Friends Who Blog

Because I am currently in a slow season here on the blog, it felt like a good time to tell you about some of my friends who blog so you can check them out. They are all over the map as far as style and perspective, but they are all my friends.

Matt

Matt is a very good friend of mine from Ecclesia. He and I have been in a small group together for the last few years. He is an engineer who works with robots. He recently started blogging (again). So far, he is writing about all sorts of things, from personal finance to exploited workers in the third world to the effects of living together before marriage. He applies a focused analytical mind to everything he does, but he is one of the more authentically caring people I know.

Joe

Joe, likewise, is a friend from Ecclesia. Joe’s blog, from the looks of it, started as his thoughts while studying in England. I didn’t know Joe then, so I can’t tell you much about that. Recently, I found his blog and saw that he is posting again. I mentioned before that Joe made a couple of posts about N. T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said. Hopefully, he will continue sharing his thoughts, because they are worth hearing. A while back, I posted some thoughts after a class that he taught in Ecclesia about holiness. Joe is sharp, funny, and a solid guy.

Dan

Dan grew up in the same church as me. Both my wife and I knew him when we were younger, as he was a leader for us in Sunday school and the youth group. But that was a while ago. He has gone on to study theology at some significant schools, under some important theologians, amassing some impressive degrees. His blog is covers issues in politics, theology, poetry, and music. On the surface, he and I may seem to have fairly different political and theological outlooks. However, if you can read between the lines, there are some fundamental theological positions we share. For that reason I find his blog stimulating and fun. Of course, I would recommend the blog simply because he has good taste in music and because he is a friend.

Dahvede

Dahvede was a student of mine in junior high and high school. He is currently a missionary in New Zealand, working with YWAM. He blogs about his thoughts and experiences while doing this. I don’t know if he would use these terms for himself, but I’d characterize him as missional, reformed, and charismatic. In my book, that is a good combination. He is a man who is passionate about following Jesus wherever he leads.

Michelle (My Wife)

I saved the best for last. My wife, Michelle, has started a blog. It is impossible to be unbiased about your wife, but I think that even if I was not in love with her, I would recommend that you read her blog. She is both intelligent and wise. She is a high school English teacher. I’m not sure all that she is planning to write about, but I imagine she will write about faith, justice, simple living, family life, literature, and whatever amusing thoughts she has.

Also, check out my other friend’s blogs on the sidebar. Steve and Brian have good tumblelogs of interesting stuff they have found on the web. Kiley has some good recipes. Bryant and Dean have some good music. Chris is one of my pastors. Brett and Sam are former students. Jacob and Emily are friends from college. Wes, Jaemey, and Alison are friends from Ecclesia.

Also, don’t forget to check out my tumblelog as well. I post there more often than here.

Here is my recommendation. If you are not using a feed reader, get one. (I use GoogleReader.) Then, subscribe to these blogs.

Ecclesia Lab on Holiness

This week, Ecclesia had labs. As we are studying basic theology right now, the four options were all attributes of God: holiness, faithfulness, grace, and justice. Michelle and I attended “The Holiness of God” which was taught by my friend, Joe. It was very good, and I won’t summarize it here. But, I will post some random thoughts that I had during the lab about holiness.

• Holiness is dangerous. When the holy God shows up in force, people either die or think they are going to die. Isaiah is afraid because he is a man of unclean lips. Uzzah drops dead because he touches the Ark of the Covenant. Moses is not allowed to look at God because it would kill him. The people of Israel at Mt. Sinai so scared that they don’t want God to talk to them, seeing as he is basically blowing up the mountain in front of them, just by showing up. The holiness of God is not safe. It cannot be approached casually. It is deadly. When people encounter God’s holiness, they die, not because God is mean and smites them fro breaking some sort of rule. It is more like coming in contact with the core of a nuclear reactor. Death is just what happens when you encounter something so powerful. Holiness kills.

• Holiness is a problem. This creates a real problem, seeing as God’s goal is to actually be with us. In Exodus, when God shows up on Mt. Sinai, the whole point is for him to come and live with Israel. He is so holy that this isn’t possible, and some solution must be found.

• A key idea that Joe pointed out is that, while the holiness of God is deadly, there is only one way to be safe from it. As he put it (and I think he got it from Tozer), “The only protection we have from God’s holiness is the protection God offers. We must take refuge from God in God.” Isaiah’s lips are purified by fire from God’s alter. Moses is sheltered by God’s hand so that God can pass by. God moves in with Israel by providing the tabernacle and the sacrificial system to keep God from breaking out and killing them and to keep them from bringing something profane into God’s presence. God provides the protection from his own holiness. In our case, our protection is Jesus.

• Holiness is the true normal. We feel like it is strange when something is holy, but God’s holiness is the way things are supposed to be. We are just so out of whack that it seems like holiness is weird. The holy God creates holy space so he can dwell with people and make them holy like him. God is making a people who are holy in order to start restoring the intended normal order of things.

• Question: Can we think about holiness in terms of mission? How does the holiness of God and the holiness of his people look in light of God’s mission to transform the world? So often holiness is used as a reason to stay isolated from the world, so as not to be tainted by it. We then end up apart from the people we are called to save. This is kind of a problem. How can we re-conceptualize holiness so that this does not result? Places to start thinking about this: The holy God’s dwelling with Israel so that they could be a light to the nations, the meals that Jesus ate with sinners and those who were unclean, Jesus’ high priestly prayer where he prays that we wouldn’t be taken from the world but protected from evil, etc.

Those are random undeveloped thoughts. You can develop them if you want in the comments.

Also, Joe, great job in your lab. Thank you for preparing such a well-thought out presentation of an often neglected attribute of God. I look forward to attending future labs from you.

A Visit from My Pastor

This year, our pastor, Ted, is trying something new with the leaders in Ecclesia. He had us all review the past year from the perspective of our church’s mission statement. He asked us to evaluate how we were doing in multiple areas of Christian practice, from prayer to finances to serving people in need to church attendance to befriending people we didn’t like. Then, Ted met with each leader to talk over their evaluation and to make resolutions for the next year. It was the first time he had done anything like that, and I thought it was a strong step in the right direction.

It reminded me of the practice of older ministers, especially the Puritans (ala Richard Baxter’s Reformed Pastor) whose main responsibilities were preaching and oversight of worship, along with regular visitation of families to assist parents in leading their homes in discipleship. The pastor would visit every one a couple times per year to see how they were doing in pursuing Christ in obedience.

For many of us who have attended large churches (like mine), the idea of a pastor who actually asks you to tell him how you are doing is a foreign one. The pastors just can’t oversee that many people in such a personal way. So, when Ted this is, it was new experience, both challenging and welcome.

A few of the things that he said and asked about really struck me and hit home. I share them with you here.

He challenged us to fight boredom with mission.

I expressed to him how over the past year, I had felt a strong feeling of boredom, both in my small group experience as well as my participation in public worship. Other than my growing love for the Lord’s Supper, my experience with on Sundays had been somewhat flat. He responded very wisely. He said that he had heard that complaint from a number of people, and all of them were the same kind of person. They were the people who had grown up in the church, who knew a lot about the faith, and were capable of contributing to the ministry of the church. But when he asked them how often they interacted with non-Christians or people in need, they usually hadn’t been doing much of that. He then said, “Clayton, if you are constantly being challenged and pushed by non-Christians that you are trying to minister to, you won’t be bored. There is nothing boring about it!” Those wise words cut to the heart. I spend a lot of time around Christians. I know far too few non-Christians, and those that I do know, I do not interact with frequently. People who come to Ecclesia who do not believe or are on the fence, I hardly know. I have not made enough effort to connect with them. I am off mission, so it makes sense if I am bored.

He challenged to us to move from fellowship to hospitality.

Related to this, Ted also pushed Michelle and I in the area hospitality. Our natural inclination is to have people over for dinner and to invite people into our home. We have tried to make this a priority from the start of our marriage. Michelle is an excellent hostess, and because of my family background in foster care, it is natural for us to do this. But, we easily slip into the pattern of inviting over people that we already know fairly well. We like to have friends over. Who doesn’t? But, Ted challenged us in this. Just like Jesus teaches in Luke 14:12-14, we need to not invite just our friends, but people we don’t know well and people in need. As Ted said it, when you have over people you know, it is fellowship. When you have over people you don’t know, it is hospitality. When we move into our next apartment in a month or so, this is will be one of our priorities.

He challenged us on our finances.

I also liked that he asked me about my finances. He asked how generous we were being and how consistently we were giving, not just to the church, but in general. It is something most pastors avoid. People often consider it rude or off-limits, and as a result we have a lot of church-goers who are never challenged by what Christ says about this area of their lives. But, in I Timothy 6:17-19 Paul instructs pastors to talk to their people about this. He tells Timothy:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

Paul was telling pastors that it is their responsibility to talk to their people about their financial life, especially people who have money to spare. For pastors this is difficult to do, because people resist being challenged in this area, because, as Jesus says, money is tied to our deepest heart-issues. (Matthew 6:21) But, for the sake of those of us with money “taking hold of the life that is truly life,” I am thankful that our pastor will ask about this.

He challenged us to cherish the Scriptures.

Ted also issued a challenge to all the leaders to be people who cherish the Scriptures. In the Bible, God speaks. We should savor this. We should celebrate this. We should enjoy this. He asked to to commit to daily reading of the Bible in some form, so that as leaders, we would be deeply rooted in Scripture as we lead. It was a simple challenge, but I’m glad he pushed it.

He challenged us to minister to our ministers.

The last thing that came out of our conversation was sort of a side-note, but I thought it was really important. In the course of the conversation, Michelle and I assured Ted of our commitment to supporting him. Michelle and I are not, what you might call, uncritical people. We have a slight cynical streak, and we wanted to make sure that Ted knew that he had our personal support no matter what we might think needed improvement. Ted thanked us for this and went on to explain that as a pastor he needs people to support him, and specifically to minister to him. He needs other leaders around him who can, in a sense, be his pastors, people to ask him how he is doing, to challenge him, to encourage him when things are hard. Not a lot of pastors have that. Many pastors feel very alone. This leads to all sorts of trouble, from exhaustion to depression to strained relationships to sin. I experienced this in my short time as a pastor. Pastors need pastors, just like the rest of us. So, for those of you reading this, if you are leaders in your church, please remember your pastor. Take up the calling to minister to him. Don’t just let him care for your soul, care for his.

All in all, it was a very good visit, and I am glad that Ted is taking active steps to really push those of us who are leaders. Hopefully, we can follow through on his challenges.

(By the way, if you were wondering, I will be posting more on baptism soon.)

Baptism Lab Videos and Quotes

Tonight in Ecclesia, I taught one of our break-out teaching electives, which we call “Labs.” My topic was baptism. I loved it, because baptism is one of my favorite theological topics at the moment. I know that some of you who read this blog were present tonight, so hopefully you found it helpful and enriching to be there. Let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. I’m sorry that the time got cut short so that I couldn’t cover all that I wanted to. Maybe some other time.

I am going to try and post some of my notes up here later. Until I get to that, I am going to post a couple of things. The first is a funny video that I wanted to use in the lesson, but I didn’t have time to show it. Tonight, I did get to show a clip in which Homer Simpson accidentally get gets baptized by Ned Flanders, but it is no longer posted on YouTube. If you want to find it, track down the Simpsons Season 7, Episode 3. It is a great episode about foster families and religion. Because the Flanders in that episode resemble my family so much, it is one of my favorites.

I am also posting some good quotes about baptism that I did not get to share. Enjoy:

“The biological family, let alone the nation-state, is no longer the primary source of identity, support and growth. Seen in this light, baptism is profoundly subversive. Anytime the church takes baptism seriously, which is to say on its own terms, the surrounding culture cannot help but see it as at least potentially politically threatening.” - Rodney Clapp

“However we might cut up the world, whatever we might see as the most significant categories that define people, each and all are subsumed by baptism into the body of Christ.” - Rodney Clapp

“On the occasion of my baptism, a friend wrote: ‘Try to remember deliberately once a day that you were and are baptized, that your life is underwritten by God and that in a sense this grandest position in life has already been achieved. You can never go higher than simple baptism. In a sense, this is a release from striving. What was sought for long and hard has not been found, it has found you.’ — Ellen Charry, “Sacraments for the Christian Life”

“We bypass the community of Jesus when we cobble together a group of people whom we judge to have more potential for carrying out Jesus’ kingdom work than the merely baptized. - Eugene Peterson

“Christianity is about water: ‘Everyone who thirsteth, come ye to the waters.’ It is about baptism, for God’s sake. It’s about full immersion, about falling into something elemental and wet. Most of what we do in worldly life is geared toward our staying dry, looking good, not going under. But in baptism, in lakes and rain and tanks and fonts, you agree to do something that’s a little sloppy because at the same time it’s also holy, and absurd. It’s about surrender, giving in to all those things we can’t control; it’s a willingness to let go of the balance and decorum and get drenched.” - Anne Lamott

Ecclesia on King Saul and Judging Others

This week in Ecclesia, we studied the Saul, the first king of Israel. The basic idea of Chris’ message was that the people of Israel wanted a king who was impressive like the kings of nations around them. We are like that too, in that we want our lives to be impressive to people around us. We are concerned about image, rather than the heart. We are an image-drive culture, and many of our judgments are based on superficial impressions, rather than real investigation of someone’s character.

During a portion of the evening, Chris had us discuss the criteria we usually judged people by. I’ve been thinking about that recently, and I have realized that I judge people a lot. In particular, I judge stupid people. I know it is wrong, but stupid people just bug me. They just get on my nerves, and I tend to write them off quickly. I look down on them.

Here is what I am mean by stupid people. To start off with, there are people who don’t think critically about issues. If you just blindly accept what comes your way, I won’t have much respect for you. I don’t really like talking to people who seem shallow because they don’t concern themselves with analyzing the world around them. Of course, what is worse than someone who doesn’t think about things is the person who thinks they are thinking critically when they are either spouting off the latest faddish ideas (ironically, I find myself falling into this more often than I like) or simply pulling out the party line of their group (again, I do this). The worst are people who act like they are intelligent, but when they open their mouth, they demonstrate that they really don’t understand what they are talking about. I don’t even know where to start with them. It drives me crazy. I also find myself judging, unfairly, of course, people who are not up on current issues in the subject they are discussing. If someone seems out of touch with the current conversation on a topic, I tend to write them off. Especially issues that I wrestled with at one time, but have now come to an more fixed opinion on, I tend to judge. If someone wants to debate about traditional vs. contemporary worship styles, I will not listen to a thing they have to say. That issue is settled for me and for many in the church, and they are out of touch to bring it up.

Of course, I am arrogant and disrespectful when I do this, but it is instinctive for me. That is how bad it is. I seriously judge people on how intelligent they seem. It is a pride issue. I aspire to be an intelligent, well-informed person, and I want to be associated with those sorts of people. So, when someone who doesn’t fit that bill, I judge them, even if only in my mind.

For some of you who know me, this may come as no surprise. For others, I’m sorry to reveal this to you. You may realize that I have been looking down on you for some time. Please forgive me. Seriously, though, I am sorry to be this way. It is a way of thinking that cuts me off from knowing others, and I loose out because of my arrogance. I need to repent, and stop worshiping the idol of the intellect.

The Story of Ecclesia

My pastor, Chris, posted the story of the last two years of our community, Ecclesia, on his blog. I thought it was cool to look back at what we are all about. I really love Chris’ heart to reach people with the message of Jesus. That is really his main focus, and frankly, that is not going to steer him or our community wrong. I’m happy to be a part of this community, and I hope the next two years will be as exciting and growing as the first two…Oh, and by the way, I am the college intern he mentions a few times. Here’s the story:

Ecclesia grows, goes etc…

Ecclesia on I John 4:1-6

This week in Ecclesia, we talked about I John 4:1-6:

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

It is a tricky passage when you first read it. The challenging part is the use of the term, “spirit” and “antichrist.” Those words call up too many bad assumptions for most people. They think of demons and ghosts and the end times and all sorts of weird stuff. It becomes much clearer when you realize that by “spirit,” John is talking about prophecies and teachings, in the same way that when Paul refers to “discerning of spirits” in I Corinthians, he is talking about knowing if a prophecy is true or not. John is writing about how to know who is a true or false teacher. When he uses the term “antichrist,” he is talking, not about some devil-possessed world ruler that will come at the end of time (in the Bible, the term never refers to that, by the way…but that is another discussion). Rather, John is talking about the idea of people who are against Christ, people whose spirits are on the other team, the team opposed to Jesus. John is trying to help his people know who they can trust, who is actually on the side of God and the truth.

The reason John needs to do this is because the subtext for the letter is a church split. Throughout the books there are hints about people who have left the fellowship of this small church. Perhaps these people are even ratting out the remaining Christians to hostile authorities. It appears that the way the people left is under the influence of the teachers who were teaching that Jesus did not actually come in the flesh. Eventually, these teachers took their followers and broke fellowship. So, as you read this passage (and the rest of the book), try and put yourself in the place of this little church. They have just gone through the gut-wrenching, doubt-raising experience of loosing people from their fellowship. Friends, perhaps family are gone. People they worshiped with, supported, learned from, taught, trusted, and confided in have embraced an alternate teaching and then left. That is not an easy emotional experience. When you loose a significant portion of your community, you question things. People could have easily been thinking, “If they left us, does that mean that they are not true Christians? If they left us, does that mean we might be wrong? They said we were wrong. How do we know if they are right or not? How do we know if we are still on the right side?”

In the face of that situation, it make sense when John says:

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

John writes the small church to let them know that they are okay, that they are still in Christ, that they know God, that they are on the right side of things, and that they have eternal life. That is why the book constantly talks about how to know who really knows God. That is why it has all these tests about who is really in fellowship with Christ. This is very important for setting the tone of the book. It makes it much richer and easier to understand.

In this particular passage, John is reassuring the church that the teaching the departing faction embraced is not the teaching of those who know God. They had denied that Jesus had come in the flesh. Perhaps they were influenced by Greek dualism that denigrated the physical or they were some form or early, gnostic-style group. Either way, they had denied a very basic truth of Christian teaching. The people teaching these false ideas had left, and some had followed them. As John says, “They [the false teachers] are from the world [even though they were in the church fellowship for a time]; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.” Therefore, those who left with them are also not truly Christians. The fact that they followed this false teaching is evidence that they were not really the Christians you thought. They are from the world because they listened to the world’s teaching.

Now, this teaching is not simply a condemnation of the departing faction. I don’t think John is as much concerned about blasting them as he is concerned about reassuring the flock that they were right to hold to the teaching that the apostles had given them. It was proof for them them that they were from God, because they were listening to God’s teaching.

And so, they could be reassured, even in the face of the doubt caused by a split, and the persecution that may have come as a result of former members of the church turning them into the Roman authorities. They could know that they had “overcome them.” If they held to the truth, they could know that they were with God. Because they still believed the truth about Jesus, they could know that they knew God, while the others left because they didn’t.

Now, unless this sound like John is saying, “No matter what, if you simply believe true things about Jesus you are saved,” we must read the rest of the book. The other tests that let the little church know they are in God also include the fact that they love, they obey, they have the Spirit, and they sin less. The evidence of knowing God is a transformed life, including transformed beliefs. How you live and how you think about Jesus are both signs of where you stand in relation to God. I have more thoughts about this passage, but that covers the gist of it.

Communion

As always, I enjoyed Communion very much. It is a very central aspect of my spiritual life. It is so rich. I was thinking, this week, about how amazing it is that God is for us. The bread is the sign of Christ’s body given “for you.” The wine is the sign of Christ’s blood shed, “for you.” Communion is a sign that God is not against us, that he loves us, even me. God is on our side, working on our behalf, and he has given us himself. He did not hold back anything he could have given us. He give us Jesus. God is for us. What a wonder!

A Song that Struck Home

During the singing, we sang the song that goes: “Lord, let your light…shine on us…that we may be saved, that we may have life, to light our way through the darkest night. Lord, let your light shine on us.” It struck home to me very deeply. I have been wrestling a lot with how Christians ought to live. More than that, how I ought to live. I feel like there is so much wrong in the world, so much sin and pain and brokenness, that when I take it seriously, I am overwhelmed. I am not sure what my part in healing it is. I am not sure how to live as a follower of Christ when I actually face how bad things are. There is a lot of darkness, and I have been feeling the need for light. Jesus, the Wisdom of God, is our light, the one who knows the path to healing and wholeness for broken people and a broken world. We need him because he can light our way. That gives me hope.

The Doxology

Also, every week, one of my favorite aspects is singing the doxology at the end of the night. We always end this way, and it is a sweet moment every time, no matter how the evening has gone. I love the doxology because is at the same time, both a vertical expression to God and a horizontal encouragement to each other. We sing a command: “Praise God.” We command all creatures and heavenly host to praise God for all the good blessings that flow from his hand. I think that command to the creation is a very fitting thing for God’s people to sing. In a way, we are entering into the priesthood that God had given to Adam, in which he would bring the unspoken praises of the world before God in spoken praise. Although Adam failed, in Christ, the one who ultimately fulfilled Adam’s calling, we can reclaim that priesthood and call forth the praises of creation and bear them to our triune God. The mission of our missional community, is of course, to draw all things, including the people of our culture and time, into the expression of praise to our God: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is why I love that song.

Good Music at Ecclesia

I really enjoyed being at Ecclesia last night. We are starting a series in I John. I think it should be good. I have plenty to blog about from this week, but because it is less than one week from our big missions trip, I don’t have time to write any of it.

For now, I’ll just say that the music was incredible. Jon’s song was phenomenal and moved me deeply. The use of minor keys in most of the songs was perfect for a night focusing on confession and repentance. The singing was incredibly expressive, and it helped draw out my own heart to worship God. Tonight was probably the best rendition of “Let Us Adore” I’ve ever heard, and I loved how it merged with “Sing Alleluia.” The line, “He knows our hearts and loves us still” was very powerful, especially hearing it sung over the chorus: “He is our God, and there is no one else.”

I also was very moved by “The Solid Rock.” In a time of stress, it was reassuring. Honestly, I have had a lot of doubts about my life lately, and it was great to reaffirm that:

His oath, his covenant, his blood
Support me in the whelming flood
When all around my soul gives way,
He then is all my hope and stay.

The covenant, the promise of God, is sure. No matter what else changes, becomes unclear, or is subject to doubt, what Jesus has done is not. He has joined himself to us. He has taken care of our sin. He has shown us the love of God. He is sure. He knows our hearts and loves us still. There is no one else worth trusting.

Two other quick notes:

• We moved. Michelle and I are now in a new apartment which is way nicer than our last one. I am afraid that I have succumbed slightly to the lures of comfort, because our back door opens up onto an open lawn with a sand volleyball court and a pool. It is quiet here, because we are no longer by the train. We have some friends in the neighborhood, mostly people from Ecclesia. We all moved here at the same time in an attempt to engage in some closer community. So far, we’re having a really good time. I think it will be a very fun year, and hopefully the start of a good habit of living near people who are intentional about living life together.

• In spite of my busy life, I have been reading pretty consistently. I take about 20 minutes a night to read my book. I read Confessions of a Reformission Rev. by Mark Driscoll a few weeks ago. I thought it was very stimulating. Driscoll may be rough around the edges, but he makes you think about things you need to think about. I also read 20^th Century Theology by Grenz and Olson. That was a phenomenal book. The summaries of the major theologians were very helpful. Putting all the thinkers in historical context and sequence helped a lot. I may go through and pick out some of the major works by a few of those theologians and read them now that I have an overview of their theology. I am particularly interested in Reinhold Niebuhr, Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, narrative theology, Karl Rahner, and Bernard Ramm. I’ll try and go back through both of those books and glean some of the interesting ideas they discussed.

Ecclesia on I Corinthians 15

This week at Ecclesia, we talked about I Corinthians 15, which talks about the resurrection of the body. It is a discussion, not so much about Jesus’ resurrection although that is tied very closely to the discussion, but the resurrection of all people at the end of time. According to Chris, some people in Corinth were denying the resurrection, perhaps because they believed that it had already occurred “spiritually” or because they had taken in Greek philosophy that denied the possibility of people returning from the grave. Either way, Paul has to reassure the Corinthians of the amazing hope of resurrection that is to come, which opens up the discussion of the new creation which is to come when the resurrection occurs. 

This is one of my favorite topics in all of the Bible and all theology. Eschatology, the study of the end, is integral to how I believe people should read the Bible. I don’t mean that in the sense of all the prophecy hunters that I grew up hearing, which see dispensational codes about the rapture and the antichrist throughout the Bible. The study of the end has more to do with the Kingdom of God and the fulfillment of God’s plan of salvation, when God’s character will finally be displayed in creation the way it was intended to be. Eschatology is more about what we hope for and what we are striving to see happen than scary stories of bizarre judgments or promises of escape for true believers. The end times gives a picture of an ideal, where God’s love is the rule, and justice is fulfilled. It is actually really inspiring to think about the future God will bring about.

Here were some of the things I thought about as we talked about the ressurection and the new creation. Because I love this topic, I had a lot of thoughts.

Should we stop using the word “heaven” for a while?

During Chris’ talk, we learned about how heaven is not a place Christians go to escape from the world, but a state that God will bring to the world in the end. The way Chris said it was, “We don’t go to heaven. Heaven comes to us.” I think that is a great distinction. This made me think that it would be helpful to have a temporary moratorium on the word, “heaven” in Christian preaching. I know that heaven is a Biblical word, so I am only half serious about this, but there really is a lot of terrible baggage with the way the word is used these days. In the Bible, the word heaven doesn’t refer to a place of reward for the godly or somewhere people go to when they die. It refers to the place where God dwells. It is the place where he rules from. God is in heaven. The Bible does refer to the place of reward and renewal that is the final state of God’s people, but heaven is not it. That state is referred to in many ways, such as the resurrection, the new heavens and new earth, or the kingdom. The Bible always refers to the final happy condition of God’s people as a place of re-creation, healing, and restoration of the way the world was meant to be. It is an physical and earthly place. It is, in a sense, this world remodeled. It is not another dimension or realm. It is this realm made right. However, the word “heaven” evokes the images of otherworldly experiences, escape, and distance from this place. It means, in many cases, the opposite of the world. It is distinctly disconnected from the place we are in now. For that reason, I think the word “heaven” tends to be ineffective in conveying the final happy state of believers. It is also often ineffective in conveying the more proper meaning of the word, which is the dwelling place of God. Perhaps there is another word we could use instead? Most of the time when I refer to “heaven,” I say, “new creation” or “new heavens and new earth.” It is awkward at times, but it hopefully it helps people think of a different image than what most people mean by heaven. 

In what ways will the new creation be like life now?

One issue that I am currently trying to figure out is the degree of continuity and discontinuity between the state we are currently in and the final state of the world. I am wrestling over this in two ways. First of all, I wonder about what life is going to be like in the new creation. If God is going to re-create this world to make it how it was meant to be, how much of life will be similar and how much will be different? Will we eat, work, have families, learn, explore, have conversations, play games, tell jokes, etc? How much will life be like it is now? I know that Adam worked, had a family, ate, and did a whole lot of other things that we do now, only they were perfect. I also know that Jesus gave us a taste of the Kingdom when he partied with people and gave people healed bodies, and most importantly when he rose from the dead and still ate, walked, and had conversations with people. What will be we do and what will it be like? I tend to think on this question that there will be a lot of continuity, but the normal things we do will be much richer and less frustrating. In a sense, there will be a glorification of the ordinary.

In what ways are my actions now significant in the new creation?

My second question about continuity is much trickier for me. It is the question of how much of what we do here in this life and era will matter in the future? Another way to ask this question is, will the actions we take in this life bring about end state of the world or be organically connected to the process by which God recreates the world? On the one hand, I don’t want to fall into the mistake of 19^th century liberalism that thought the Kingdom would come through the process of human culture and achievement, as if we will bring about just and loving society through our structures and development. I also don’t accept the postmillennial viewpoint for exegetical reasons, so I am suspicious of the idea that Christians will gradually develop a culture by God’s power that will reflect the Kingdom of God. I also see that there are several passages, particularly in II Peter 3, that make it seem like the world is going to see an abrupt end, in which this order of things is destroyed in a blaze (whether figurative or metaphorical). There is also the constant biblical refrain about the temporary nature of this life, possessions, and achievements. There seems to be some indication of discontinuity between this age and the age to come. And yet, I see a push for Christians to live in such a way that the Kingdom is realized to some degree among them. We are to act and live as if the Kingdom were, at least, partially with us. We are not simply on a rescue mission to save souls from a doomed world. This world is not an abandoned ship that God is letting sink, only to send out rescue boats to save the victims. Rather, there is validity for us to influence the structures of the world and to strive for justice in the world. If it is truly valuable for Christians to seek the good of the world, not just the individuals in the world, but the structures and cultures of the world, it seems like there ought to be some continuity. If we are bringing more and more of society under Kingdom rule, which will fully come in the future, I would hope that God would not just wipe out our efforts in a blaze of fire. Our service to the Kingdom seems like it should be more lasting than that. If there is a significant degree of continuity and value for the work we do here, does that imply a more gradual transition between this age and the age that is coming?

Here is the practical implications my struggle with continuity between this age and the age to come. It helps me answer the questions, “Why should I work?” and “What should I work for?” If there is minimal continuity, saving individual souls is the main thing I should be doing. All “secular” fields become secondary, because their fruits are passing, and there is no way in which anything in the economic, political, social, and cultural realms could be eternally significant. Unless it leads to saving individual souls, it will not last. Being a professional evangelist, a full time pastor, or a monk make the most sense if there is little continuity. If there is continuity between our work in society and what happens in the coming fullness of God’s Kingdom, then it gives great value to Christian work in areas beyond vocational ministry. Chris asked the question in his talk, “Why work if there is nothing more than this world?” It is a great question. I would also ask, “Why work if there is something more than this, but it is completely disconnected from the life you live here and now?” If most of what we do here doesn’t last, why are we doing it? Jesus said focus on treasure that will last. Will a Christian artist’s work last? Will a Christian economic thinker’s work last? Will a Christian architect’s work last? If the answer is “no,” should we tell them to quit wasting their time? Is the only value to their work related to how it assists people save individual souls (i.e. the art’s evangelistic value)? As you can see, this is a very important question to answer.

How does my hope for the new creation impact my approach to comfort in this life?

One verse that always sticks out to me in I Corinthians 15 is verse 19:

If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

It has always struck me that if this is true, my life ought to be somehow very different from people around me. I mean, I ought to be suffering something because I believe it is worth the prize that we are aiming for. If what we are hoping for is in the future, we can endure hardship in the present. However, I am surprised by how little I am willing to endure. I am not risking so much that I would say, “If this life is all I’ve got, I’m an idiot.” I wouldn’t necessarily pity my life if I turn out to be wrong. It is comfortable, peaceful, and not altogether unenjoyable. This verse seriously challenges me to put my hope in the future, in the renewal of the world, not just in the state the world is in now.

I liked how Chris pushed us to think about how we are addicted to present comfort and how none of us plan or dream of a downward move in our comfort. We are all, in our own way, trying to increase our ease and enjoyment of this life, as if it were all we had. What would it be like if Christians regularly considered what downward move in comfort and ease they could make in order to invest more fully in the future Kingdom? What if we worked a counter-cultural mindset into our communities, that more comfortable, more fun, and easier were not always good things? What if sacrifice became a characteristic of our lives here and now? I don’t know what that would look like, and I certainly don’t know that most of us are ready for that. I certainly would have a hard time with it. I love comfort.

Another section of this chapter that is amazing to me is verses 25-28:

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.  For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

Again, this seems to imply something gradual about the process of the Kingdom, something that takes time and a process of subjection. I could be wrong. Either way, it inspires me to think of the coming glorious rule of the Father and the conquering of evil by the Son. When God is all in all, that will be the day. I can’t wait. Lord, haste the day.

How do we seek to experience transcendence in a society where God is seen as absent or irrelevant?

Another thought that I had while listening to Chris had to do with how people are looking for an experience of transcendence in their life. People are naturally looking for a way to experience more than the ordinary in their life. It is an innate desire in humans to crave a feeling of things beyond their life, and that bubbles up into all our religious and spiritual practices. This is part of the reason most cultures believe in some form of supernatural beings or deity. But where does a secular or practically atheistic culture go for transcendence? If you eliminate God, where do you go for transcendence? I think that one of the primary places people look for a transcendent experience in our culture is entertainment. This is a thought I would like to explore more, but I think the experience of “beyond” is found in experiencing different worlds through television and movies. By entering into a world where things feel more exciting, more significant, and more fun, we have a taste of things beyond the ordinary. Perhaps I will write more on this some time, but it struck me when Chris was talking about how we all accumulate stuff and act as if this life here and now is as good as it gets.

Other questions I am curious about:

• What is the baptism for the dead?
• What is the intermediate state like, between death and final resurrection?
• What does it mean that Jesus will be under God’s feet in the end?

Other thoughts on Ecclesia in general:

• I really like listening to Chris. He is funny, has great stories, and speaks in a casual, fun style. He respects the text and is genuinely trying to express what he thinks it means, but he is humble about it. I certainly always walk away thinking about the Bible more when I listen to Chris.

• One thing that I think we need to work on in Ecclesia is how often we assume people are church-going or know something about the Bible. Almost every week someone makes a reference to something in Christian belief or the Bible as if it were well known or discussed a lot. It might be a controversy about some theology (i.e. tongues or prophecy last week) or a story that is frequently referenced in church culture. I think we should be aware of this and careful with our language for two reasons. 1) If we hope to bring in more and more unchurched or postchristian people, we need to start acting like they are there now. We need to assume that there are new people and guests that do not know a thing about Christian theology or the Bible. Even if a lot of us are just former youth group kids and over-churched cynical evangelical burnouts, and we do know the stories and controversies, we still need to start acting in a way that an unchurched person would not be confused or feel excluded. 2) Most of us who are churched, are not actually all that knowledgable about the Bible or theology. A lot of us never got clear teaching on things. A lot of us are confused. A lot of us have forgotten. A lot of us got a warped view of particular things that needs to be corrected. Even the churched need to here a lot again for the first time. So, I suggest we become much more sensitive to what we assume people have heard about.

Ecclesia on I Corinthians 14

Starting this week, I am going to start blogging the sermons in Ecclesia each week. I may only post a few sentences or a random thought or two about the service. Even so, even a small post will force me to reflect on the service and get more out of it. I also hope that other Ecclesia folks will start interacting through the week about the passages we cover in Ecclesia. This is my contribution to those conversations.

We are getting close to the end of a sermon series on I Corinthians, and this week we talked about the contraversial, I Corinthians 14. It is about speaking in tongues and prophecy. We focused on the first few verses primarily:

Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

There was great potential for conflict over this topic, especially in an old church like ours with roots in good old dispensationalism. Historically, we have been practicing cessationists, although we have never written or agreed on a stance in regard to spritual gifts. In recent decades, we have moved to an attitude that is summed up as "noncharismatic, but not anti-charismatic." Basically, this means that people don't speak in tongues here, and we don't have healings or prophecy in our services, but we aren't officially against those sorts of things happening. There are both cessationists and non-cessationists on our staff. Included in the non-cessastionist group is Ted, one of the pastors in Ecclesia, the Marriage and Family pastor, and myself. At the services, Ted spoke, and the Marriage and Family Pastor joined him for a Q and A time after the message. The service was very pro-gifts.

One thing that was wisely included in the services was a time of testimony from three people who had had different experiences with charismatic gifts, including a man who doubted his faith because a grade school teacher told him he didn't have God's Spirit if he did not speak in tongues, a woman who was in a very charismatic church until high school and had some bad experiences because of it, and a man who grew up as a Christian but did not encounter spiritual gifts until he started dating the woman who was at the very charismatic church. It was an interesting conversation between them, and it showed the problems of both overkill on the gifts and complete absense of them.

On the whole, I thought the service was well done, and it lead to some great conversations at the tavern afterwards.

My background in the issue is a bit torn. My Mom speaks in tongues in private. She was healed from a lifelong thyroid illness when she prayed in faith while watching a healer on a charismatic TV show. My Dad, in contrast, believes that the charismatic gifts have ceased. He used to speak in tongues when he was a young Christian, but later became convinced that this was not truly from God's Spirit. He doubts healers on TV, but does not doubt that God could heal if he wanted. I believe he has recieved prophetic words from God, although he might not call them that. So, growing up, my Dad taught me one thing, and my Mom respectfully disagreed, while quietly continuing her own practices in private. Because of this, my theology has gone back and forth over the years. Personally, I have never spoken in tongues, and in spite of the sense of God speaking to me, I don't know if I have had a genuine prophecy.

With that in mind, here are my basic thoughts and questions on the issue:

There is no Biblical reason for the gifts to be gone. The Bible simply doesn't hint at them ending or anticipate a time when the church would not need God's supernatural empowering in fantastic ways. Anyone who tries to argue this from the Bible, in my opinion, is doing violence to the text. On the other hand, charismatic churches, although they answer the question "Have the gifts ceased?" correctly, have gotten a whole lot wrong beyond that.

On the issue of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I believe that this happens at conversion, when a person first believes in Jesus. There is no second experience after conversion in which a person recieves the Holy Spirit.

On the issue of speaking in tongues, I think that it can and does happen. I do not think that all Christians should or will, and that anyone who claims that all Christians should speak in tongues is both violating the teaching of Paul I Corinthians 12, and potentially doing great damage to the faith of those who have not spoken in tongues but genuinely believe Jesus. How should tongues function? Well, there are three ways that were proposed in the service on Sunday:

1) As a supernatual ability to speak in earthly languages that are not known naturally to the speaker, particullary in an evangelistic context (ala Acts 2). I think this is possible, and I tend to believe the stories I have heard about frontiers missionaries who have spoken in tongues to communicate with groups they were trying to reach.

2) As a prophetic word in a worship gathering of Christians (ala I Corinthians 14). A word in tongues is acceptable if it is interpreted by another person in the congregation, and the prophecy that is expresses is weighed and confirmed by the elders of the congregation. I think this is legitimate. The problem is execution of this practice. In most churches like ours, we do not leave room for this kind of activity. We would not know how to handle it if it did happen. I don't have many good suggestions about this, but maybe someone else does? I want to avoid the choas that many charismatic churches fall into in regards to this. I would also want to see that it is strictly enforced that the elders weigh all utterences against Scripture.

3) Private prayer languages, which are used to express the emotions and deep cares of a believer who is unable to articulate their heart to God. The passage usually cited in this instance is Romans 8:26. Personally, I am not convinced that this is a solid Biblical basis for this practice. I don't think that is what Romans 8 is referring to. The babbling of most charismatic churches, in my opinion, does not correspond to a Biblical precedent. That being said, I don't really mind if someone speaks in tongues in private. If it is edifying to them, enhancing their connection, love, and worship of Christ, I am not going to fobid it. I am also not going to promote it or make a norm for people. I compare it to times when I have prayed through screaming. There have been times that I have had such deep stuff going on in my heart, that all I could do was groan, scream, or yell to God. It was prayerful, expressive, but not necessarily rational. I think God recieved that as a prayer of faith, from a desperate heart. I don't think everyone should pray that way. It is not a norm. It doesn't have a direct Biblical precedent, but it is not inconsistant with Scripture either. I wouldn't necessarily do it in public, though, because it would not edify the Body or bring people to Christ. I also would not lable this kind of tongues a spiritual gift.

(SIDE NOTE ON TONGUES: I heard two of the most interesting stories about tongues after the service this week. Two people told me how they knew people who spoke in tongues as a personal prayer language. In both these cases, they people had been using their prayer language for years, in private, thinking they were speaking a non-earthly language. In one case, a man had been speaking in his prayer language for years. Naturally, he only spoke English, and knew no other languages. One day his granddaughter passed by his room as he was praying in tongues. His granddaughter was a Spanish major in college, and when she passed, the man was speaking Spanish. She stopped and asked him how he learned Spanish, and he told her he didn't know Spanish. As it turns out, his private prayer language, after all his life, turned out to be Spanish. In another story, a woman who had prayed in tongues in private, was riding in a cab in the city. While in the cab, she sensed that she should speaking in her prayer language. When she did, the cabbie understood what she was saying, and she shared the Gospel with him…Very strange. It makes you think…those of you who passed on these stories to me, feel free to correct my errors if I got the details wrong.)

On the issue of prophecy, the Bible is clear, we should eagerly desire this gift. I don't see this as a future-predictive gift most of the time, but more basically, a word from God. Sometimes it can be a future prediction, but more often it can simply be a challenge, encouragement, or a message of direction. All prophecies should be weighed by Scripture and under the wisdom of leaders in the community. I think this can be a great source of encouragement and power for Christians, and it must be used wisely. If prophecy is not joined with discernment, great harm can come to people because of it. I know a couple who went to a small charismatic church. At the time, they were childless and did not think they could have children. In that church, someone prophecied that the woman would have a baby. When she did not get pregnant, it was confusing and painful for the couple who had taken the prophecy to heart. Could God have sent that sort of message? Yes. Could that sort of practice be fake, and therefore easily abused? Yes. We must be wise about this gift, altough we must take seriously the command to eagerly desire it.

On the issue of healing, I believe that healing still happens. God still hears and responds to the prayers of his people. The problem comes when people use healing as a way to put God on display, as a performer, or crossing the line in commanding God to do what we want, as if the Holy Spirit were a trick dog on a leash. This is the error that many TV healers fall into. God's healing power is mysterious and it is completely up to God's will when he will use it. (Reading the book of Mark could help cure us of the tendecy to expect God to answer to our whims and perform for us. So will John 6 and other passages about Jesus miraculous ministry.) Another error could easily fall into is believing that healing comes to those who have more faith, are more holy, or more in touch with God. The book of Job should have killed that idea for us long ago, and John 9 should have nailed the coffin shut. But, alas, it does not, leading to great doubt on behalf of those who have cronic illnesses and permenant disabilities. I know people whose faith has been destroyed because of lies about healing.

Those are my answers to the standard questions about theology of spiritual gifts. But, beyond where I stand on tongues, healing, and prophecy, I think there is a deeper and more important set of issues to address in how we approach the gifts. Here they are:

Mission: In I Corinthians 14, it is clear that the gifts exist as part of the church's mission. How we are percieved by outsiders is related to how we use the gifts. So often, our obsession with or avoiding of the charismatic gifts have alienated those who look on Christian practice from afar. This may be harsh, but I think that TBN and TV faith healers have probably done more harm to the witness of Christ than good. They make Christians look like fools, and not for the reasons the Bible says we should look like fools. The sensationalism and prosperity messages that have been tied to Chrisitanity because of these people has caused many people to never enter a Christian church for fear of finding people like they see on TV. At the same time, because we have avoided the gifts in many churches, we also lack the true sense of the supernatural in our ministries. This is also a turn-off to people who are looking for something more than religious advice, words, and rules. As I Corinthians 14 points out, the gifts, used right, are often the sign to outsiders that God is present among Christians. The gifts are meant to empower our mission, not hurt it. When they go against that purpose, something is wrong in how we are using them.

Community: The resounding chorus of Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts is that they are to be used for the edification of the body. That is part of why I think the use of tongues as a private prayer language does not jive with what Scripture says. The gifts are not for private use, but for the good of others. The gifts, like the Spirit who empowers them, is focused outwardly on the formation of a community of grace and love who are active in the mission of God to restore recreate the world. Anytime the gifts are used to play people against each other as more spiritual, more godly, or more blessed, they are being misused. Anytime they are the cause of divison, something is wrong. Any time they are just for the user, something is wrong. Anytime they do not aim at the greater health of the community, they are wrong. That is why the gifts exist, for the strengthing of the Church, God's people.

Grace: The spiritual gifts are just that, gifts. If they are not seen as gracious, unearned, and undeserved, something is missing from our perspective. When they become signs of spiritual atainment, we have violated the Spirit of the gifts. When we make them signs of closeness to God or earned approval by God, we have misunderstood them completely. When we make the mistake of creating a heirarchy based on experiences with the gifts, we are in great danger of deeply wounding the community. Many people have been deeply scared by feeling that their lack of experience with the gifts is a sign of their lack of spirituality or connection to God. Deeply faithful people are caused to doubt because they have been placed on an ungracious latter of spiritual experience that ranks and evaluates people. This changes the gifts into payment. They are earned results of spiritual atainment, rather than gracious empowering for us to become what we are not and can only be by the power of God.

Word: As with all issues, the key to success in the area of spiritual gifts is tied to how well we align our practice with God's word. Do we take seriously God's portrait of how healing works? Do we hold all potential prophecies up to the standard of Biblical revelation? Do we seak the order and clarity that the Bible commends when we practice tongues? The Word is our norm and standard, and in the area of spiritual gifts, most major errors can be avoided by simply attending to the instructions it gives. Of all areas where Christians err, I think that this issue is one of the most clearly and directly addressed issues in Scripture.

A few more miscellaneous issues from Ecclesia:

Ted asked a great question worth pondering: "How much of what we do is a reaction to ugliness rather than an attraction to beauty?" He applied this to the issue of the gifts, in that we often reject the gifts because we've seen them done poorly or we go full-bore into the gifts because we've seen the problems their absense brings. I think it can be applied to other issues as well. Of course it is not an issue of wether or not we oppose error and ugliness, but if what we are opposed to defines our stances and the issues we address, we will become unhealthy very quickly. When we are more defined by what we are against, rather than what we are for, there is a problem.

I am very happy that Ecclesia is developing into a community that can discuss issues like this without fights and division. We had a lot of great conversations after the service, and they were all edifying, even when people disagreed or were confused. I think that is a sign that a healthy culture developing. I hope it continues.