The Danger of Separation of Church and State (of being the Church)

church steepleAnother way to explain what I mean by my little play on words, is separation of church and state of being the church is the established church vs what that has always looked like. In other words, what are we doing compared to the history of the church?  Because the reality is the church has existed long before us and carries with her a rich tradition.

Tradition. There’s a word that raises hackles in a contemporary mindset. I find this especially true in independent Protestant church affiliations that disconnect from a 2,000 year heritage.  When the Reformation happened it was never meant to disconnect the church from its heritage only to source that in the authority of Scripture as opposed to authority in unwritten revelation and to correct corrupt practices in the church. We need to take the serious what has occurred in the past 2,000 years of church history.

In his book A High View of Scripture?, Craig Allert, a conservative evangelical, notes that disconnecting from tradition tends to result in traditionalism that imposes its own standards on the church. He expounds on J. Pelikan’s distinction between tradition and traditionalism – “tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” Traditionalism forms its own tradition that can be blinded from its roots and in some cases, vastly deviate.

Defense of these essentials (of Christianty) has been emphasized at the expense of understanding their place in theological history and therefore at the expense of understanding their importance in the contemporary church. Thus, not only have certain nonessentials been given essential status, but also some foundational aspects of theology have been underemphasized or even ignored and therefore, undervalued, and this to the detriment of the body of Christ. The rich liturgical tradition of the church becomes confined to musically induced emotionalism. The importance of the community of faith for the life of the believer is reduced to crass marketing strategies and the newest ‘get spiritual quick’ scheme. The living voice of the Bible in theological history becomes lost in individual interpretation and defense of rather static propositionalism.[1]

Put another way, separation from the state of being the church results in myopic reductionism and an elevation of whatever novel concepts seem fitting for the life of the church in a contemporary context. It can also lead to arrogance in believing that we have it all figured out. Continue reading

My Easter Grief…and Prayer

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOn the day that should bring Christians the most hope and joy, I find myself a bit troubled. Not troubled over what we are celebrating mind you. For that I greatly rejoice. The resurrection represents hope and power of the God of this universe who sent his Son to reconcile man to himself. Christ is risen, has expunged the penalty of sin and sits at the Father’s right hand.

But every year as this day approaches, I find a divisiveness exists in his body. The same body that he prayed for in his high priestly prayer;

My prayer is not for them alone (the apostles), I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, just as you and I are Father. May they also believe in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:20-21)

While all true believers celebrate the resurrection of our Lord, something creeps in to temper and even hinder that celebration together. This body that Christ calls one experiences tensions over the one day that should unite them.And it hinges on the use of one word – Easter. Continue reading

Wise Foolishness or Foolish Wisdom?: The Gospel is Offensive Enough

eastercrossEvery spring, DTS holds the World Evangelism Conference a week before spring break. This year’s message was on the abundance of the gospel. Dr. Mark Young, president of Denver Seminary was the plenary speaker. Each session dealt with the way of abundance in reference to the Christ’s reign and the gospel. He spends the first few minutes summarizing the themes from the previous three days.

On the third day, he talked about the way of abundance is not as the world defines abundance. He leverages that thought in his last installment as he talks about the way of abundance being foolishness. The key text he used was 1 Corinthians 1:17-25

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel – not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. But to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of the age? Has not God made the foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe…

Dr. Young brings some much needed clarification to this passage that it does not mean we neglect the intellect. Rather, it is that the wisdom of Christianity is foolishness to this world. What is that wisdom? That God made himself known through his Son, born of a virgin, taking on flesh, submitting himself to a lowly birth, a humble existence, and the execution of a criminal. He died, was buried and on the 3rd day he arose and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. To be in good favor with this God is not through ways deemed successful by the world’s standards but through acknowledgment of God’s upside down paradigm based on what he did through his Son. I encourage you to listen to his message. It is 50 minutes well worth your time.

Proclaiming the exclusivity of this message in a world going increasing pluralistic is foolish. Accepting that there is something dreadfully wrong with us that makes us unable to offer any righteousness towards God is foolish. Believing that the only way to be acceptable to God is to believe in the sacrifice of his Son is foolish. And it’s offensive to those who don’t believe. Yes, the gospel is offensive because it confronts humanity with their inability to earn their own righteousness.

This is what Paul is referring to in this passage. But what we should not do is make the wisdom of God look foolish. We should not take Paul’s words to mean that ignorance of our faith is acceptable as long as you have the Spirit.Yes, the Spirit empowers but Paul is not indicating that critical thinking is not spiritual but that thinking should be subject to a Christian worldview. We should not feel we need to help the gospel along with tricks, gimmicks and bait and switch techniques. We don’t need to deliver the message in a foolish manner but with wisdom and tact.

God’s wisdom in this upside down paradigm confronts people all by itself. So when proclaiming the message we ourselves don’t need to be foolish or offensive. The offense is already in the message.  Wisdom in proclaiming God’s wisdom means articulating the message in a manner that is clear and concise and welcoming. We need not be hostile people, but patient, wise and discerning.

Dear Contemporary Evangelical Pastor, On Easter….

eastercrossAt this time of the year, I’m sure you are super busy with Easter preparations and what may very well be your biggest church event. I truly hope that your services go well and that you bask in the hope this day represents.

However, I’ve noticed some tendencies that may not do the day, or Christ, justice and I wanted to express those to you in consideration of the day that celebrates the one signifying event of Christianity – the resurrection of Christ.

You know that this is the one time of the year where people buy new clothes and attend a church that goes neglected throughout the year (except for Christmas). You may be tempted to turn up the volume and make the church really attractive by putting on a good production. Bright lights and flashy shows may impress people and want them to come back. But it also conditions them to expect that Christianity must be cool because it has good entertainment. That is not the point – on Easter or any other Sunday. Actually, it can be kind of deceptive to do something different on Easter than you do the rest of the year…and a bit dishonest.

You may be tempted to look at the swelled crowd as an opportunity to grow your church and pull off those numbers that mean you hit it big.  You may think that a large crowd gathered at the altar in response to say a prayer means that you are succeeding. But remember that church growth comes through discipleship, intentional involvement in people’s lives 365 days of the year. Don’t put all your eggs into the Easter basket. Success is in the faithfulness to Christ and his word not how many people suddenly surge on one day out of the year. Besides, the Lord adds to the church anyway. Continue reading

Oden on Bible Gender Confusion

Oden_classic christianity coverOne of the books that we are critically reading through in my systematic theology colloquium class is Classic Christianity [Thomas Oden (2009) New York: Harper One Publishing] In the introductory section of Book 3 – Life in the Spirit, he takes a blow at modern revisions that want to eliminate masculine language in reference to God.

Grammatical heroics that attempt a complete withdrawal from masculine language are often rhetorically awkward, especially when nouns are repeated to avoid whatever gender pronoun might be regarded as offensive. Similar absurdities arise when verbs are preferred that require no object, where the odd repetition of the word ‘God’ is used to substitute for ‘he’, and direct address is shifted to ‘you’. The enthusiast is sorely tempted to rewrite scripture to gain a hearing with a particular audience.

But no one prays to an ‘it’, even if steeped in modernity. Liturgical ‘reforms’ that systematically expunge the name Father from all acts of Christian worship are unacceptable to most worshipping communities. The reason is deeper than egalitarian motivations, for Jesus repeatedly called God Father (Abba). This became a defining feature of his teaching (Mark 14:36; Rom. 8:15; Augustine, Epis. to Gal. 31.1.4.6). Continue reading