phase. I feel like it is more what my friend was doing. At one time, dairy was very important for his development, but eventually when he became an adult, it became toxic for his body to ingest as much or more as he had always eaten. In many ways, the structures, systems, patterns of discipleship and general ethos of the "general" culture of Christianity can only sustain a certain segment of those on their faith journey while to others it will become toxic at some point and actually begin to cause illness rather than growth.

Paul speak about this in his letters as well as the author of Hebrews in the New Testament. There is a need to move on from milk to solid food. What the text doesn't mention (though not out of negligence) is that the milk, if it is maintained in the diet, can actually be harmful and toxic to the over all health and well-being of the individual as they continue to grow. This isn't true for all people but lactose intolerance is enough of an issue globally that it could be recognized. This is not the point I'm hoping to draw as much as it illustrates that those patterns which at one point were extremely necessary and beneficial to us in our spiritual maturing process have a shelf life and need to mature into different patterns that match our growth patterns, as individuals, as communities, and as the church universal as we mature towards the consummation of all things.

To identify the problem I have to at some level critique different traditions. I don't want to focus on one tradition in this post but rather recognize the frailty of some of the evangelical impulses for faith development.

"Quiet time" - spending an hour a day with God. What kind of formative function does that play in the life of a 15 year old versus a 50 year old?

"Emotional, introspective worship music" - how does that give opportunity for expression for a 15 year old versus a 50 year old?

"Christian Sub-Culture" - how does that inform an 15 year old versus a 50 year old about the need to engage culture in the wider world.

The list goes on and on. What we have been told to do many times is right for someone else but not for us. This is not because we're simply postmoderns but because the dismissal of blaming this complex issue on an epistemology like postmodernity totally misses the emotional and developmental components of how people develop. It is literally a cop out. On issues of morality, there are some things that would be immoral for a 15 year old to engage in and not a 50 year old - i.e. drinking alcohol or sexual intimacy. There is a context for these and morality is situational for certain things but of course not for all.

I'm frustrated by the act of normalizing a function of maturity and then codifying its practice as normative for all Christians everywhere at all times. It has been healthy and eye-opening not to go to church as well as it has been to go to church. It has been refreshing to not have a "quiet time" but to engage God in one's own time that is more relationally based rather than militaristic. Why is the discipline needed - it is of course for the our own benefit but discipline and codification and regiments given by others for our benefit also need the space to be discontinued if they are not fit for the individual or community practicing them. Some spiritual practices or experiences given to us are actually fluff and only offer short term pay offs but long term frustration. I could eat pizza every day and drink a gallon of milk a day when I was 15, but if I did that now - whoa - the repercussions would be enormous.

Discernment, maturity and spiritual growth lead us to realize that there are few things we can understand comprehensively but there are many aspects to our growth that we have to be ready for that we have not encountered yet. These new plateaus of learning which we have never seen before may require some things of us that weren't required before. At the same time they may require us to shed some things that we have held dear to us and have given us much comfort, security and legitimate transformational experiences. This of course doesn't mean that we never do what was done before but it does mean changing our diet for the better. What we once loved may now be hurting us. We may have to stop drinking milk.