So I have made a strange observation and need some advice. I need to make a disclaimer, because I have friends who will likely read this of whom it directly applies.
There are always a few people at church that are not very confident socially. They are often really into sci-fi, trekkies, star wars, or fan fiction and anime. This occurs to varying degrees, and I to some extent identify because I have a bin full of comic books. My point is not the connection between social interaction and sci-fi fans.
But here is my observation: why in churches are they often the kids of fundies? Why do parents who are so concerned about the world polluting their children end up pushing them into the fantasy world of science fiction, Tolkien, or others? What is up with that?
I don't say this to make fun, and I am not saying that everyone who loves sci-fi has fundie parents. Its just too common for me not to ask.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
New blog for city church, www.theologicalsynergy.com
I am going to now contribute twice a week to www.theologicalsynergy.com with Jason Helveston, Joel Helveston, and Adam Fix. I will put my posts from that as well as too here for now...
This is my first post for it, describing what theology is:
To kick off my first post on this brand spanking new blog, I thought I would do a series of posts about what the heck theology is. We are calling this blog theological synergy and the word Theology alone invokes a variety of emotions. Some of us cringe at the word because it conjures up memories of obtuse vocabulary and a description of the Christian faith that is abstract, disconnected, irrelevant and pedantic. This has led many to abandon classical formulations of Christian belief, or at least advocate “a new kind of Christian.” (Whoops… I think I just did an indirect slam.) On the other hand, some of us get fired up and geek out about theology because we recognize its importance and its relevance, even if we are not always enamored with some of its superfluous distinctions. So here is my attempt to make a case for not only what theology is, but in further posts to discuss how it should be done. I will do this over a series of posts that I hope encourages us to embody the mystery of godliness that is the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Tim 3:16).
First, theology is most properly about God. This is the strict definition of the word (theos + logos = study of God). It is not just an academic subject concerning correct content, but it is more importantly an ethical exercise embodied by a community. Plainly speaking, we demonstrate our theology of God with what we say, but even more by what we do. Faith without deeds is dead says James. Since theology is the study of God, we are speaking specifically of the triune God who has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This God is most clearly and directly revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Jn 14:6-7; Heb 1:3). Jesus Christ, the God-man who dwelt among us in a particular time and for all time. Theology is universal and particular. Meaning, the work of theology is to give faithful expressions of who God is and what he does both throughout history and in our specific context. Thus, it naturally follows that the controlling authority in theology is the words of God given to us through the Bible. It is the words of God, given by the Father, fulfilled in the Son, and testified by the Holy Spirit telling us who He is, what He has done, who we are, and how we ought to respond to Him.
We are thus in dynamic work of growing in knowledge of the God of the Bible. The church serves as a living embodiment of who they believe God is. We are called to be holy because he is holy (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 2:9). The critique of the prophets is largely against those who claimed to know God but did not truly reveal Him by their actions. Instead, the served idols, false gods, and false notions of God. Moses charged Israel’s leaders to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the clean and the unclean” (Lev 10:10). Paul charged Timothy to “watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim 4:16) and to “preach the word” (2 Tim 4:2). The life of the church, especially its leaders, proclaims who God is, what He has done, and what we ought to do about it. Lesslie Newbigin put it well when he said the church, serves as a “hermeneutic of the gospel” (Gospel in a Pluralist Society). God’s people, those whom he has saved, whether they want to or not, preach theology about Him in word and deed. This also means that those who do not know the God of Bible cannot do theology. Certainly may have attempted but they have all failed.
This also means that the theology of God’s people is a witness to the watching world. What we believe about God, what we proclaim about Him, is a testimony to the world. Hence, we must be aware and approach how we reason about scripture; how we handle the historic tradition of faith; and how we understand our current experiences. All of which is to be in submission to the Bible. In part, the failure of modern theology is most exemplified in its inability to be faithful to the gospel and a faithful witness to the world. The liberal theologies from Schleiermacher to Tillich, and beyond, overly accommodated the world. Yet, much conservative theology has not adequately addressed the contemporary context being overly concerned with content. We can learn from the early church fathers who wrote to specific issues that impacted the church. Luther never wrote a systematic theology, but letters addressing specific concerns. They wrote for pastoral and missional reasons. They wrote so that people would increase in knowledge of the gospel.
Ultimately, the aim is to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our hope and aim is not to bore people with details, but to do theology where the gospel is not just read about or thought about, but that it is embodied. The measure of whether or not we are doing theology well is the gospel. The quality of a living theology should be its faithfulness to the gospel. Our success will not be due to talent or by our own efforts, but by whether we are abiding in Christ (Jn 15), only then will this work bear fruit.
This is my first post for it, describing what theology is:
To kick off my first post on this brand spanking new blog, I thought I would do a series of posts about what the heck theology is. We are calling this blog theological synergy and the word Theology alone invokes a variety of emotions. Some of us cringe at the word because it conjures up memories of obtuse vocabulary and a description of the Christian faith that is abstract, disconnected, irrelevant and pedantic. This has led many to abandon classical formulations of Christian belief, or at least advocate “a new kind of Christian.” (Whoops… I think I just did an indirect slam.) On the other hand, some of us get fired up and geek out about theology because we recognize its importance and its relevance, even if we are not always enamored with some of its superfluous distinctions. So here is my attempt to make a case for not only what theology is, but in further posts to discuss how it should be done. I will do this over a series of posts that I hope encourages us to embody the mystery of godliness that is the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Tim 3:16).
First, theology is most properly about God. This is the strict definition of the word (theos + logos = study of God). It is not just an academic subject concerning correct content, but it is more importantly an ethical exercise embodied by a community. Plainly speaking, we demonstrate our theology of God with what we say, but even more by what we do. Faith without deeds is dead says James. Since theology is the study of God, we are speaking specifically of the triune God who has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This God is most clearly and directly revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Jn 14:6-7; Heb 1:3). Jesus Christ, the God-man who dwelt among us in a particular time and for all time. Theology is universal and particular. Meaning, the work of theology is to give faithful expressions of who God is and what he does both throughout history and in our specific context. Thus, it naturally follows that the controlling authority in theology is the words of God given to us through the Bible. It is the words of God, given by the Father, fulfilled in the Son, and testified by the Holy Spirit telling us who He is, what He has done, who we are, and how we ought to respond to Him.
We are thus in dynamic work of growing in knowledge of the God of the Bible. The church serves as a living embodiment of who they believe God is. We are called to be holy because he is holy (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 2:9). The critique of the prophets is largely against those who claimed to know God but did not truly reveal Him by their actions. Instead, the served idols, false gods, and false notions of God. Moses charged Israel’s leaders to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the clean and the unclean” (Lev 10:10). Paul charged Timothy to “watch your life and doctrine closely” (1 Tim 4:16) and to “preach the word” (2 Tim 4:2). The life of the church, especially its leaders, proclaims who God is, what He has done, and what we ought to do about it. Lesslie Newbigin put it well when he said the church, serves as a “hermeneutic of the gospel” (Gospel in a Pluralist Society). God’s people, those whom he has saved, whether they want to or not, preach theology about Him in word and deed. This also means that those who do not know the God of Bible cannot do theology. Certainly may have attempted but they have all failed.
This also means that the theology of God’s people is a witness to the watching world. What we believe about God, what we proclaim about Him, is a testimony to the world. Hence, we must be aware and approach how we reason about scripture; how we handle the historic tradition of faith; and how we understand our current experiences. All of which is to be in submission to the Bible. In part, the failure of modern theology is most exemplified in its inability to be faithful to the gospel and a faithful witness to the world. The liberal theologies from Schleiermacher to Tillich, and beyond, overly accommodated the world. Yet, much conservative theology has not adequately addressed the contemporary context being overly concerned with content. We can learn from the early church fathers who wrote to specific issues that impacted the church. Luther never wrote a systematic theology, but letters addressing specific concerns. They wrote for pastoral and missional reasons. They wrote so that people would increase in knowledge of the gospel.
Ultimately, the aim is to be faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Our hope and aim is not to bore people with details, but to do theology where the gospel is not just read about or thought about, but that it is embodied. The measure of whether or not we are doing theology well is the gospel. The quality of a living theology should be its faithfulness to the gospel. Our success will not be due to talent or by our own efforts, but by whether we are abiding in Christ (Jn 15), only then will this work bear fruit.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The difficulty of translation
The TNIV is being discontinued.
Wow... I am a little surprised. In my mind I thought that the competition was between the ESV and TNIV for the future dominant english Bible. I thought perhaps they both would win out with the ESV being used by more gender conservative churches and the TNIV by less conservative churches. One problem though, is that the NIV is still a very popular translation though now out of date, not just for language but also due to time giving better insight into the meaning of particular words and passages. The TNIV would have to remarkably different and better to supplant its predecessor. I find myself having to regularly think about how I will "clarify" the NIV translation. It was a good translation and an updated one is needed.
This highlights the difficulties of translating from one language to another. Words have meanings, but its particular meaning is only given with respect to its relationship in its sentence and the greater context. This does not just include the context of a passage or the bible but also the native tongue of the host culture. In order to properly translate Scripture we must wrestle with what a native ancient speaker of Hebrew or Greek would mean by the words "heart, love, God" etc. Translators then also have to be aware of the cultural milieu of the language in which they are trying to translate it, be it English, Spanish, or German. Missionaries have been debating for centuries about the proper word for God to use in Chinese culture. This is the result of the the differences between the way protestants rendered the early translations and catholics. I believe the debate is about the word Tao. You would think God would be one of the easier ones. It is not that simple. Think about it, Theos, the Greek word for God, was the same word used for all the Greek gods in their mythologies. It had connotations that could have compromised the true nature of God presented in the Bible.
The interesting thing about the TNIV is that the controversy is centered not around words like God, but around gender issues. Should the language of ancient worlds which used "man" to refer to all people, men and women, be changed to reflect contemporary gender sensitivity? This illustrates that views on the nature of gender in our culture are extremely unstable right now. Newsweek did an issue a few years ago in light of transgender people that seemed to argue gender is not biologically determined but determined by an individual's preference or desire. This does not even get to more particularly sensitive issues in churches related to the roles of men and women and the problems our culture has in trying to interpret seemingly chauvinist passages like 1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12. What seemed clear less than a century ago is hardly the case now.
I could go on to explain some of the thought that goes into rendering a translation. But the central issue of the matter relates to contextualizing the message of the Bible, the gospel, that God has acted in human history through Jesus Christ to reconcile us to himself and renew all of creation (Col 1:15-20). What is needed is both faithfulness is rendering the language to the gospel message and faithfulness in preaching the gospel for the salvation of its hearers. Translators cannot do it by themselves, but Christians, all of whom are preachers to varying degrees, need to study the word to correct misunderstandings and faithfully communicate God's love of us chiefly demonstrated in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Heb 1:3; 1 Jn 3:16; 1 Tim 4:16; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:8-14).
Wow... I am a little surprised. In my mind I thought that the competition was between the ESV and TNIV for the future dominant english Bible. I thought perhaps they both would win out with the ESV being used by more gender conservative churches and the TNIV by less conservative churches. One problem though, is that the NIV is still a very popular translation though now out of date, not just for language but also due to time giving better insight into the meaning of particular words and passages. The TNIV would have to remarkably different and better to supplant its predecessor. I find myself having to regularly think about how I will "clarify" the NIV translation. It was a good translation and an updated one is needed.
This highlights the difficulties of translating from one language to another. Words have meanings, but its particular meaning is only given with respect to its relationship in its sentence and the greater context. This does not just include the context of a passage or the bible but also the native tongue of the host culture. In order to properly translate Scripture we must wrestle with what a native ancient speaker of Hebrew or Greek would mean by the words "heart, love, God" etc. Translators then also have to be aware of the cultural milieu of the language in which they are trying to translate it, be it English, Spanish, or German. Missionaries have been debating for centuries about the proper word for God to use in Chinese culture. This is the result of the the differences between the way protestants rendered the early translations and catholics. I believe the debate is about the word Tao. You would think God would be one of the easier ones. It is not that simple. Think about it, Theos, the Greek word for God, was the same word used for all the Greek gods in their mythologies. It had connotations that could have compromised the true nature of God presented in the Bible.
The interesting thing about the TNIV is that the controversy is centered not around words like God, but around gender issues. Should the language of ancient worlds which used "man" to refer to all people, men and women, be changed to reflect contemporary gender sensitivity? This illustrates that views on the nature of gender in our culture are extremely unstable right now. Newsweek did an issue a few years ago in light of transgender people that seemed to argue gender is not biologically determined but determined by an individual's preference or desire. This does not even get to more particularly sensitive issues in churches related to the roles of men and women and the problems our culture has in trying to interpret seemingly chauvinist passages like 1 Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12. What seemed clear less than a century ago is hardly the case now.
I could go on to explain some of the thought that goes into rendering a translation. But the central issue of the matter relates to contextualizing the message of the Bible, the gospel, that God has acted in human history through Jesus Christ to reconcile us to himself and renew all of creation (Col 1:15-20). What is needed is both faithfulness is rendering the language to the gospel message and faithfulness in preaching the gospel for the salvation of its hearers. Translators cannot do it by themselves, but Christians, all of whom are preachers to varying degrees, need to study the word to correct misunderstandings and faithfully communicate God's love of us chiefly demonstrated in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Heb 1:3; 1 Jn 3:16; 1 Tim 4:16; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:8-14).
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Reckless Ministry
Over the past few weeks we have been giving our gospel group format a bit of a test run. Our format is simple on paper but very messy in real life... kind of like theology. We have two weeks of Bible study, one week of community (more technically called "hanging out"), and one week of mission where we serve the community in some way. Some days it sounds great. Some days it sounds really complicated to organize and impossible to carry out. There is no secret to our source for the model, its The Tangible Kingdom by Hugh Halter and Matt Smay. These groups are essential to the success of our church. They are designed to meet people, serve with them, and learn about Jesus with them. There are several questions we have about how these will work. But we seem to be okay that they are dangling there.
Why the strange format? You see, one of the problems with church activities is that no one else does them but church people. But when I read about Jesus, he hung out with all the non-church people. Even his disciples weren't exactly the coolest or the most religious people in society. Jesus' ministry wasn't neatly organized. He didn't have deep esoteric theological debates with the Pharisees. In fact he did the opposite. He spoke plainly, simply and acted deeply. He was probably late to dinner parties because every time he walked around some total not cool person would grab and beg for a healing or something. I confess, many of the church activities I have been in don't resemble Jesus' ministry. They were full of church people, organized to the minute, and talked about the deep truths of the Bible. I love the Bible and theology, but if I hear another Christian tell me they want to go "deeper" I am going to scream.
Case in point, tonight was our first community night in the trial month. I have had two wake up calls so far in San Jose. One was the first night we got together for prayer in the local homeless park. Obviously you can't have a neat prayer meeting in a park full of homeless people. You will be interrupted and little of what is said may make sense except that they are lonely and no one cares. The second wake up call was tonight. We didn't have dinner at one of our homes with ourselves. We went to a bar. It was happy hour and it was full of people hanging out for drinks. We met Shannon, our lovely waitress who was very nice and served us well. I hope we see her again. We had a drink... and it wasn't cola flavored. I asked Jason, "Is this what you had in mind?" He answered confidently, "Yes." I thought, "Oh crap. This is for real." And then I said, "The fundies are going to be really ticked at us."
I was simultaneously excited and scared. Scared because church taught me not to go to these places too much. Excited because I like to and my friends are there too. I think I had a fantasy in my mind that community night would be more like a passover meal with a blessing spoke over it and all sorts of highly "spiritual" stuff. But that is what my family does, not my friends. My family is at church, but my friends are at the bars. All my frat buddies, my coworkers, all the "sinners and tax collectors" frequent the bar. The people with whom Jesus did his hanging out. These are all the people I have normal conversations with about their kids, their jobs, their pasts, and their futures. I don't remember any of the esoteric theological debates I had at church. I remember all the times I set nervously after work, hoping a church member wouldn't see me, having a pint, laughing and joking with my coworkers about real life.
You see, Jesus doesn't call us to a super neat and tidy ministry but to a reckless one. He didn't go to the cleanest places but the shady ones. He didn't hang out with the holiest people, but the unholy. He didn't come for the healthy, but the sick. He was reckless with where he went and with whom he associated. Jesus wasn't worried about these people and places corrupting or contaminating him. They were not going to cause him to stumble and sin. But this is what we tell Christians, "Don't go there or you will sin like they them." Really? Jesus calls us to be holy, but we don't have to go anywhere and do anything to become holy. We just have to trust him and follow him. When Jesus went they began to follow him and they became holy, not the other way around. Jesus' holiness is contagious, (to borrow a book title from my friend and teacher, Craig Blomberg.)
The idea that in his table fellowship with people, Jesus' holiness was contagious is challenging. Perhaps you may say, bars and dinner are two separate things. Or that some people are "weak" and cannot resist the temptation to get drunk. But you can't have a dinner party with people you don't know. If you want to meet sinners you have to go to the places they go and "hang out," i.e. a bar. Also, this message isn't for the weak. Its for those who desire to "go deeper" in knowing God and his Word or those who think God doesn't want you. He does, and he sent his Son for you to prove it. These are the deeper truths of the Bible. The deeper truths are to be as reckless as Jesus to find the lost coin, where the whole house is torn up to find it, and the lost sheep, where the 99 are left to fend for themselves, and the lost son, who is embraced despite being covered in pig crap and betrayal. Jesus wasn't afraid of being contaminated. He didn't give us a Spirit of timidity, but of power and love and self-discipline. He gave us his Spirit so that we can be holy no matter where we go or who we befriend. You want to go deep, be reckless and follow Jesus.
Why the strange format? You see, one of the problems with church activities is that no one else does them but church people. But when I read about Jesus, he hung out with all the non-church people. Even his disciples weren't exactly the coolest or the most religious people in society. Jesus' ministry wasn't neatly organized. He didn't have deep esoteric theological debates with the Pharisees. In fact he did the opposite. He spoke plainly, simply and acted deeply. He was probably late to dinner parties because every time he walked around some total not cool person would grab and beg for a healing or something. I confess, many of the church activities I have been in don't resemble Jesus' ministry. They were full of church people, organized to the minute, and talked about the deep truths of the Bible. I love the Bible and theology, but if I hear another Christian tell me they want to go "deeper" I am going to scream.
Case in point, tonight was our first community night in the trial month. I have had two wake up calls so far in San Jose. One was the first night we got together for prayer in the local homeless park. Obviously you can't have a neat prayer meeting in a park full of homeless people. You will be interrupted and little of what is said may make sense except that they are lonely and no one cares. The second wake up call was tonight. We didn't have dinner at one of our homes with ourselves. We went to a bar. It was happy hour and it was full of people hanging out for drinks. We met Shannon, our lovely waitress who was very nice and served us well. I hope we see her again. We had a drink... and it wasn't cola flavored. I asked Jason, "Is this what you had in mind?" He answered confidently, "Yes." I thought, "Oh crap. This is for real." And then I said, "The fundies are going to be really ticked at us."
I was simultaneously excited and scared. Scared because church taught me not to go to these places too much. Excited because I like to and my friends are there too. I think I had a fantasy in my mind that community night would be more like a passover meal with a blessing spoke over it and all sorts of highly "spiritual" stuff. But that is what my family does, not my friends. My family is at church, but my friends are at the bars. All my frat buddies, my coworkers, all the "sinners and tax collectors" frequent the bar. The people with whom Jesus did his hanging out. These are all the people I have normal conversations with about their kids, their jobs, their pasts, and their futures. I don't remember any of the esoteric theological debates I had at church. I remember all the times I set nervously after work, hoping a church member wouldn't see me, having a pint, laughing and joking with my coworkers about real life.
You see, Jesus doesn't call us to a super neat and tidy ministry but to a reckless one. He didn't go to the cleanest places but the shady ones. He didn't hang out with the holiest people, but the unholy. He didn't come for the healthy, but the sick. He was reckless with where he went and with whom he associated. Jesus wasn't worried about these people and places corrupting or contaminating him. They were not going to cause him to stumble and sin. But this is what we tell Christians, "Don't go there or you will sin like they them." Really? Jesus calls us to be holy, but we don't have to go anywhere and do anything to become holy. We just have to trust him and follow him. When Jesus went they began to follow him and they became holy, not the other way around. Jesus' holiness is contagious, (to borrow a book title from my friend and teacher, Craig Blomberg.)
The idea that in his table fellowship with people, Jesus' holiness was contagious is challenging. Perhaps you may say, bars and dinner are two separate things. Or that some people are "weak" and cannot resist the temptation to get drunk. But you can't have a dinner party with people you don't know. If you want to meet sinners you have to go to the places they go and "hang out," i.e. a bar. Also, this message isn't for the weak. Its for those who desire to "go deeper" in knowing God and his Word or those who think God doesn't want you. He does, and he sent his Son for you to prove it. These are the deeper truths of the Bible. The deeper truths are to be as reckless as Jesus to find the lost coin, where the whole house is torn up to find it, and the lost sheep, where the 99 are left to fend for themselves, and the lost son, who is embraced despite being covered in pig crap and betrayal. Jesus wasn't afraid of being contaminated. He didn't give us a Spirit of timidity, but of power and love and self-discipline. He gave us his Spirit so that we can be holy no matter where we go or who we befriend. You want to go deep, be reckless and follow Jesus.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Forgotten Father
I have had the leisure this summer of reading whatever I want for the first time in a long time. One of the more important books I have read is Thomas Smail's The Forgotten Father. This book is not only timely, but also unique. Few seem to have taken up to writing about God the Father in recent times.
For modern westerners, especially in an age where family life is very fragmented and often dysfunctional, probably the most difficult thing to understand about God within Christianity is that He is a Father. There are academic, cultural, and experiential problems we have with God the Father. My parents divorced and remarried like so many others in America. My Mom was awarded primary custody so I only saw my Dad on the weekends. Smail's father died when he was too young to know him. Culturally, Dad's are often depicted as buffoons on TV and the "Leave it to Beaver" days are considered a joke and virtual legend. No one has a father like that. Radical feminist theology viciously attacks all male references to God, suggesting he ought to be castrated (seriously, I have read it). Academically, as I was preparing to write my doctrinal paper to graduate seminary, of the six popular systematic theologies I owned, only Louis Berkhof in 1938 directly addressed the person of the Father. Not Erickson, Grenz, Lewis & Demerest, Pannenberg, or the crusader for male roles, Wayne Grudem. Entire sections are devoted to Jesus and the Spirit, but the Father was elusive, not unlike many people's experiences with their heavenly or earthly father.
The seminary knew this was a problem and addressed it by focusing more directly on the Father in our systematic courses. We were pointed to Smail's book as a resource (Thank you Dr. Payne). I did not benefit from this since the change came after me. I got notes from a classmate (Thank you Erin Swanstrom) on that lecture which I then passed on to all who were theologically poor like me.
The opening chapter of Smail begins as he describes the danger we have in projecting the inadequacy of earthly fathers onto our heavenly one. He does this making interesting insights into the role of a father in the life of his son, as contrasted with his mother. He also describes how inadequate understandings of the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three persons affects the life and faith of a Christian and the Church. We must be careful not to pick our favorite person of the Trinity and think that we are engaging fully with who God is. God is Trinity. It is not just how God acts (economic Trinity) but who he is (immanent Trinity). All of his being is involved in all aspects of faith. The Father sends the Spirit and the Son so only he can be approached through His Son and in His Spirit. The Spirit does not operate on His own power and such speech about the "Spirit's" presence in individual's spiritual experiences and churches is empty without understanding the Spirit glorifies the Son and speaks only what the Father wishes. Smail explains each of these clearly. The opening chapter alone is worth the book.
Here we see a key task in theology. Not to talk about God from the perspective of mankind, but as he has revealed himself to us. Thus, God's revelation in Scripture particularly through Jesus Christ that we learn what it means that God is a Father. We learn through Jesus (Jn 14:9) who the Father is and what he is like. We do not know the Father God by extrapolating what earthly fathers are like. Rather, earthly fathers look to God to see what they ought to be like. We learn through Jesus that God is loving, good, worthy of ultimate trust, knows everything about us and he cares for those who seek him as he cares for the birds of the air and lilies of the field (Mt 6:25-34). Thus we learn as Louis Berkhof says, "all earthly fathers are but a faint reflection."
Let me highlight a couple of the points of Smail's book that struck me most. Perhaps I will write more about it later...
1) Father as source - God is the creator of all. Both Old Testament and New Testament depictions of God's fatherhood are careful to avoid pagan notions of God being a literal father. He is the Father of all humanity only in the sense that he created all things. God is primarily revealed as Father in the New Testament. Israel as a nation is described as his son. God's fatherhood of Israel is understood in a social and covenant sense, not any natural sense. His relationship to Israel is one of His election. This setups the greater revelation of the New Testament with Jesus.
2) The Father as Abba - God is the Father of His people. Jesus Christ becomes the first to pray to God the Father and to call him, "Abba," the Aramaic equivalent of "Dad" or "Daddy". This is significant for one reason already mentioned, that Jesus alone reveals the Father. Jesus Christ paves the way for us to become children of God. Only through Jesus and in the Holy Spirit, can the Christian claim to be a child of God. The Father has adopted us to be his children, co-heirs with Christ as his redeemed sons and daughters. We are adopted sons and daughters who through the Spirit can cry, "Abba Father" (Rom 8:15-17). Furthermore, it is significant because Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to have such a close relationship to the greatest Dad of them all. Christ models for us obedience to the Father and having life by his name and not by our own devices. This is what is the significance of being "reconciled to God" means in Scripture. We are reconciled to God the Father through the Son and united by the Holy Spirit. It is the gift of God that we can cry, "Abba Father."
This is, as Smail puts it. The heart of the gospel. There is so much emphasis placed upon Christ being our justification its makes the Father sound like a mean judge waiting to punish us until Jesus our lawyer steps in. NO! The other side of the coin to justification is reconciliation. Christ reconciles us to the Father that we may enjoy his love and provision. It is important to note that Christ cries Abba in the garden of Gethsemane. We not only enjoy the Father's love and gracious provision, but also we will share in Christ's sufferings and the Father's sustaining grace and mercy through whatever troubles life can through (Rom 8:38-39). We live through Christ and become the sons and daughters the Father always intended us to be, carried along by the Holy Spirit who was sent to us when we were adopted. This is a beautiful message and is good news indeed.
In case you desire to read it, a little info about how the book reads:
Smail is writing having experienced the charismatic emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the evangelical emphasis on Jesus Christ. His work is a technical theological work but also is very practical. Though it is not an easy read for most people, it is not cumbersome if you have a college reading level. But this is just a little academic info for those of you interested in checking it out since this is not his motivation. I will reread this book in the future. It will definitely be on the shelf of books I look to frequently.
For modern westerners, especially in an age where family life is very fragmented and often dysfunctional, probably the most difficult thing to understand about God within Christianity is that He is a Father. There are academic, cultural, and experiential problems we have with God the Father. My parents divorced and remarried like so many others in America. My Mom was awarded primary custody so I only saw my Dad on the weekends. Smail's father died when he was too young to know him. Culturally, Dad's are often depicted as buffoons on TV and the "Leave it to Beaver" days are considered a joke and virtual legend. No one has a father like that. Radical feminist theology viciously attacks all male references to God, suggesting he ought to be castrated (seriously, I have read it). Academically, as I was preparing to write my doctrinal paper to graduate seminary, of the six popular systematic theologies I owned, only Louis Berkhof in 1938 directly addressed the person of the Father. Not Erickson, Grenz, Lewis & Demerest, Pannenberg, or the crusader for male roles, Wayne Grudem. Entire sections are devoted to Jesus and the Spirit, but the Father was elusive, not unlike many people's experiences with their heavenly or earthly father.
The seminary knew this was a problem and addressed it by focusing more directly on the Father in our systematic courses. We were pointed to Smail's book as a resource (Thank you Dr. Payne). I did not benefit from this since the change came after me. I got notes from a classmate (Thank you Erin Swanstrom) on that lecture which I then passed on to all who were theologically poor like me.
The opening chapter of Smail begins as he describes the danger we have in projecting the inadequacy of earthly fathers onto our heavenly one. He does this making interesting insights into the role of a father in the life of his son, as contrasted with his mother. He also describes how inadequate understandings of the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three persons affects the life and faith of a Christian and the Church. We must be careful not to pick our favorite person of the Trinity and think that we are engaging fully with who God is. God is Trinity. It is not just how God acts (economic Trinity) but who he is (immanent Trinity). All of his being is involved in all aspects of faith. The Father sends the Spirit and the Son so only he can be approached through His Son and in His Spirit. The Spirit does not operate on His own power and such speech about the "Spirit's" presence in individual's spiritual experiences and churches is empty without understanding the Spirit glorifies the Son and speaks only what the Father wishes. Smail explains each of these clearly. The opening chapter alone is worth the book.
Here we see a key task in theology. Not to talk about God from the perspective of mankind, but as he has revealed himself to us. Thus, God's revelation in Scripture particularly through Jesus Christ that we learn what it means that God is a Father. We learn through Jesus (Jn 14:9) who the Father is and what he is like. We do not know the Father God by extrapolating what earthly fathers are like. Rather, earthly fathers look to God to see what they ought to be like. We learn through Jesus that God is loving, good, worthy of ultimate trust, knows everything about us and he cares for those who seek him as he cares for the birds of the air and lilies of the field (Mt 6:25-34). Thus we learn as Louis Berkhof says, "all earthly fathers are but a faint reflection."
Let me highlight a couple of the points of Smail's book that struck me most. Perhaps I will write more about it later...
1) Father as source - God is the creator of all. Both Old Testament and New Testament depictions of God's fatherhood are careful to avoid pagan notions of God being a literal father. He is the Father of all humanity only in the sense that he created all things. God is primarily revealed as Father in the New Testament. Israel as a nation is described as his son. God's fatherhood of Israel is understood in a social and covenant sense, not any natural sense. His relationship to Israel is one of His election. This setups the greater revelation of the New Testament with Jesus.
2) The Father as Abba - God is the Father of His people. Jesus Christ becomes the first to pray to God the Father and to call him, "Abba," the Aramaic equivalent of "Dad" or "Daddy". This is significant for one reason already mentioned, that Jesus alone reveals the Father. Jesus Christ paves the way for us to become children of God. Only through Jesus and in the Holy Spirit, can the Christian claim to be a child of God. The Father has adopted us to be his children, co-heirs with Christ as his redeemed sons and daughters. We are adopted sons and daughters who through the Spirit can cry, "Abba Father" (Rom 8:15-17). Furthermore, it is significant because Jesus Christ makes it possible for us to have such a close relationship to the greatest Dad of them all. Christ models for us obedience to the Father and having life by his name and not by our own devices. This is what is the significance of being "reconciled to God" means in Scripture. We are reconciled to God the Father through the Son and united by the Holy Spirit. It is the gift of God that we can cry, "Abba Father."
This is, as Smail puts it. The heart of the gospel. There is so much emphasis placed upon Christ being our justification its makes the Father sound like a mean judge waiting to punish us until Jesus our lawyer steps in. NO! The other side of the coin to justification is reconciliation. Christ reconciles us to the Father that we may enjoy his love and provision. It is important to note that Christ cries Abba in the garden of Gethsemane. We not only enjoy the Father's love and gracious provision, but also we will share in Christ's sufferings and the Father's sustaining grace and mercy through whatever troubles life can through (Rom 8:38-39). We live through Christ and become the sons and daughters the Father always intended us to be, carried along by the Holy Spirit who was sent to us when we were adopted. This is a beautiful message and is good news indeed.
In case you desire to read it, a little info about how the book reads:
Smail is writing having experienced the charismatic emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the evangelical emphasis on Jesus Christ. His work is a technical theological work but also is very practical. Though it is not an easy read for most people, it is not cumbersome if you have a college reading level. But this is just a little academic info for those of you interested in checking it out since this is not his motivation. I will reread this book in the future. It will definitely be on the shelf of books I look to frequently.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
First Impressions of San Jose
We have been here almost two months now and I think it is safe to make some initial observations of our new home. My wife and I are constantly asking ourselves what the city is like and how it is different or similar to Denver. There is a lot of emphasis in the "missional church" philosophy to take the posture of a missionary in your community. I think that can be overblown now. Yes, America is extremely diverse but it is still America and the differences between different states like California and Texas are more subtle and often exaggerated.
San Jose is interesting because it is being urbanized like so many other places in the world. However, I feel like the Silicon Valley is one big suburb. There are virtually no tech companies in the downtown area. They are all spread out in business parks throughout the whole valley. As for ministry, it is probably best for us to speak of the urban system as we work with people around the city because that is what it is. Transportation is so easy, people will drive wherever they want to go. Thus, it is a more fluid system, than a self-contained geographic area. Downtown's have become places for entertainment and large events in addition to having old school neighborhoods with a centralized location. One of the large problems across the country is that major grocery chains are lacking or moving out of urban areas. Until a the brand new Safeway opens up in DT San Jose, the only choice in the area is a Hispanic grocery store that has had to expand its inventory to meet the greater needs in the area.
I don't know what it is about California, but I have been cut off more times in the last month than in the last five years in Colorado. I don't know if I am not going fast enough, or because I drive a junky old VW it screams cut me off. I am not sure. Maybe, its because I am the only one in the entire valley of 1 million plus people with out of state plates, particularly CO. Maybe they are Californians who moved to CO, didn't enjoy the warm hospitality of the NO VACANCY bumper stickers and left. I have met a few Californians among others with that their story.
I have now repented of my former "Colorado Native" elitism. Yikes, besides it isn't helping me make friends with the locals out here. Not to mention, most people who live in California love it and never left. Unless they have an accent, safe to say they have always lived here. Note to all you in Colorado, better work on your hospitality.
Merging is murder too. I heard several Californians making comments about drivers in Colorado not knowing how to merge. I now know what they were talking about. What they mean is, in Colorado people will get out of the lane you are merging into or adjust their speed to avoid having to slow down because someone pulled onto the highway in front of them doing 35mph. This leads to people never learning how to properly merge and using the entire on-ramp to wait for the perfect moment and then end up being the moron stopped at the end with cars wizzing by at 70 mph. Out here, you are on your own. You better floor it or you will be forced into the next off ramp.
The mass transit system is more developed and cheaper than CO. I don't get the impression people use it a lot. There is talk of shutting down some underused lines. For all the press about California trying to be very progressive in emissions, they still love cars. But lets be honest, this is an American thing, not just a California one. I had a Korean prof in college say that for Americans, "The automobile is an extension of your personality." (must read with Korean accent or its takes away the force). So true... out here, that personality is BMW and Mercedez Benz. In CO, its SUV and Subaru.
One thing I really enjoy... BIKE LANES!!! They have them on nearly every major road. There is no where you cannot easily ride a bike. Its AWESOME! I love it. Of course, like mass transit, it doesn't look too popular so far. I think I can safely say that cycling is not as popular out here as Colorado, but that shouldn't be a surprise. There is little doubt Denver has the most cyclists per capita.
I still don't feel like I have a good idea of what people do here for fun. Downtown is busy on Friday and Saturday night but not like LoDo, not even close. Its still developing its own scene. Plus, with Santa Cruz 45 minutes away, there is no doubt it is the place to get away. People can camp in the Santa Cruz mountains, go sailing, hit the super cool boardwalk, and all sorts of stuff.
Okay, that is enough for now and I didn't even get a chance to complain about the Cali DMV. Wow, was that an experience. That is a post all its own.
San Jose is interesting because it is being urbanized like so many other places in the world. However, I feel like the Silicon Valley is one big suburb. There are virtually no tech companies in the downtown area. They are all spread out in business parks throughout the whole valley. As for ministry, it is probably best for us to speak of the urban system as we work with people around the city because that is what it is. Transportation is so easy, people will drive wherever they want to go. Thus, it is a more fluid system, than a self-contained geographic area. Downtown's have become places for entertainment and large events in addition to having old school neighborhoods with a centralized location. One of the large problems across the country is that major grocery chains are lacking or moving out of urban areas. Until a the brand new Safeway opens up in DT San Jose, the only choice in the area is a Hispanic grocery store that has had to expand its inventory to meet the greater needs in the area.
I don't know what it is about California, but I have been cut off more times in the last month than in the last five years in Colorado. I don't know if I am not going fast enough, or because I drive a junky old VW it screams cut me off. I am not sure. Maybe, its because I am the only one in the entire valley of 1 million plus people with out of state plates, particularly CO. Maybe they are Californians who moved to CO, didn't enjoy the warm hospitality of the NO VACANCY bumper stickers and left. I have met a few Californians among others with that their story.
I have now repented of my former "Colorado Native" elitism. Yikes, besides it isn't helping me make friends with the locals out here. Not to mention, most people who live in California love it and never left. Unless they have an accent, safe to say they have always lived here. Note to all you in Colorado, better work on your hospitality.
Merging is murder too. I heard several Californians making comments about drivers in Colorado not knowing how to merge. I now know what they were talking about. What they mean is, in Colorado people will get out of the lane you are merging into or adjust their speed to avoid having to slow down because someone pulled onto the highway in front of them doing 35mph. This leads to people never learning how to properly merge and using the entire on-ramp to wait for the perfect moment and then end up being the moron stopped at the end with cars wizzing by at 70 mph. Out here, you are on your own. You better floor it or you will be forced into the next off ramp.
The mass transit system is more developed and cheaper than CO. I don't get the impression people use it a lot. There is talk of shutting down some underused lines. For all the press about California trying to be very progressive in emissions, they still love cars. But lets be honest, this is an American thing, not just a California one. I had a Korean prof in college say that for Americans, "The automobile is an extension of your personality." (must read with Korean accent or its takes away the force). So true... out here, that personality is BMW and Mercedez Benz. In CO, its SUV and Subaru.
One thing I really enjoy... BIKE LANES!!! They have them on nearly every major road. There is no where you cannot easily ride a bike. Its AWESOME! I love it. Of course, like mass transit, it doesn't look too popular so far. I think I can safely say that cycling is not as popular out here as Colorado, but that shouldn't be a surprise. There is little doubt Denver has the most cyclists per capita.
I still don't feel like I have a good idea of what people do here for fun. Downtown is busy on Friday and Saturday night but not like LoDo, not even close. Its still developing its own scene. Plus, with Santa Cruz 45 minutes away, there is no doubt it is the place to get away. People can camp in the Santa Cruz mountains, go sailing, hit the super cool boardwalk, and all sorts of stuff.
Okay, that is enough for now and I didn't even get a chance to complain about the Cali DMV. Wow, was that an experience. That is a post all its own.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Honeymoon is Over
When I spent my first few weeks overseas, doing missions trips, tours or whatever, I always wondered what it would be like to be there for more than two weeks. Vacations and missions trips are great, but only a fool thinks its like that all the time. What is it really like to be there everyday, day in and day out? When your daily comforts and familiarities finally pass away? The places you went to escape and be refreshed are gone. What will it be like when the honeymoon is over?
I always loved to hear the story from missionaries about when the honeymoon was over for them. It varies from person to person, for most it is a few months but rarely more than a year. It comes when all the newness wears off, where the place you now live no longer has its "new car smell". I knew one couple who said their honeymoon was over the day they landed in Istanbul. I have wondered when that day would come for Cassie and I, and it is finally here.
We (our leadership team for the church plant) have all been talking recently about how the transition has been more difficult than we anticipated. So this evening, my lovely and always honest wife began with how she is feeling and struggling with the transition. The anxiety of a new job, the discomfort with having to find time to "be downtown" for the ministry, and the desire to just come home at the end of the day. She confessed she was a little depressed. I breathed a sigh of relief for she had named what I was feeling, depressed. They don't write about this in church planting, missionary, or entrepreneurial books. There is no chapter for the realization that you are not home. There is no chapter on the feeling of depression in the early stages.
I thought I would make my next post about San Jose but I said to my wife after our meeting, "We can't begin to love San Jose, until we are done grieving Denver." We caught ourselves complaining about this valley after a great weekend in Santa Cruz, sailing, eating, drinking, and being extremely impressed by Vintage Faith Church. I loved everything about Denver and I try not to talk about it too much. I had numerous awesome ministries to look to. I had more friends and family than I could keep up with. I was busy and I knew what the weather was going to be like. Now, I am having a hard time finding work and wondering when I might need to resort to a entirely new line of work. The few friends I have are very new and I am still getting to know them. The city feels small and the weather is deceptive. It is perfect during the day and quite chilly at night. I don't know where the good restaurants are. I have to use the GPS to get anywhere. There are a million bikes lanes and I don't know where to ride. What's worse, In-And-Out is as great as when I first arrived. The honeymoon is over barely a month into our time here.
But all is not lost for those in the Lord. As I prayed to end our evening I think the Spirit spoke to me with my own words. We will make friends, and we will find our favorite spots and we will have work that we enjoy. Ultimately what matters is that we are living out of his grace. I think the Spirit reminded me that he is satisfied with us and we need not worry about all that we are doing, to rest in his grace. I was encouraged by our common fellowship together, Letitia, Cassie, Jason and I. As we all transition from the honeymoon to life together in, for, and with San Jose.
I am reminded of Lamentations, written by the prophet Jeremiah as Israel was removed from their homeland to Babylon. I think on a small level we feel a common sense of loss, leaving Denver for San Jose. Jeremiah wept for his former city as they were sent into exile. In Lamentations 3, he cries out that God had caused him much pain and sorrow as a result. I love his honesty which is not often seen. The truth is God is causing much of our pain and sorrow now too. We are experiencing it because we choose to follow him. We have left our Jerusalem for our Babylon and so we are grieving our forming city as we learn to love our new one. In the midst of Jeremiah's angst, of listing the woes God had cast upon him, he writes these comforting words which I now understand more fully,
Lamentations 3:21-32
But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope.
The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end;
they are new every morning, great is your faithfulness.
"The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in him."
The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.
It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.
Let him sit alone in silence when it is laid on him;
let him put his mouth in the dust - there may yet be hope;
let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults.
For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love;
I always loved to hear the story from missionaries about when the honeymoon was over for them. It varies from person to person, for most it is a few months but rarely more than a year. It comes when all the newness wears off, where the place you now live no longer has its "new car smell". I knew one couple who said their honeymoon was over the day they landed in Istanbul. I have wondered when that day would come for Cassie and I, and it is finally here.
We (our leadership team for the church plant) have all been talking recently about how the transition has been more difficult than we anticipated. So this evening, my lovely and always honest wife began with how she is feeling and struggling with the transition. The anxiety of a new job, the discomfort with having to find time to "be downtown" for the ministry, and the desire to just come home at the end of the day. She confessed she was a little depressed. I breathed a sigh of relief for she had named what I was feeling, depressed. They don't write about this in church planting, missionary, or entrepreneurial books. There is no chapter for the realization that you are not home. There is no chapter on the feeling of depression in the early stages.
I thought I would make my next post about San Jose but I said to my wife after our meeting, "We can't begin to love San Jose, until we are done grieving Denver." We caught ourselves complaining about this valley after a great weekend in Santa Cruz, sailing, eating, drinking, and being extremely impressed by Vintage Faith Church. I loved everything about Denver and I try not to talk about it too much. I had numerous awesome ministries to look to. I had more friends and family than I could keep up with. I was busy and I knew what the weather was going to be like. Now, I am having a hard time finding work and wondering when I might need to resort to a entirely new line of work. The few friends I have are very new and I am still getting to know them. The city feels small and the weather is deceptive. It is perfect during the day and quite chilly at night. I don't know where the good restaurants are. I have to use the GPS to get anywhere. There are a million bikes lanes and I don't know where to ride. What's worse, In-And-Out is as great as when I first arrived. The honeymoon is over barely a month into our time here.
But all is not lost for those in the Lord. As I prayed to end our evening I think the Spirit spoke to me with my own words. We will make friends, and we will find our favorite spots and we will have work that we enjoy. Ultimately what matters is that we are living out of his grace. I think the Spirit reminded me that he is satisfied with us and we need not worry about all that we are doing, to rest in his grace. I was encouraged by our common fellowship together, Letitia, Cassie, Jason and I. As we all transition from the honeymoon to life together in, for, and with San Jose.
I am reminded of Lamentations, written by the prophet Jeremiah as Israel was removed from their homeland to Babylon. I think on a small level we feel a common sense of loss, leaving Denver for San Jose. Jeremiah wept for his former city as they were sent into exile. In Lamentations 3, he cries out that God had caused him much pain and sorrow as a result. I love his honesty which is not often seen. The truth is God is causing much of our pain and sorrow now too. We are experiencing it because we choose to follow him. We have left our Jerusalem for our Babylon and so we are grieving our forming city as we learn to love our new one. In the midst of Jeremiah's angst, of listing the woes God had cast upon him, he writes these comforting words which I now understand more fully,
Lamentations 3:21-32
But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope.
The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end;
they are new every morning, great is your faithfulness.
"The LORD is my portion," says my soul, "therefore I will hope in him."
The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.
It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.
Let him sit alone in silence when it is laid on him;
let him put his mouth in the dust - there may yet be hope;
let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults.
For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)