Best of Facebook

"the struggle to understand & be understood by the Other is the bloodiest of all bloodless battles"

"To say what you really think you must really think before you say it"

‎"atheists are closer to God than most theists because they're arguing with God constantly" -Miroslav Volf

‎"The why question cannot be answered because we could accept no answer" -Jurgen Moltmann

‎"Any preacher who does not tell his people the whole truth may be loved by them but does not love them." -Mark Driscoll


"A God who doesn't tell you the whole truth is a loving God"

"A pastor who thinks he knows the whole truth in order to tell you it, well..."






‎"theologians must resist eating fruit from the tree of absolute knowledge" -Kevin J. Vanhoozer

"When your wife gives you driving directions give her talking directions"




and last but not least,

Dogboarding

Dogboarding from DANIELS on Vimeo.

Peter Rollins Pub Tour - Maranatha

Maranatha from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

I am not a universalist - Rob Bell on CNN

CNN's belief blog reported a short interview with Rob Bell where he finally gets a chance to answer the criticisms that he's been leveled with.

To know and Love God - Chapter 11 Thanks David Clark

‎"theologians must resist eating fruit from the tree of absolute knowledge" - Kevin J. Vanhoozer

An Evening with Pete Rollins in Grand Rapids

Retroactive Justification from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

Life in the Resurrection from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

Liturgy of Doubt from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

Suspending Identity from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

Take a Seat

It's time to hang up your gun, mr. marksman
and marry the innocent whore without a plan
Their regime brought,
no justice,
can't be trusted
you bought the lie
returned it,
can't be lusted
It's time to hang the prisoner, mr. righteous
and carry your innocent lore meant to fight us
Their conscience fought
no justice,
can't be trusted
Buy your own lies
return them
before you're busted

Church as the "way" rather than the "thing"

What if church was the way we lived life rather than the life we are to live?

What if church was the formation of our path rather than the path itself?

What if church is the quality of life lived in the way of Jesus rather than the life qualified by Jesus?

What if church was the manner in which things were done rather than a thing to be done?

When we talk about church should we talk about an entity unto itself or the way that a community does the rest of life together in the way of Christ?  

So I guess to simplify - is "church" a way of doing something rather than the thing itself?  

I like that idea.

Punishment or Process?

"No punishment anyone lays on you could possibly be worse than the punishment you lay on yourself by conspiring in your own diminishment."  - Parker Palmer

"Normal behavior can be crazy, but seeking integrity is always sane."   - Parker Palmer


"No reward anyone offers you could be greater than the reward you give yourself by living your own truth (identity)" - Parker Palmer

Principles from God's Word = Idolatry?

To Teach:

The Bible, when it is principled, turns the principles into the goal and truth rather than the Bible itself. The Bible becomes a launch pad on which a contemporary setting can create principles to project onto others even though it is really from within themselves. All the while they are depending upon the Text to substantiate and validate their idea because of the authority prescribed to it by others.

This is sloppy sales at its worst.

Take a network that already exists, derive importance for yourself and for your particular craft out of the fidelity that others show to that network and sell a new idea. Principlizing the text makes the principle more central than the Text itself (To Know and Love God/Shaped by the Story), thereby making the one principlizing more important and central than the author(s) or larger story of the Text. It represents another attempt at creating a mediatorial buffer between us and the Divine, something humans have sought to do from the beginning.

Solution:

Let us hide from God and all our problems will go away, or at least they will seem to not exist in our existential reality.

Perennial Question:

“Where are you?” This question, asked by God, is not a question asked to actually locate us but is instead for us to locate Him, after we have sought to dislocate Him. In the question, he becomes present to us though in reality he never actually left. So why ask the question?


The issue is that humanity desires for God to be spatially located, like us, and not omni-present. As long as he is omni-present, I have to deal with his presence and all that his presence means. Psychologically, if we believe in a God that is controlling, unmoved, arbitrary, mean, a moral drill sergeant, or any litany of qualities that make him undesirable to be around, then we will create spaces and places where his presence doesn’t reside, wouldn’t reside or would despise.

The great Teacher overturned all of these expectations by going to those exact places to enjoy the people that were there. By being present in the spaces and places where God isn’t known to reside, he allowed the sinners to see God present among them and not only in episodes of visitation and hospitality, but in the glory and grime of each moment these spaces held. Jesus had always been at Zacchaeus’s home. His embodied visitation just tore back the drapes and let light uncover the Father’s abiding presence. He’d always been there, happy, relaxing, loving, angry, hurt and at times disappointed, but never enough to leave. We can take the hand away from our face and stop deceiving ourselves into thinking and acting as if he isn’t there or here. Our desire to put distance between ourselves and the Divine is an age old way of coping. There is grace for us in these moments as God gently leads us into awareness rather than smacking our hand from our eyes to face reality. He is kind.

We need to know that our principlizing of the Text, at one point or another, does cause us to hide our face from the Text. We do this by creating “contemporary” principles that put distance between us and the Text itself.

Does this mean we shouldn’t derive principles from Scripture? Of course not, but we do need to hold back on principlizing solely derived from exposition/exegesis. We need to take a step back and stop proclaiming that there is only one meaning but many applications. We need to let the story speak and the principles to rise like bread in an oven rather than extracting them through microwavable exegesis. There is more than one meaning for many Texts in Scripture and my own principlizing can’t account for them alone.

By being aware of the psychology of this process, I can realize that I want to principlize at times in order to avoid the Text rather than expose it. I want a mediator to stand between myself and the Text so that I don’t have to face the Divine, his presence and all that that means. Lord help us to truly encounter you in the Text, in life, in pain and in each others’ lives. You are present, Help us to know that you don’t want us to be drawn to your presence as much you want us to know that you’ve drawn your presence to us. Help us to know that we not only have access to your presence through Christ, but that your presence has access to us.

“…well-intended churches promote our culture’s humanistic story instead of God’s…When the Bible is no longer embodied and shared as a true story to give my life to, it’s subject to being overcome by the story of the culture. When fragmented and propositionalized, the Bible story risks becoming dull and impotent compared to the powerful message of our culture.” (pg. 62 – Shaped by the Story)


The temple veil was torn
And we walked in

The temple veil was torn
And now He's a friend

The temple veil was torn
Birthing presence into place

The temple veil was torn
Freed Father and forever grace

The temple veil was torn
God's presence reborn

New and not so new titles to chapters of a book I will write

1. Theistic Deism

2. Mediatolatry

3. Idolatry of God

I believe in the Insurrection - Peter Rollins Pub Tour

Peter Rollins at Baylor University from Peter Rollins on Vimeo.

Fred using his flint for more than stones

Emerging Adults - An interview with Christian Smith

John Polkinghorne on Religion in a Global Age

Multi-site Churches - Self-aggrandisement or Strategic? Driscoll, McDonald, Dever and Facebook weigh in!

Multiple Sites: Yea or Nay? Dever, Driscoll, and MacDonald Vote from Ben Peays on Vimeo.


A discussion ensued from this on facebook with some friends and when it continued to grow, I thought I'd add the discussion.



Tim 'T-bone' Yoder:     So piping Pastoral talking heads into a bunch of satellites decreases the personality cult of mega-churches rather than increasing it? I'm skeptical of that logic


Nathan Smith:     yeah - it sounded like it made sense at first but it still doesn't make sense. Someone who is effective at getting us to believe that their way of doing something makes sense when it ultimately doesn't is a dangerous type of person. That kind of person is dangerous to learn from b/c they say lots that's good but lead you to believe things that aren't at the same time without you realizing it - yuck and poo - don't like that kind of person. If you're self-deceived then you have to work much harder to convince others of what your deceived about - I guess that's true of all of us - but yuck


Phil Nellis:     I guess my hang up is that I am committed to local theology- not exegesis or even teaching piped in as abstraction. And I believe the local church pulpit is the perfect place to practice "theology from below"- which is the opposite of empire. If I want another perspective I can read a book or listen to a lecture or online sermon- nothing can replace the pastor who is present to her/his congregation and engaged in the interpretive act of the text through and on behalf of the local context.


Nathan Smith:       I like this Phil - theology from Below - there is something sacred about bodily presence, not necessarily of the pastor, but of the community and those that lead. If it truly is a family, then a distant mentor/older brother/father who instructs 75% of the time from afar because he is "more qualified" and "effective" than those who do the inhouse work seems like somebody is sticking their you know what into someone else's home. In their efforts to re-masculate Christianity, they are at the same time emasculating their own inferiors. Funny juxtaposition.

I really do think the danger in this move toward re-masculation can dip into its ugly side, when the efforts to masculate become a transaction. The leader effectually garners the mascularity (glory) of their inferior and amasses to their own, thereby absorbing the inferior other into their identity. The relationship is the same as a feudal lord, i.e., "you give me the ownership of your land and a portion of its harvest, while you live on it, work it and take your portion" - all the while though - the sharecropper does the work, but the landlord gets the title of landowner. It seems like they are practicing a type of spiritual/mascularity feudalism. They aren't leading the "other" into their masculine identity by displaying and modeling stewardship, but instead are taking it from them and only to give it back incrementally until they are deemed ready to lead.  The propriety of the owner to entrust stewardship to others remains negligent in their model.  True discipleship of leaders requires a deconstruction and giving away of power that would undermine the whole process they have set up.  Shepherds are just sheep helping other sheep to become shepherds.  Why would one truly give away power when one's whole trajectory is built off of accruing power from others - taking their influence and stealing their glory and only giving it back to them when you as the leader deem it necessary - sounds like a bad loan shark.  What leaders do to the least of these they have done it unto Him. Stealing the glory of another, is ultimately stealing God's glory, the image of God in the "other."

Paul sent letters to be circulated, but never to undermine the local leadership's direct influence and pastoral care. And obviously Jesus waited for the disciples to be qualified and to get it before he let them lead, preach and take up his role in teaching. (tongue in cheek) This rant may be misguided, but it seems this way to me.



Tim 'T-bone' Yoder:      In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit I have always held this deep unease toward the mega-church culture that I don't presume to be able entirely to account for rationally, but Phil's point is a huge part of the axe I have to grind.

The thing is this conversation did a lot to give pragmatic and theological justification to the methods, but it did not satisfy me by examining what is communicated by the methodology itself. Much of it comes down to its tacit reinforcement that the Christian life comes down to receiving a set of propositions each Sunday that are so un-incarnate that we might as well just watch a piped in video of the preacher.

It goes further in that I feel like there is a sort of commodification of faith going on here, making preaching into a product, and then branding and distributing it. Harvest is particularly awful about this. Even what they call "church plants" are quality controlled and exhaustively branded.

Last, the effect of all of this that if the pulpit itself does not reintroduce a privileged priesthood separating the common folk from the real theologians, how much more does a video screen do that? It's bad enough when preachers use their knowledge of Greek to make common folk feel they are separated from the scriptures, but now we have celebrity status added to the mix.

And, of course, as mentioned, there is the personality cult. It's bad enough when some follow Paul and others Apollos, but neither of them intentionally built a video, print and radio empire.


Randy Buist:       Great thoughts here by each of you. The idea of localized theology & theology from below reminds me of Leslie Newbigin and his idea that the people/local church is the hermeneutic of the gospel.

The idea of masculating the gospel is the person of Mark Driscoll (& others) rather than coming from the biblical text. Mark simply prefers to flex his muscles through his pulpit rather than going to the gym five days a week. He's found a home among the neoconservatives rather than thinking theologically for his location...

Thanks for good insights here!


Phil Nellis:       I would also add, given the letter's and epistles of Paul and others, that even when teaching came from outside of the local community, it addressed issues that were indigenous to that community. Paul, from far away, had his ear to the ground and his finger on the pulse of that community to which he was offering particular and contextual teaching. I don't know if all the churches get the same Driscoll video, but I would be surprised if he records a video for each satellite church. I know, as a pastor, that my interpretive lens is impacted by conversations I had with people in my community that week. Sometimes my sermon shifts in the moment to something I had not anticipated because I make it a practice and priority to be as attuned as I know how to be to the Holy Spirit who speaks in the moment, and to the community, who has the power and authority to hold me accountable for what I say in the pulpit.
That is another point that I didn't consider till just now- that the purpose of preaching is also to transform the preacher, and I don't know if that can happen if the preacher is not in authentic relationship with real people in the congregation who can engage her/him in conversation- not only during the sermon, but certainly in the days that follow.

I guess that is where I ultimately land on this issue- that I see YHWH of the OT, Jesus of the Gospels and the Apostles engaged in conversation with the people of God. Video preaching is simply a monologue- and is really the safest way to proclaim the gospel, which is dangerous and disruptive and Living. It is a low view of preaching to remove one's self from the nexus of the relationship between the preacher / proclaimed Word / community. Those 3 must collide in a community of love.

That was more than I thought I had to say... this is a great conversation guys, thanks.




"The Kingdom of God was never meant to fit under one man's roof.  Theological ceilings accord with personality, passion, principles and preferences but not with the person of Jesus Christ."

Theology from the Bottom Up: Do We Start with Man or With God?

“. . . theological work always passes through the observation of man. For we can obtain a doctrine of God only through this, that we perceive things, through which to us the knowledge of God is given, and this takes place in us. The gift requires the recipient and is present only in the recipient. We are only dreaming, not thinking, if we lift our eyes to God without keeping ourselves clearly in view. . ..”  - pg. 14*

But John Calvin disagrees and concludes his first chapter with the following sentence,

"Yet, however the knowledge of God and of ourselves may be mutually connected, the order of right teaching requires that we discuss the former first, then proceed afterward to treat the latter."

*Adolf Schlatter, Das christliche Dogma (third edition; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1977), 11-14. 

Francis Chan, Mark Driscoll and a disconnected but related commentary...

What's Next for Francis Chan? A Conversation with Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris from Ben Peays on Vimeo.


I'm 31, almost 32. I'm a cynic (if you haven't noticed by reading previous posts), a realist and out of energy. After a decade of attempting and selling out to whatever seemed to be the best way of thinking, the best spiritual practices, the best group to identify with, the most effective approach to prayer, following the best leaders, working towards the best career and basically trying to discover the secret to life, I'm tired.

I used to think that I knew more than other people about stuff after just discovering it and have lived like that for a decade. Now that I'm in my 30s, I encounter younger adults emerging out of their teens into their twenties all the time with this same posture - "I just found out about this cool idea and I want to tell you about it!" When they do that, those who have lived longer ususally wait until they've finished, or not, and then slip in a "Yeah, I know about...but that's cool that you're learning about that," or they provide/cop an attitude projecting a similar conclusion.

Youthful energy is an amazing force in any society. For all us cynics, it looks naive, foolish and at times wasted. But secretly, we know that youthful zeal is inspirational, powerful and we're jealous (though relieved to be done with it). Many emerging adults are idealistic, impressionable and still experiencing trace elements of adolescence.

I guess I'll get to the point. I believe that there are people out there who see this youthful zeal and try to turn it into a commodity or a resource to fuel their own agenda, ego, fears, etc...

Emerging adults are intelligent but they are also looking ferociously for a place to belong. That belonging isn't the same kind of belonging that we longed for in adolescence but has more to do with our identity as adults. There is more independence but there is also less credibility in this new world of adult-land. It seems that many young emerging adults will apply their youthful zeal to a strong personality, a winning organization, a way of life or a discipline that seems to provide both a sense of belonging as well as the self-affirming independence they so desperately need. What is so wrong is that older people who have their agendas (whether they know it or not) lead these young adults into their worldview and offer "answers" to questions that actually need more time to work out.

A young emerging adult will follow someone who provides them with what seems to be strong and solid answers because this era in their life is one of the most volatile and insecure that they will ever experience. That kind of context drives them to sources of external security and they bring their zeal with them.

Some of us over 30 are all to ready to receive them with open arms with our big answers to life in return for their allegiance and a strong deposit of their zeal. When we see them receive our frame of mind, convictions, activism, ideas and worldview and then run with it farther and faster than we could, it should scare us, not warm our hearts. We are not free of error and to offer our foundational answers to those who might build edifices with them without providing them with a grain of salt or an honest disclaimer is immoral and self-aggrandising.

They may not be as convinced of our way of thinking as they are of the need to belong, to belong to someone or something that provides them with a sense of certainty, meaning and instant credibility. What we think they are receiving may have more to do with their need to belong rather than their ability to share our convictions. That does not mean that they are not intelligent and can't figure things out but all of us over 30 know that we have been on a journey. That journey has required us to shift our convictions, opinions and ideas from time to time, sometimes acutely and at other times very drastically. Most of those shifts take place somewhere between 18 and 30 years of age, though they do continue to happen afterwards, thereby requiring us to hold our ideas and convictions loosely enough to see them change or transform if necessary.

What I am frustrated with is when people in the 30+ years range do not deconstruct themselves, their own confidence or their unwavering assertions. We so easily forget that the era of emerging adulthood actually required some shifts in our thinking because to be the same person at 25 that we were at age 20 would be horrible. So when those of us who are older try to help them nail down what they believe or think so that they won't feel to much uncertainty or insecurity, we are only prolonging their growth and inhibiting their maturation process. It is not wrong for them to sit on certain forms of uncertainty or live with some tension. If we are honest, having an emerging adult look to us for guidance is a bit flattering and affirming - but lest we be uncareful, it can also become a way for us to hide from our own insecurities. Their desire for belonging coupled with their mounds of zeal can provide us with a sense of security for ourselves if we know that they belong to our way of thinking and are willing to throw their lot in with us.

Instead of seeing youthful zeal as precarious we can too easily see it is a commodity, something to be harvested without qualification for our own cause. I am not suggesting we don't do anything with youthful zeal, but I am more than suggesting that people or organizations who use it for their own good without considering what it will do to that youth in the long run are exhibiting a form of selfishness that is parallel with imperialism and a kind of "generational colonialism." "Post-colonialism of the person" isn't pretty and much of the backlash that the church is feeling from its young people is directly related to their imperialistic cloistering and negligent harvesting of the youthful desire for belonging and insurmountable zeal they have to offer.


The combination of a ferocious need to belong, a desire for meaningful input and recognition and an endless supply of youthful zeal makes the "young adult" generation an incredible temptation for those who are looking for a people to embody - to dwell among, something only God is allowed to do. To embody your own ethics and convictions irreverently into the life of another is tempting for all because the need to continually dignify and respect someone who might worship the ground you walk on is so easy to ignore. To take from them what they have to offer while promising them the world through belonging and the resolution of their tension is so easy for some to actually do, yet we are all tempted with the idea, even if we don't follow through. It is something I am tempted with - but it is an evil dynamic, set up to view the "other" as an object - a resource rather than a subject bearing the image of God himself. If we are to help them mature, as we should, this dynamic has to be recognized and villianized rather than ignored or normalized. If we care for the young emerging adult, we will still make these mistakes, but at least we can know we are and call it what it really is.

Then we can help them find out who they really are instead of allowing them to help us become more of who we want to be. This journey of discovery isn't easy and if they have help along the way from guides who won't steal their glory but encourage it's stewardship, something some leaders only feign their way through, they will encounter God in the process.


Calvin teaches that we all need to know ourselves, because it helps us to know God and vice versa.  Here is an excerpt from the first chapter of his Institutes.

     "Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of our ourselves.  But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern.  In the first place, no one can look upon himself without immediately turning his thoughts to the contemplation of God, in whom he 'lives and moves' [Acts 17:28].  For, quite clearly, the mighty gifts with which we are endowed are hardly from ourselves; indeed, our very being is nothing but subsistence in the one God.  Then, be these benefits like dew from heaven upon us, we are led as rivulets to the spring itself...The miserable ruin, into which the rebellion of the first man cast us, especially compels us to look upward....Accordingly, the knowledge of ourselves not only arouses us to seek good, but also, as it were, leads us by the hand to find him.
     Again, it is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God's face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself....As long as we do not look beyond the earth, being quite content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we flatter ourselves most sweetly,...Suppose we but once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and to ponder his nature,...What wonderfully impressed us under the name of wisdom will stink in its very foolishness....what in us seems perfection itself corresponds ill to the purity of God."*


I'm 31, almost 32. I'm a cynic and a realist and though I'm out of energy, I am not out of hope (thanks to guys like Francis Chan and many more like him).



*John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in The Library of Christian Classics vol. 20, edited by John T. McNeill, translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960) 1:35-39

Anxious Christians

"Don't Contextualize the Gospel" but what about the Copernican Revolution - who should we believe?

link to full version - The Fatal Disobedience of Adam and the Triumphant Obedience of Christ

Concept Creation Not Just Contextualization







Now what about N.T.







A little Thomas Kuhn helps us out here - "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"




The question is, does N.T. Wright's view encompass the robust nature of God's plan better than Piper's or does Piper's view satisfy?